Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Bill:
Strange, those "highly idiosyncratic definitions" were taken directly from
science textbooks, agreed to by scientists when I discussed the issues with
them, even on open fora such as the international skeptics board (when they
had open discussions). I have yet to interact with a working physicist,
chemist or other scientist who disagrees with those "highly idiosyncratic
definitions". Does that mean that most scientists are "not talking about
what most of the rest of the world would understand by that word (science)"?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Bill Rea <bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

> Karl wrote:-
>
> >> Of course historians are not good scientists.
> >> Historians study
> >> the unobservable past by analyzing surviving
> >> records, while science is based
> >> on observing the present.
>
> And Tory responded:-
>
> >I have no idea what you mean. Science also studies the
> >unobservable past by analyzing surviving records, i.e.
> >evidence.
>
> Karl has highly idiosyncratic definitions of things like ``science'',
> ``evidence'', and a number of other words. When he talks about science
> he's not talking about what most of the rest of the world would
> understand by that word. You are right. Science, as practiced in the
> real world, deals with a vast amount of indirect observation. His
> definition is religiously motivated as he wishes to have a definition
> which excludes evolution from being science. It just something you need
> to be aware of otherwise it is a source of confusion.
>
>
> Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
> E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                 </   New
> Phone +64-3-364-2331, Fax  +64-3-364-2332       /)  Zealand
> Unix Systems Administrator                     (/'
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>