Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Mark:
Are you confusing facts with processes?

True, what we knew of biochemistry 25 years ago is long outdated by new
discoveries since. Have I ever challenged that?

But has the process of scientific method changed? Even though we now use
computers for number crunching which can show up patterns that we in the
past would not have recognized, is not the cornerstone of science still
observation? Repeatable observation?

Or has the methodology for, process of science changed? In other words, can
I make a model that is mathematically and logically consistent, but that
violates observation, and have it be science?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Mark Spitsbergen <awakesd AT mac.com> wrote:

> Dear Karl, generally I am challenged by your post but let me point
> out that the Stryer's Biochemistry book I used in undergrad in 1983
> is not a valid representation of Biochemistry today. My point is that
> the insights as well as the scientific approach is dynamic hence we
> should probably consider the definition somewhat the same. Perhaps
> "organizational unlearning" is an example.
>
>
> Mark Spitsbergen
>
>
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 4:43 PM, b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
>
> > How about science textbooks, where the rubber meets the road, so to
> > speak?
> > Well, I suppose Gabe will consider people like George Gaylord
> > Simpson and
> > William S. Beck, late professors at Harvard (look up their reputations
> > wherever you want), "kooky Christians" because I learned the
> > definition of
> > science that I use from them. At the time I learned it, I found no
> > science
> > textbook (I checked several) that gave a definition for science
> > that gave a
> > contrary definition.