Which definition do you think is better?
Science: A human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.
Science: A systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena
Do you see the difference? These are the definitions they are debating in Kansas regarding the teaching of creation and/or evolution.
2 comments:
The latter definition provided seems very close to a pragmatic conception of science. There’s nothing wrong with that in itself; in fact it is the view I am forced to take.
Still, I am unconvinced that there are not greater undertones at work in this debate. Would a shift in the definition of science open the door for proselytization by individual teachers within the public school system?
One could argue that science does just that in accord with a naturalist view of reality.
Nevertheless, the adoption of a pragmatic definition of science seems to require, by definition, an implicit skepticism regarding any metaphysical or theological stance. Skepticism in the ancient Greek sense of withholding judgment that is.
I was gonna argue that science does just that...but then you mentioned that possibility in your 3rd paragraph
I really would have no problem with the original definition except that the people that want it don't seem to realize that it limits their field. Science under that definition is certainly valuable, but it can't ask or seek answers on life's most valuable questions.
Post a Comment