Idag letar vi skribenter i följande ämnen:

Miljöpartiet

Miljöpartiet håller kongress i helgen. Läs (13) Skriv

EMU

Nyval i Grekland. Kan landet räddas kvar i eurozonen? Läs (91) Skriv

Hyresrättens roll i ekonomin

Vilken roll spelar egentligen hyresrätten för arbetsmarknaden och för den reala och finansiella ekonomin? Skriv


EA1979 har kommenterat på:

Kristen tro och vetenskap delar viktiga övertygelser

#44 Instämmer. Selander medverkar i ID-rörelsens försök att tvätta bort de religiösa undertonerna i syfte att vinna bredare stöd. Han skriver i sin blogg: "ID handlar överhuvudtaget inte om bibeln eller jordens ålder. ID har inte sina rötter i biblisk kreationism utan snarare i Michel Dentons bok ”Evolution – a theory in crisis”. Denton, en australiensisk genetiker och agnostiker, menade att den darwinistiska evolutionsläran har stora vetenskapliga brister. Det var när Phillip Johnson och Michael Behe läste Denton som fröet till ID-rörelsen såddes. " Detta är ju inte riktigt fallet ! ID-rörelsen har snarare sina rötter i 60-talets religiösa rörelse Creation science; det var de som först argumenterade emot evolution med hänvisning till fakta om naturens komplexitet. Men tillbaka till Michel Denton: Boken ”Evolution – a theory in crisis" fick mycket svidande kritik från framstående vetenskapsmän: Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertations accompanied, more often than not, with scorn." Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both — and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ En kuriosa: Den första boken som använt sig av uttrycket Intelligent design var "Of Pandas and People"; den skrevs av katoliken Dean H. Kenyon (sponsrad av den kristna insttiutionen "Foundation for Thought and Ethics") och kreationisten & envangelikanen Percival Davis. Bokens ursprungliga titel var "Biology and Creation" men fick det nya namnet "Of Pandas and People" efter ett domstolsbeslut som förbjöd kreationism i statliga skolor.

EA1979 har kommenterat på:

