Heresy!

Turley

washingtonpost.com
Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article
By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; A19
Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.
As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an intelligent creator.
Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."
An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."
"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."
The Washington Post and two other media outlets obtained a copy of the still-private report.
McVay, who is a political appointee of the Bush administration, acknowledged in the report that a fuller response from the Smithsonian might have tempered his conclusions. As Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee -- the National Institutes of Health pays his salary -- the special counsel lacks the power to impose a legal remedy.
A spokeswoman for the Smithsonian Institution declined comment, noting that it has not received McVay's report.
"We do stand by evolution -- we are a scientific organization," said Linda St. Thomas, the spokeswoman. An official privately suggested that McVay might want to embarrass the institution.
It is hard to overstate the passions fired by the debate over intelligent design. President Bush recently said that schoolchildren should learn about the theory alongside Darwin's theory of evolution -- a view that goes beyond even the stance of intelligent design advocates. Dozens of state school boards have attempted to mandate the teaching of anti-Darwinian theories.
A small band of scientists argue for intelligent design, saying evolutionary theory's path is littered with too many gaps and mysteries, and cannot account for the origin of life.
Most evolutionary biologists, not to mention much of the broader scientific community, dismiss intelligent design as a sophisticated version of creationism. To teach it in science classes, they say, would be to overturn hundreds of years of scientific progress. The National Museum of Natural History was drawn into this controversy in June, when protest forced it to withdraw from co-sponsorship of a documentary on intelligent design.
Sternberg's case has sent ripples far beyond the Beltway. The special counsel accused the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif.-based think tank that defends the teaching of evolution, of orchestrating attacks on Sternberg.
"The NCSE worked closely with" the Smithsonian "in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited," McVay wrote to Sternberg.
NCSE officials accused McVay of playing out a political agenda. "I must say that Mr. McVay flatters us beyond our desserts -- the Smithsonian is a distinguished organization of highly competent scientists, and they're not marionettes," said Eugenie Scott, the group's executive director. "If this was a corporation, and an employee did something that really embarrassed the administration, really blew it, how long do you think that person would be employed?"
Risky Decision
Sternberg is an unlikely revolutionary. He holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, his graduate work draws praise from his former professors, and in 2000 he gained a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.
Not long after that, Smithsonian scientists asked Sternberg to become the unpaid editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a sleepy scientific journal affiliated with the Smithsonian. Three years later, Sternberg agreed to consider a paper by Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge University-educated philosopher of science who argues that evolutionary theory cannot account for the vast profusion of multicellular species and forms in what is known as the Cambrian "explosion," which occurred about 530 million years ago.
Scientists still puzzle at this great proliferation of life. But Meyer's paper went several long steps further, arguing that an intelligent agent -- God, according to many who espouse intelligent design -- was the best explanation for the rapid appearance of higher life-forms.
Sternberg harbored his own doubts about Darwinian theory. He also acknowledged that this journal had not published such papers in the past and that he wanted to stir the scientific pot.
"I am not convinced by intelligent design but they have brought a lot of difficult questions to the fore," Sternberg said. "Science only moves forward on controversy."
He mailed Meyer's article to three scientists for a peer review. It has been suggested that Sternberg fabricated the peer review or sought unqualified scientists, a claim McVay dismissed.
"They were critical of the paper and gave 50 things to consider," Sternberg said. "But they said that people are talking about this and we should air the views."
When the article appeared, the reaction was near instantaneous and furious. Within days, detailed scientific critiques of Meyer's article appeared on pro-evolution Web sites. "The origin of genetic information is thoroughly understood," said Nick Matzke of the NCSE. "If the arguments were coherent this paper would have been revolutionary-- but they were bogus."
A senior Smithsonian scientist wrote in an e-mail: "We are evolutionary biologists and I am sorry to see us made into the laughing stock of the world, even if this kind of rubbish sells well in backwoods USA."
An e-mail stated, falsely, that Sternberg had "training as an orthodox priest." Another labeled him a "Young Earth Creationist," meaning a person who believes God created the world in the past 10,000 years.
This latter accusation is a reference to Sternberg's service on the board of the Baraminology Study Group, a "young Earth" group. Sternberg insists he does not believe in creationism. "I was rather strong in my criticism of them," he said. "But I agreed to work as a friendly but critical outsider."
Scott, of the NCSE, insisted that Smithsonian scientists had no choice but to explore Sternberg's religious beliefs. "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist," Scott said. "Sternberg denies it, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it argues for zealotry."
Endgame
Sternberg has seen stress piled upon stress in the past year. His marriage has dissolved, and he no longer comes into the Smithsonian. When the biological society issued a statement disavowing Meyer's article, Sternberg was advised not to attend. "I was told that feelings were running so high, they could not guarantee me that they could keep order," Sternberg said.
A former professor of Sternberg's says the researcher has an intellectual penchant for going against the system. Sternberg does not deny it.
"I loathe careerism and the herd mentality," he said. "I really think that objective truth can be discovered and that popular opinion and consensus thinking does more to obscure than to reveal."
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
END

