On 12/17/05, Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu> wrote:
"Creation scientists" didn't come up
with their claims by observing the
world and participating in a scientific process -- they came up with
them by reading the Bible, for instance. Reading the Bible is part of
doing theology, but it isn't part of doing science. We can go to the
proponents and ask (as the Templeton Foundation did) "Where is the
science?" The answer is, it isn't there. And that is why it's both
correct and neutral to class "creation science" as pseudoscience.
Those who label themselves as "creationist scientists" are happy to go
to great pains to show that 1. nobody really approaches the world with
a "truly" open mind, but must, by definition, have some preconceived
idea of what there is to be found and how to look for it (an assertion
well asserted by psychologists as well as philosophy and history of
science), and 2. that they also use empirical evidence, they also use
external review, they also are happy to set up little experiments. It
can be very difficult telling the two apart.
But let us assume that "creation science" is not science. How can we
verify such a thing? By our own philosophical analysis of the methods?
Sounds like original research to me.
Better, in my mind, to attribute the judgment to something more
reputable than other Wikipedian's analysis.
But it seems to me that your argument would lead us to
throwing out the
idea of categories entirely, since there are *always* similarities and
differences. Indeed, I'm not sure how we can write a single categorical
sentence that doesn't invoke the same problem if someone wants to
nitpick. "Cats are mammals" is a statement of similarity that glosses
over the differences between cats and other mammals, after all ....
And if asked to be defended, we would happily point to science
textbooks which classify cats as mammals. We don't have to rely on an
individual Wikipedian's take on things because we don't do original
research. If there is any doubt -- for example, on the classification
of a platypus -- we refer to the experts and happily defer any
responsibility for getting it wrong ("If you disagree, take it up with
THEM, not us. We don't make such decisiions"). Which is what we should
do here as well. But unfortunately I seem to be the only one who sees
it this way.
FF