Kristen tro och vetenskap delar viktiga övertygelser

Vetenskapen hade lysande moment i medeltidens mellanöstern, men där tappade den fart allteftersom tiden gick, vilket är välkänt. Det viktiga är att poängtera det inflytande som hedniska idéer angående den vetenskapliga metoden hade för européerna. Grosseteste är en senkomling i sammanhanget, han skrev sina verk åren 1220–1235. Alhazens vetenskapsmetodiskt framstående optikbok ”Kitab al-Manazir” skrevs under perioden 1011 - 1021. Dvs, två århundraden tidigare. Optikboken översattes, enligt historikern David C. Lindberg, relativt snabbt; av den höga kvaliteten att döma troligen av Gerard av Cremona (ca. 1114-1187) eller någon av hans kollegor. D C.Lindberg skriver i (The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450): “Following the broad outlines of optical theory as it was developed by Alhazen, Bacon adopted Alhazen's intromission theory of vision in almost all of its details. He was extraordinarily impressed by Alhazen's successful mathematical analysis of light and vision, and in his own works he effectively communicated the promise of the mathematical approach to future generations. When theories of light and vision appeared in fourteenth-century natural philosophy (as they frequently did, especially in epistemological discussions), they were almost always derived from the tradition of Alhazen and Bacon. “ I artikeln “Oxford and the revival of optics in the thirteenth century” av G. Ten Doesschate läser man: “The Arab Alhazen, on the other hand, is a very important scientist who takes a prominent place in the history of Optics, as shown by the following fact. In 1604 the famous astronomer Johannes Kepler published the first modern book on Optics. He gave it the title Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena. Now Vitellio, who lived in the thirteenth century, was only a commentator of Alhazen who lived about 1000. This shows that in Kepler’s opinion there had been so little progress in the science of Optics, that it seemed to him that his task was merely to add to Vitellio’s, and thus to Alhazen’s, doctrine.” Angående tanken – som framförs av Crombie, A. C - att senkomlingen Grosseteste mer eller mindre självständigt utvecklade den vetenskapliga metoden, finns det all anledning att vara skeptisk. I stanforduniversitetets filosofiska encyklopedi står det såhär: ”Grosseteste's numerous short scientific works made no significant contribution to scientific theory. Yet it has been argued that Grosseteste played a key role in the development of scientificmethod. In particular, Crombie 1955 (a summary of Crombie 1953) has claimed that Grosseteste was the first in the Latin West to develop an account of an experimental method in science; that he “seems to have been the first writer to make systematic use of a method of experimental verification and falsification”; that he gave a “special importance to mathematics in attempting to provide scientific explanations of the physical world” . These claims have been the subject of considerable debate. The claim that Grosseteste developed an account of experimental method in science puts great weight on the aforementioned passage in which Grosseteste describes a controlled experiment to see whether scammony causes the discharge of red bile. There can be little doubt that Grosseteste does indeed have in mind the idea of a controlled experiment. The question, however, is whether Grosseteste makes the notion of controlled experiment part of a general account of a scientific method for arriving at the principles of demonstrative science. The evidence that he does so is not strong. The discussion of scammony is the only reference to controlled experiment in his writings, and when Grosseteste refers back to this discussion later in the commentary as explaining how we come to acquire experiential principles, the notion of controlled experiment is sometimes inapplicable—as for example, regarding our knowledge of the cause of an eclipse. Moreover, Grosseteste is quite prepared to grant that in some cases we can know causal connections after only a single perception (see Marrone 1986). On balance, we may say that Grosseteste did introduce to the Latin West the notion of controlled experiment and related it to demonstrative science, but he hardly set it up as the method by which such knowledge is to be obtained; it is one among many ways of arriving at such knowledge and is not accorded the emphasis it has been given in scholarly commentary.” Varför denna osäkra hållning till vetenskaplig metodik? Han levde i och för sig flera generationer efter Alhazen, men det finns lite som tyder på att han själv hade tillgång till Alhazens böcker; han fastnade i problemställningar som med större framgång behandlats tidigare! Ten Doesschate skriver: "It seems that Grosseteste did not know Alhazen’s and Ptolemy’s books or, if he saw them, that he did not study them carefully. Otherwise it might be expected that he would have solved the problem of refraction in a different manner." Exakt denna tolkning är DC Lindberg också inne på sidan 248 i boken ”Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler”. Lindberg skriver dessutom: “Working early in the century, Grosseteste (ca. 1168-1253) was handicapped by an imperfect knowledge of the optical sources listed above, and his optical writings were valuable primarily as inspiration. It was Roger Bacon (ca. 1220-ca.1292), inspired by Grosseteste but with the advantage of a full mastery of the optical litterature of Greek antiquity and mediecal Islam, who determined the future course of the discipline. “ Tillbaka till artikeln “Oxford and the revival of optics in the thirteenth century” av G. Ten Doesschate: “To scientists of today Grosseteste’s doctrine may seem naive, devoid of solid foundation, and possessed of few original ideas. Nevertheless, as a scholar, his attitude differed very much from that of most of his colleagues. In the first half of the thirteenth century he was one of the few men who were really interested in Nature, in mathematics, in optics.” “It would be impossible to expect that Grosseteste would at once have become a scientist in the modern sense of the word. But a man of the thirteenth century who preached a doctrine differing to some extent from those of his contemporaries may claim a certain measure of originality.” Du frågar om jag har hört talas om Aristoteles? Mitt förra inlägg refererar till honom FEM gånger, vänligen LÄS vad jag skriver. Notera även de stycken som belyser det faktum att Avicenna och Alhazen såg grundläggande brister hos Aristoteles.