Timely companion article "The Metaphysics of Evolution" was published today at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html
Fifteen pages long, it is too large to repost here and far too voluminous for most minds here to grasp.

Carpo

errrr, ok.

So we have a discredited scientist, an article on evolution by a columnist who makes it plain that he knows sweet flip all about evolution and a petty jibe.

Was there a point to all this??

Baz_

I think the point is meant to be:

"Turley R Teh Genius!!!!2!"£1234"2!!""

Or something like that, he has a voluminous mind don't you know.

Obni

Surely, Turley, you can discern the difference between controversy and a non-story.

Like many contributors to this board I can accept anyone's challenging that evolutionary theory has not completely answered all the questions it must someday answer, and indeed has not yet answered some questions at all. I can accept anyone's criticism of evolutionary theory and of any scientist working in the field of evolution. I must also ultimately accept that the generally accepted (your favourite term!) principles of evolution may turn out to be very wide of the mark. I would happily listen to Mr Sternberg's point of view, no doubt learning much in the process.

However, the suggestion that because scientists haven't yet figured out all of the mechanisms and processes by which evolution has shaped life on this planet, that the answer must lie outside science is, quite frankly, nonesense.

Nothing lies outside science.

When you strip away the apparently petty and regrettable behaviour of some of his colleagues, and any knee-jerk media reactions to the 'C' word, what we're left with is rather dull report about a member of staff at a scientific instituition using that institutions resources to promote personally held non-scientific opinions and as a result he got the boot.

Playboy

Obni wrote:

Nothing lies outside science.

Thats quite a bold statement .. care to elaborate?

Obni

I don't understand the need for elaboration.

Perhaps if you could elaborate on why it is that you find the statement so bold, I could provide a better answer.

Playboy

Obni wrote:

I don't understand the need for elaboration.

Perhaps if you could elaborate on why it is that you find the statement so bold, I could provide a better answer.

Science is a human invention. Do Human beings have the ability to know everything if nothing lies outside of science? Can we apply this invention or discipline to everything in the universe? Is it possible for us to percieve everything in the universe?

Check out here for an interesting discussion on the philosophy board.

Obni

I followed the discussion on the philosophy board and would agree with SkepticOne's description of science "It is a tool for finding out about the objective world." I read a quote once, that I haven't been able to track down, that claimed that science was the pursuit of that which is true whether people were aware of or believed in it, or not.
Yes, in one way science is a human invention, just like music or cooking, and like those other human activities it is ever-changing and developing. If there are other cultures out there they no doubt have similar fields of endeavour.

Playboy wrote:

Do Human beings have the ability to know everything if nothing lies outside of science? Can we apply this invention or discipline to everything in the universe?

Nothing lies outside of science, but much may lie outside human understanding. The scope of science is not limited by our limitation as a species to make use of it. Nor, does any limit on using science reduce its usefulness to us.

Playboy wrote:

Is it possible for us to percieve everything in the universe?

Bertie Wooster once asked his gentleman's gentleman Jeeves whether he knew "everything", to which Jeeves archly replied "I really couldn't say, sir."
I would have reservations whether, as a species, it would be possible for us to perceive everything in the universe. However, there's still plenty to be done before we might grudgingly have to concede defeat.

