Monday, January 31, 2005

I respond to Rabbi Plaut

As seen below, Rabbi Plaut responded to my reviews of his articles. He notes that I wrote that I didn't understand his need for differentiation between what is easily observable and what is not. To clarify, I wrote that R. Plaut says that


Science at present does not seek to describe reality as readily observed, it seeks to describe events that can be seen only with instruments and other technology. "Since science is practiced at such a remove from everyday experience, it is clear that understanding our familiar world cannot provide a credible motive for the practice of science as it is now done."

My objection was not only differentiating between the easily observable and the not easily observable, but making the leap that understanding the not easily observable was not a credible motive for the practice of science. I have certainly read positions of those in the philosophy of science that question the validity of observation, but no where have I seen anyone take the position that the difference between easily observable and not easily observable is a basis for invalidating a motive for the practice of science. Since R. Plaut claims that this is quite common, I will be happy to see his citations on this specific point.. Despite his view that this is common in textbooks, I reviewed my books and happened to be at the library(501 in the Dewey system) and could not find a reference to this.

Otherwise, R. Plaut does not give any other specific refutations of my comments, so I cannot address any more of his concerns. I would be gratified if he could address more of them. I noted other problems with logic and unsupported assumptions in his papers. I especially hope he addresses the ambiguity of his position on the age of the world. He notes again that

The world is 5,765 years old and counting,

but has not cleared up if he believes that he is counting from the begining of creation, or the begining of man. Also, there is ambiguity in his position if all the years, days and hours are the same as we understand them to be today, or if his 6765 years allows the first days to be defined as something other than days as we know them.

I look foward to his responses.

Comments-[ comments.]

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey nice info you posted.
I just browsing through some blogs and came across yours!

Excellent blog, good to see someone actually uses em for quality posts.

Your site kept me on for a few minutes unlike the rest :)

Keep up the good work!

Thanks!.

12:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


Web Counter by TrafficFile.com Site Meter Add http://houseofhock.blogspot.com to your Kinja digest