[Buddha-l] life force vis a vis Xianity & Hinduism

[Jim Peavler]

On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:

> I'm not sure I agree with you entirely with regard to the range of 
> theory,
> since theory is not restricted to scientific investigation.

One of the fundamental problems with the whole "debate" between science 
and the creationists is the creationists' (intelligent designers') 
equivocation on the word "theory".

To scientists "theory" means something like: "the coherent set of 
hypothetical, conceptual, and pragmatic principles forming the general 
frame of reference for a field of inquiry (as for deducing principles, 
formulating hypotheses for testing, undertaking actions) <the 
importance of theory if research is to be significant and its findings 
are to be cumulative -- Pendleton Herring>" Or: "the body of 
generalizations and principles developed in association with practice 
in a field of activity (as medicine, music) and forming its content as 
an intellectual discipline : pure as distinguished from applied art or 
science.  (Merriam Webster Third International Dictionary). A Theory, 
in scientific parlance, is the very highest level of understanding that 
incorporates every aspect of the subject under study, and against which 
all further study, experimentation, etc. must be tested. If any detail 
beneath its canopy ever seems to be an exception, then scientists get 
hard at work to either change the theory to better fit the evidence, or 
try to understand the evidence better. The discovery of an exception to 
a generally accepted theory is cause of great excitement in the 
scientific community and usually kicks off a terrific new research in 
the field.

To the creationists, who say that Darwin's theory of evolution is ONLY 
a theory, are using the word to mean something like "something taken 
for granted or as a speculation, such as "her theory was that the 
ghosts were disassociated parts of the souls of victims of violence." 
Or, "the universe was created". If a person declares that the "theory 
of relativity" is not true to a scientist the good scientist will 
insist on seeing the evidence and the experiments, checking it out for 
herself, etc. Unless it is simply absurd a good scientist (there are 
damned fool scientists, just like there are damned fool Buddhists or 
Democrats) will give due consideration to the proposition, but will 
insist on air-tight demonstration, proof, usability for predicting the 
results of further experiments, etc.  If a person denies the theory of 
creationism the believers will tell you the Bible says so -- no further 
discussion. Such "theories" have nothing whatever to do with science, 
and cannot, by their very nature, even be discussed by scientists in a 
scientific way. They cannot be proven, disproven, used to predict 
future outcomes, etc.

Hence intelligent design theory has no place in a science class, unless 
the teacher spends the first day of class describing why intelligent 
design is not science and will not be discussed further.

> Ockham's razor here explains what something is; it gives no clue as to 
> its
> "why".  When seeking to express the "why" of something simply 
> describing
> emperically random morphologies does not meet the point.

Ockam's entire point was that science should NOT try to explain "why" 
but focus entirely on "what".  "What" is the subject matter of science; 
"Why" is the subject matter of religion.

One of the big problems of science in Ockam's day was understanding 
motion. Why does an arrow continue to fly even though it is clearly not 
being moved by a "mover"? This problem had been around for centuries 
and there were several thousand pages of speculation in Greek, Latin, 
Arabic, and even in the vernacular languages of the western world. 
Ockam's razor said in effect, "Why doesn't matter. What we care about 
is where the arrow lands and how much force it lands with. So we will 
try to understand the strength of the original force that sets the 
arrow in flight, the mass and shape of the arrow, the angle at which 
the arrow must be fired in order to hit the target we want to hit, and 
whether it will arrive with enough force to do the amount of damage we 
wish to inflict on the target.  Answering these questions is the realm 
of science. (However, being disciplined in trying to understand the 
"what" of arrows in flight eventually led to an understanding of the 
"why" as well. I doubt that that will not happen to such questions "why 
do we exist" or "why is there evil in the world" and similar questions 
(many of which the Buddha refused to entertain.))"