To digress slightly... wouldn't it be rather a useful debating point for the ID camp, if it turns out our brains are just the right size to completely comprehend the universe we inhabit.

pH

Fifteen pages long, it is too large to repost here and far too voluminous for most minds here to grasp.

If intelligent design is science then it needs to be explained. As far as I can see Intelligent Design is not science, but it is summarised well by this article - a series of badly thought out attacks on evolution.

So how about actually publishing the 'theory' of ID. This should not need to mention the word evolution once. A new theory is not just disproving an existing theory, and then saying well because that's wrong, this one automatically becomes the truth.

The theory should explain the existence of life here (From muck to man!), be consisistent with both evidence and other theories, and should be testable.

It should also be predictive and lead to technological advance.
For example, based on this new theory being proven, it should perhaps lead to new medicine and treatments, based on our better understanding of how to treat diseases in a 'designed' organism.

So how about it, a link to a standalone paper outlining 'Intelligent Design' (let me state once again *not* a series of rebutals of evolution).

I say this because while the amount of evidence for evolution is indeed 'Far too voluminous', I think that the amount and quality of writing on ID might be just the right size for our minds.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

I read a quote once, that I haven't been able to track down, that claimed that science was the pursuit of that which is true whether people were aware of or believed in it, or not.

This is a restatement of scientific instrumentalism. Maybe more for the philosophy forum but as a philosophy of science The Logical Positivists and the Vienna Circle went down a similar dead end. It is a bit like claiming mathematics can explain everything and can all be reduced to a few simple rules.

Yes, in one way science is a human invention, just like music or cooking, and like those other human activities it is ever-changing and developing. If there are other cultures out there they no doubt have similar fields of endeavour.

This is an anthrocentric stance. First of all we have no idea whether orher sentient beings have culture. If they exist and if they have you are suggesting science is culturally driven developed and ultimately originates with humans. But this contradicts your earlirer position about certain things being true whether people exist or not.

Nothing lies outside of science, but much may lie outside human understanding. The scope of science is not limited by our limitation as a species to make use of it. Nor, does any limit on using science reduce its usefulness to us.

This is scientism! i.e. a claim that science has the answers to everything. It didnt seem to give us world peace did it? What is the difference between believing science can explain everything and in saying religion can?
Ever heard of Godel?
No formal system capable of harnessing the basic rules of logic e.g. mathematics can be complete unless it is inconsistant.
Do you believe the philosophy of science is part of science itself?

I would have reservations whether, as a species, it would be possible for us to perceive everything in the universe. However, there's still plenty to be done before we might grudgingly have to concede defeat.

But that isnt what he asked! He asked if the system of science could explain everything.

To digress slightly... wouldn't it be rather a useful debating point for the ID camp, if it turns out our brains are just the right size to completely comprehend the universe we inhabit.

What do you mean by "comprehend"?

Zombrex

Firstly, Turley's post is a "Hitler was a vegetarian" style post ... ie. interesting in the discussion of the polarisation of scientific thinking in America by the religious right at the moment, but no reflection at all on the validity or lack of the evolution as a scientific theory.

ISAW wrote:

He asked if the system of science could explain everything.

"Science" is the study of nature. It is illogical to say that events or characteristics in nature can exist but that they cannot be explained. It is only correct to state that events or characteristics exist in nature that cannot be explained based on current human understanding. The only think that stops science explaining everything in the known and all possible universes and exisitances, is lack of knowledge of the person attempting to study the event or characterisitic.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

"Science" is the study of nature. It is illogical to say that events or characteristics in nature can exist but that they cannot be explained. It is only correct to state that events or characteristics exist in nature that cannot be explained based on current human understanding. The only think that stops science explaining everything in the known and all possible universes and exisitances, is lack of knowledge of the person attempting to study the event or characterisitic.

What do you mean by current human understanding? Do you mean ability to understand or lack of knowledge? Who is to say that we have the ability to understand everything? It is very possible that our intellects are limted just like any other animal. If our intellects are limited then the assumption that nothing lies outside science is wrong.

robindch

> "Science" is the study of nature.

...which begs the question of what nature and study are!

