That's really the difference here. Science ASSUMES its own prejudices and the practice of science is the practice of finding where prejudice, wishful thinking and ignorance may intrude on the description of Nature.
Again, the central assumption of science is that Nature is as it is - without guile - and that we are eternally imperfect, blinkered and self-deluding observers of Nature.
This makes science completely different from and completely superior to the systems which preceded it - religion and philosophy. Science begins with the premise that the truth is something we will never see in its totality, whereas philosophy and religion start with the premise that there is a knowable truth.
People outside the sciences who try to poke holes in science cannot succeed only because attempting to poke holes is exactly what scientists are doing all the time. Poking holes is what it's all about.
And that includes creationists.
Andy F. points out that Evolution is not highly quantifiable (moreso now with DNA technology, but still....). And Creationists are right to point out that Evolution is, if not a weak theory, at least an incomplete one. There is essentially no question that the Biblical explaination for Creation is all nonsense, but the details of Evolution are pretty sketchy and they should not be passed off as complete when they arent. But there is plenty of quantifiable evidence in paleontology. Dinosaurs existed once, but no more. Dinosaur bones are associated with sediments of certain estimated ages. There is a rough but undeniable arithmetical logic in the progression of species although Evolution lacks precise equations. And quantifiability - if on the rough scale of hundreds of thousands of years - is extremely important to the theory of evolution.
The theory started with qualitative data - descriptions of birds' beaks, etc. - because this was the best data available. Scientists are often criticized because of their conceit that the best data available and the truth are the same thing. But the fundamental assumption of science, remember, is that the "truth" is always unknowable and so every scientific description of Nature is flawed. Sure, that's not the part that scientists emphasize to outsiders, but you can hardly blame them for that.
Scientists use the word "dogma" advisedly, knowing that it means "an accepted and consistent basis for analysis that is probably not true". "Theory", "hypothesis", "observation" - never "fact" or "truth" - the language of science shows the eternal skepticism built into the system.
But science is not some separate, magic theory. It is a default position. What else would a reasonable person do to determine how Nature works? What philosopher would she consult?
People say "science can't tell us everything" - well, why not? And what can tell us these things with more accuracy? Simply test any system against nature and logic and you are doing science - the default position.
Much else of what we do is to try to express our own, human ideas, emotions, and tendencies in the best way possible. Art, politics, philosophy - and this is all important because, as social animals, we have to find the truth of our own condition to promote the largest, most cooperative community. And there is no reason to think that this is less valuable than determining the nature of Nature.
But you can't confuse the two things.
boddi
On 10/7/06, Andy F <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/06, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > _Of course_ science, which is just the practice of
> > scientists, is loaded chock full with prejudices, that
> > is, views held without reflection because they are
> > indoctrinated into scientists in college, grad school,
> > and professional life, views which are not considered
> > open to rational debate because anyone professing the
> > contrary is simply dismissed as a crank or a nut or an
> > ignoramus. These prejudices range from very high level
> > metaphysical and epistemological doctrines like: to
> > matter scientifically our ideas must be quantifiable
> > and have measurably observable results...
>
> Something Ravi wrote (which I forget) made me think a while about
> quantifiability and how necessary it is to make testable statements
> about the world. Evolution doesn't appear to hinge on it, and I
> wonder if Darwin ever found it necessary, aside from considering the
> passage of time. I don't recall much from Gould's popular writings
> that depend on it. Certainly you can build quantifiable statements on
> it, and devise quantifiable tests of it, but it doesn't appear central
> to the argument.
>
> You can even say something about physics that is testable, verified,
> profound and still something of a mystery, and unquantified: "Massive
> objects move towards each other in the absence of barriers." You need
> some notion of "more/less than", but that strikes me too primitive to
> avoid in any kind of picture of the world, no matter how you get
> there. Even protozoa deal with gradients. So I'm curious about
> what's been said about that.
>
> --
> Andy
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>