EA1979 har kommenterat på:

Kristen tro och vetenskap delar viktiga övertygelser

Den vetenskapliga metoden uppkom i en icke-kristen miljö: During the Middle Ages issues of what is now termed science began to be addressed. There was greater emphasis on combining theory with practice in the Islamic world than there had been in Classical times, and it was common for those studying the sciences to be artisans as well, something that had been "considered an aberration in the ancient world." Islamic experts in the sciences were often expert instrument makers who enhanced their powers of observation and calculation with them. Muslim scientists used experiment and quantification to distinguish between competing scientific theories, set within a generically empirical orientation, as can be seen in the works of Jābir ibn Hayyān (721–815) and Alkindus (801–873) as early examples. Several scientific methods thus emerged from the medieval Muslim world by the early 11th century, all of which emphasized experimentation as well as quantification to varying degrees. The first of these experimental scientific methods was developed in Iraq by the Arab physicist and scientist, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), who used experimentation and mathematics to obtain the results in his Book of Optics (1021). In particular, he combined observations, experiments and rational arguments to support his intromission theory of vision, in which rays of light are emitted from objects rather than from the eyes. He used similar arguments to show that the ancient emission theory of vision supported by Ptolemy and Euclid (in which the eyes emit the rays of light used for seeing), and the ancient intromission theory supported by Aristotle (where objects emit physical particles to the eyes), were both wrong. Ibn al-Haytham's scientific method resembled modern scientific method and consisted of the following procedures: 1.Explicit statement of a problem, tied to observation and to proof by experiment 2.Testing and/or criticism of a hypothesis using experimentation 3.Interpretation of data and formulation of a conclusion using mathematics 4.The publication of the findings One aspect associated with Ibn al-Haytham's optical research is related to systemic and methodological reliance on experimentation (i'tibar) and controlled testing in his scientific inquiries. Moreover, his experimental directives rested on combining Classical physics ('ilm tabi'i) with mathematics (ta'alim; geometry in particular) in terms of devising the rudiments of what resembles a hypothetico-deductive procedure in scientific research. This mathematical-physical approach to experimental science supported most of the propositions in his Book of Optics and grounded his theories of vision, light and colour, as well as his research in catoptrics and dioptrics. Ibn al-Haytham also employed scientific skepticism and emphasized the role of empiricism. He also explained the role of induction in syllogism, and criticized Aristotle for his lack of contribution to the method of induction, which Ibn al-Haytham regarded as superior to syllogism, and he considered induction to be the basic requirement for true scientific research. Det ska noteras att Rober Bacon, som klassas som en av de tidigaste europeiska förespråkare av den vetenskapliga metoden, var direkt influerad av Ibn al-Haytham. Källa: James S. Ackerman (1978). "Leonardo's Eye". 41. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. p. 119. Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī: The Persian scientist Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī introduced early scientific methods for several different fields of inquiry during the 1020s and 1030s. For example, in his treatise on mineralogy, Kitab al-Jamahir (Book of Precious Stones), al-Biruni is "the most exact of experimental scientists", while in the introduction to his study of India, he declares that "to execute our project, it has not been possible to follow the geometric method" and thus became one of the pioneers of comparative sociology in insisting on field experience and information. He also developed an early experimental method for mechanics. Al-Biruni's methods resembled the modern scientific method, particularly in his emphasis on repeated experimentation. Biruni was concerned with how to conceptualize and prevent both systematic errors and observational biases, such as "errors caused by the use of small instruments and errors made by human observers." He argued that if instruments produce errors because of their imperfections or idiosyncratic qualities, then multiple observations must be taken, analyzed qualitatively, and on this basis, arrive at a "common-sense single value for the constant sought", whether an arithmetic mean or a "reliable estimate." In his scientific method, "universals came out of practical, experimental work" and "theories are formulated after discoveries", like with inductivism. Ibn Sina var också en av den vetenskapliga metodens förgrundsgestalter: In the On Demonstration section of The Book of Healing (1027), the Persian philosopher and scientist Avicenna (Ibn Sina) discussed philosophy of science and described an early scientific method of inquiry. He discussed Aristotle's Posterior Analytics and significantly diverged from it on several points. Avicenna discussed the issue of a proper procedure for scientific inquiry and the question of "How does one acquire the first principles of a science?" He asked how a scientist might find "the initial axioms or hypotheses of a deductive science without inferring them from some more basic premises?" He explained that the ideal situation is when one grasps that a "relation holds between the terms, which would allow for absolute, universal certainty." Avicenna added two further methods for finding a first principle: the ancient Aristotelian method of induction (istiqra), and the more recent method of examination and experimentation (tajriba). Avicenna criticized Aristotelian induction, arguing that "it does not lead to the absolute, universal, and certain premises that it purports to provide." In its place, he advocated "a method of experimentation as a means for scientific inquiry." Earlier, in The Canon of Medicine (1025), Avicenna was also the first to describe what is essentially methods of agreement, difference and concomitant variation which are critical to inductive logic and the scientific method.