Personally, I dislike the use of the term 'science' in any general sense anyway, as it's used in distinct and contradictory ways by different people. To scientists, and, no doubt, to skeptics too, 'science' is a pleasant hooray-word, conveying an image of unbiassed and honest knowledge, selflessly sought-after. To many non-scientists, however, the word tends to imply a worldview only slightly narrower than the bottom end of a microscope, hysterically denying the existence of anything not proddable with a sweaty finger.

The word itself comes from 'sciere' (sp?), the latin for 'to know', and I think there's an arguable case for replacing most instances of the word 'science' with 'knowledge' instead.

At least, it neutralizes the majority of the negative connotations -- I mean, what alternative practitioner could say with a straight face that they disagreed with a 'knowledge-based' worldview? Probably most...

robindch

> If our intellects are limited then the assumption
that nothing lies outside science is wrong.

Taking, again, 'science' to be a rough synonym for 'knowledge' (or more specifically, systematized, organized knowledge), then this sentence doesn't really make much sense as it stands. Are you saying that there exists information that we can know and information that we can't? Or that there are questions to which no knowledge-based answers exist?

SkepticOne

robindch wrote:

> If our intellects are limited then the assumption
that nothing lies outside science is wrong.

Taking, again, 'science' to be a rough synonym for 'knowledge' (or more specifically, systematized, organized knowledge), then this sentence doesn't really make much sense as it stands. Are you saying that there exists information that we can know and information that we can't? Or that there are questions to which no knowledge-based answers exist?

I think the question of the sentience of other beings is something that can't be answered by empirical science.

I think science is generally used to mean empirically verified knowledge. These days we would not consider, say, morality a science, although this may have been the case in the past.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

> If our intellects are limited then the assumption
that nothing lies outside science is wrong.

Taking, again, 'science' to be a rough synonym for 'knowledge' (or more specifically, systematized, organized knowledge), then this sentence doesn't really make much sense as it stands. Are you saying that there exists information that we can know and information that we can't? Or that there are questions to which no knowledge-based answers exist?

What I am saying is that it is very possible that information exists that we can never know, that our intellects could be limited like any other animal. Can a dog know what we know? Why do we assume that we can know all?

pH

Playboy wrote:

What I am saying is that it is very possible that information exists that we can never know, that our intellects could be limited like any other animal. Can a dog know what we know? Why do we assume that we can know all?

Ah, but can we know that we don't know it?

Is this information by definiton 'unknowable' or only 'unknowable by us'?

Can you prove this? Can this be tested? does this 'theory' make any predictions? How possible is 'very possible' - 10%, 75% 99.9999% ? What factors do you consider when calculating this probability?

May I add at this point that the 'Philosophy of Science' is only slighty more useful than the 'Science of Philosophy'.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

What do you mean by current human understanding? Do you mean ability to understand or lack of knowledge?

Both

Playboy wrote:

Who is to say that we have the ability to understand everything?

No one, but the ability for something to be explained is independent of our ability as human biological enties to understand that explination.

For example, most children don't understand quantum mechanics. That doesn't mean that quantum mechanics cannot be explained using a scientific manner.

Playboy wrote:

If our intellects are limited then the assumption that nothing lies outside science is wrong.

No. Something can lie outside of possible human understanding, but that doesn't mean it cannot be explained in a scientifc manner, only that we as humans would not understand that explination.

robindch

> [SkepticOne] I think the question of the sentience of other beings is
> something that can't be answered by empirical science.

On the contrary -- what about walking up to one and asking "are you sentient?". Of course, this begs the question of our own sentience, and what's meant by 'sentience' anyway...

> I think science is generally used to mean empirically
> verified knowledge.

"empirically tested and observed knowledge" might be closer?

> These days we would not consider,
> say, morality a science, although this may have been
> the case in the past.

Fluffy, belief-based concepts like 'morality' can be studied, not only for their own intrinsic worth (not much, IMHO), but also more usefully at a higher, societal, level, to see how some people are able to use headline concepts such as 'morality' to control the desires of others. A case in point being the activities of GW Bush + friends, who waffle on endlessly about morality, family values, compassionate conservatism and a thousand other astonishingly nebulous notions, and have achieved enormous political and financial power by doing so.

BTW, 'morality' is occasionally (and, who knows, perhaps usefully?) studied as a multi-disciplinary science. See books like this one.

> [Playboy] What I am saying is that it is very possible that
> information exists that we can never know, that
> our intellects could be limited like any other animal.
> Can a dog know what we know? Why do we assume
> that we can know all?

To echo pH slightly, do you mean that there is information per se that we can't ever know, or more widely, that there is information that we can't know whether or not we can know (and so on...). The difference, for example, between demonstrating that a large number is composite, and actually being able to find its prime factors.

Your other queries raise interesting questions about the nature of knowing. For example, can a book be said to 'know' what's written in it? (Or, is a religious believer's 'knowledge' of his particular religious belief different from his/her holy book's knowledge? Why not get the book to do the believing for you?) Or does knowledge require a sense of its own existence, in addition to the knowledge itself? At what level does this tail-eating bottom out?

hmm -- time for a beer...

SkepticOne

robindch wrote:

> [SkepticOne] I think the question of the sentience of other beings is
> something that can't be answered by empirical science.

On the contrary -- what about walking up to one and asking "are you sentient?". Of course, this begs the question of our own sentience, and what's meant by 'sentience' anyway...

If it answered "yes", would you be happy to say that it is sentient?

I think it is really a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

Although we can ask "are you sentient?", empirically, all we can say is that the entity responded in such and such a way.

I think the answer to the question, if there is one, is outside science. Perhaps, that is the issue: are there answerable questions outside science.

Despite not being possibly answerable, the question seems to have a lot of broad appeal.

> I think science is generally used to mean empirically
> verified knowledge.

"empirically tested and observed knowledge" might be closer?

Yes, I would be happy with that.

Playboy

pH wrote:

Ah, but can we know that we don't know it?

Is this information by definiton 'unknowable' or only 'unknowable by us'?

Can you prove this? Can this be tested? does this 'theory' make any predictions? How possible is 'very possible' - 10%, 75% 99.9999% ? What factors do you consider when calculating this probability?

May I add at this point that the 'Philosophy of Science' is only slighty more useful than the 'Science of Philosophy'.

I'm sure there is information out there that we know we don't know and can't know and also information that we are not even aware of the existence of. None of this information is unknowable ... what I am assuming is that it is unknowable by us. Maybe it is knowable by different beings in different galaxies, but who knows. I am just always fascinated by people’s assumptions that the human mind isn't subject to any intellectual constraints and that it is possible to know everything. Can I prove it? No I can't but no more than you can prove to me that we can know everything.

pH

Playboy wrote:

I'm sure there is information out there that we know we don't know and can't know

For instance?

Playboy wrote:

I am just always fascinated by people’s assumptions that the human mind isn't subject to any intellectual constraints and that it is possible to know everything. Can I prove it? No I can't but no more than you can prove to me that we can know everything.

I'm not sure what you're saying - is it:

A) Some stuff is very complicated and it's just too difficult for our minds?

or

Some stuff is fundamentally unknowable (for other reasons)

or

C) Some stuff is beyond the reach of science, not because of our ability to understand but because we have not the means by which to discover it.

ISAW

SkepticOne wrote:

I think the question of the sentience of other beings is something that can't be answered by empirical science.

then i beg to differ. surely we know how to define what is sentient and to measure it? Opportunity to do so is a separate issue.

I think science is generally used to mean empirically verified knowledge. These days we would not consider, say, morality a science, although this may have been the case in the past.

To which I say the number of people killed in Heroshima or the WWII Holocaust may well be empirically verified.

ISAW

Playboy wrote:

I'm sure there is information out there that we know we don't know and can't know and also information that we are not even aware of the existence of. None of this information is unknowable ... .

This is a basic philosophical point about open semi-open and closed questions.
I wasnt asking about whether we can close the questions. I was asking how others are so sure science is the ultimate system of knowing things about the universe.

ISAW

pH wrote:

Ah, but can we know that we don't know it?


May I add at this point that the 'Philosophy of Science' is only slighty more useful than the 'Science of Philosophy'.