EA1979 har kommenterat på:

Så skiljer sig religiös tro från vetenskap

#101 Lade ju till artikeln om EDN/ECP 2012-05-19 kl 10:58, så du har haft mycket tid.

EA1979 har kommenterat på:

Kristen tro och vetenskap delar viktiga övertygelser

#38 VILKA brukar beskriva romarnas medicin som "friskvård och chansartad kirurgi" ? Man kan ju inte kräva hur mycket som helst av 2000 år gammal medicin. Men något totalt "mörker" låg inte område i. Lästips: http://www.crystalinks.com/romemedicine.html Några kända antika läkare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Western_doctors De hade nog bättre råd att ge än handpåläggning :o)

EA1979 har kommenterat på:

Kristen tro och vetenskap delar viktiga övertygelser

29 Matz Öfvedsson skriver: "Romarriket gick under, de må ha haft fantastisk arkitektur och utvecklade avloppssystem. Men när det gäller medicin, vetenskap och filosofi var det mörker. " Dvs, Matz har inte en stor del av de mest elementära kunskaperna inom det område han pratar om. Ständigt denna förvridning av historia. Lås oss titta på innehållet i encyklopedin Naturalis Historia, som sammanställer Romarrikets vetande i 37 böcker. Verket refererar till 2'000 böcker, skrivna av 400 auktoriteter. I Preface and tables of contents, lists of authorities II Mathematical and physical description of the world III–VI Geography and ethnography VII Anthropology and human physiology VIII–XI Zoology XII–XXVII Botany, including agriculture, horticulture and pharmacology XXVIII–XXXII Pharmacology XXXIII–XXXVII Mining and mineralogy, especially in its application to life and art, including: gold, casting in silver, statuary in bronze, painting, modelling, sculpture in marble, precious stones and gems. 10 böcker ägnas åt farmakologi, fastän Matz Öfvedsson menar att det rådde "mörker" inom medicin. 27 böcker ägnas åt vetenskap, fastän Matz Öfvedsson menar att det även där rådde "mörker". Men det enda mörker jag ser här är Matz Öfvedssons kunskaper i idéhistoria !

EA1979 har kommenterat på:

Så skiljer sig religiös tro från vetenskap

#97 Matz Öfvedsson Å ena sidan skriver du: "Jag kan ju returnera kravet: Visa att allt handlar om urval och visa att duplikation bara handlar om slumpmässiga händelser. Visa med mutationsfrekvenser, populationsstorlekar och tidsramar att det är möjligt i samtliga fall av utveckling och modifiering av organ." Å andra sidan har du INTE TID att läsa litteratur som belyser specifika evolutionära förklaringsmodeller: "EDN/ECP Jag har inte tiden sätta mig in i detta nu". Men att problematisera dessa förklaringsmodeller har du uppenbarligen ALL TID I VÄRLDEN för.