Might I ask if you believe that philosophy is a completely useless pursuit?
Given your above question I find that difficult to believe.
Or do you believe that the interjection of a somwhat meaningless jibe is more usefull than the asking of questions about metacognition?

SkepticOne

ISAW wrote:

then i beg to differ. surely we know how to define what is sentient and to measure it? Opportunity to do so is a separate issue.

How would we go about measuring it? The basic question is: take some animal, plant or machine that reacts in some way to stimulus. How do we know it is feeling and percieving as opposed to merely reacting without any internal feeling?

A mouse runs away when we approach. Does it feel anything or does it just run? It could be that the ability to consciously feel and percieve is only available to higher animals, but we have know way of knowing, imo.

To which I say the number of people killed in Heroshima or the WWII Holocaust may well be empirically verified.

But the numbers killed in these events are questions, primarily, of history. The morality of them is another issue.

pH

ISAW wrote:

This is a basic philosophical point about open semi-open and closed questions.
I wasnt asking about whether we can close the questions. I was asking how others are so sure science is the ultimate system of knowing things about the universe.

Well the scientist in me would say ...

Propose another system of knowing things about the universe, and we'll compare how well they do. If this other system gets better results, then science could then be dropped the new system adopted in its place.

No one is sure that science is the ultimate system, but until something better comes along it is currently the ultimate system. In fact it probably is the only system that has produced any knowledge about the universe so far.

pH

ISAW wrote:

Might I ask if you believe that philosophy is a completely useless pursuit?

Well it seems to keep some men of average intelligence busy arguing, but it's contribution to humanity, compared to say science is negligible.

<MONTY PYTHON> 'What have the philosophers ever done for us?'</MONTY PYTHON>

Playboy

pH wrote:

Well it seems to keep some men of average intelligence busy arguing, but it's contribution to humanity, compared to say science is negligible.

<MONTY PYTHON> 'What have the philosophers ever done for us?'</MONTY PYTHON>

That is probably the most ignorant and uneducated thing I have ever heard on a message board. Do you even know what philosophy is and what it has contributed?

Playboy

pH wrote:

For instance?


I'm not sure what you're saying - is it:

A) Some stuff is very complicated and it's just too difficult for our minds?

or

Some stuff is fundamentally unknowable (for other reasons)

or

C) Some stuff is beyond the reach of science, not because of our ability to understand but because we have not the means by which to discover it.

Have a look at some of the realist – anti realist debate in the Philosophy of Science if you have not already done so.



A) Absolutely. We assume that a dog can’t understand Quantum Physics. Why do we assume there is no similar limit on man?

No I am not saying this. Unknowable to human beings maybe but not unknowable.

C) Depends on your definition of Science - If you define Science as empirically observed and tested knowledge then absolutely. But Science is not just empirically observed and tested knowledge; it is much more than that. Theoretical Science is not empirically observed or verified. We assume that gravity exists because we observe the effects of what we think is gravity. Has anybody ever seen gravity, touched gravity, smelt gravity, heard gravity, or tasted gravity? If not then how can it be empirically observed or verified. Why can’t I make up a different explanation for the effects of gravity? If I did could you prove me wrong?

Obni

ISAW wrote:

This is a restatement of scientific instrumentalism.

No, it isn't.

ISAW wrote:

It is a bit like claiming mathematics can explain everything and can all be reduced to a few simple rules.

No, it isn't.

I am not claiming that only those things defined by science can be real

ISAW wrote:

This is an anthrocentric stance.

Perhaps it is, but I would offer the defence that we cannot know of what a truly alien culture may consist. I admit it is mere conjecture that they might elaborate on basic survival processes to increase sensory pleasure (cooking), they may also stimulate those senses by artificial means (music), and they may attempt to catalogue and regularize their understanding of themselves and the universe they inhabit, as experienced by their senses and reflected upon by conscious thought (science). My aim was not to assert that these are inevitable aspects of all cultures, but rather that they are not solely the features of a human culture. So, that if humanity ceased to exist, along with the knowledge accumulated by human cultures, there is nothing to exclude another culture out there somewhere, fumbling around in the dark, from making similar discoveries.