EA1979 har kommenterat på:

Kristen tro och vetenskap delar viktiga övertygelser

Det var kanske västerlandets största katastrof någonsin, att den lilla sekt som kom dragandes med en jude fastspikad på ett tortyrredskap skulle få så mycket politiskt inflytande och göra livet svårt för progressiva krafter.

EA1979 har kommenterat på:

Kristen tro och vetenskap delar viktiga övertygelser

#32 Matz Öfvedsson Alla källor du refererar till leder till precis samma slutsats: vi har inte kristendom att tacka för att vetenskapen uppstod. Tex så togs den vetenskapliga metoden fram helt utan kristet inflytande och grunden till de flesta vetenskapsgrenarna lades av icke-kristna. Att kristendomen på sina håll hade en bromsande effekt på den intellektuella utvecklingen i Europa är ett faktum som stöds bland annat av den omfattande censur som icke-kristen litteratur fick stå ut med. Index Librorum Prohibitorum är kanske det bästa exemplet. Listan av intellektuella som censurerats kan göras lång, men här tar vi med några exceptionella namn: Joseph Addison, Francis Bacon, Honoré de Balzac, Giacomo Casanova, Nicolaus Copernicus, Daniel Defoe, René Descartes, Denis Diderot, Alexandre Dumas d. y., Alexandre Dumas d. ä., Gustave Flaubert, Anatole France, Galileo Galilei, Edward Gibbon André Gide, Thomas Hobbes, Victor Hugo, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Niccolò Machiavelli, Maurice Maeterlinck, John Milton, Blaise Pascal, François Rabelais, Samuel Richardson, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, George Sand Jean-Paul Sartre, Baruch Spinoza, Laurence Sterne, Emanuel Swedenborg, Jonathan Swift, Ulrich Zasius, Émile Zola 1900-talet var vetenskapens mest intensiva århundrade och under denna period var de kristna i minoritet bland de vetenskapsmän som ledde utvecklingen. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

EA1979 har kommenterat på:

Så skiljer sig religiös tro från vetenskap

Matz, jag vill fortfarande ha ett uttalande från dig om de två artiklarna jag länkade till. Du problematiserade fenomenet med genbildning genom duplikation, jag tog upp exemplet med EDN och ECP. Jag vill veta om du nu har några invändningar. Det gäller, som sagt, artikeln "Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes". Jag vill gärna ha din reflektion kring detta! I övrigt: Du har rätt på sätt och vis. Naturen är ALLTID mer komplex än modellen som beskriver den. Det gäller alla teorier, oavsett om de förklarar fysikaliska eller biologiska fenomen.


För denna sida ansvarar EA1979


annons:
Anmäl

Om mig:


annons:

Newsmill-bloggen

Newsmill med i nationella provet

100 000 gymnasieelever sitter nu och skriver nationellt prov i svenska. Enligt uppgift ingår två Newsmill-artiklar, ...

annons:

Om Newsmill

Newsmill är det första sociala mediet i Sverige som spinner kring nyheter och debatt. Vi publicerar varje dag olika personer med exklusiv kunskap om dagens viktiga händelser. Om du har egna erfarenheter av de frågor vi tar upp kan du omedelbart medverka i debatten. Du kan kommentera och skriva egna inlägg som publiceras på hög nivå eller medverka genom din blogg.

 

Läs mer om Newsmill

Newsmill-bloggen

Newsmill med i nationella provet

100 000 gymnasieelever sitter nu och skriver nationellt prov i svenska. Enligt uppgift ingår två Newsmill-artiklar, ...

Vad är att Milla?

Millningen är ett sätt att kommentera med känslor. Du väljer ett ord eller ett namn som du vill mäta i opinionen och läsarna kommenterar genom att välja en av fyra känslolägen som representeras av fyra färger. Rött är arg, blått är glad, grön nyfiken och gult är uttråkad. Resultatet visas direkt och rubriken på artikeln färgas med den färg som de flesta väljer.


 
© 2008 Newsmill. All rights reserved.