From owner-kronia-l@teleport.com Sat Jul 25 09:19:25 1998
>From owner-kronia-l@teleport.com  Sat Jul 25 09:19:24 1998
Received: from smtp1.teleport.com (smtp1.teleport.com [192.108.254.21])
	by pony-1.mail.digex.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA00589;
	Sat, 25 Jul 1998 09:19:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by smtp1.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA23781; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 06:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by smtp1.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 25 Jul 1998 06:18:58 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp1.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id GAA23770 for kronia-l-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 06:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from access1.digex.net (access1.digex.net [205.197.245.192]) by smtp1.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA23763 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 06:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from rmg3@localhost)
          by access1.digex.net (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA05308; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 09:18:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 09:18:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Grumbine 
Message-Id: <199807251318.JAA05308@access1.digex.net>
To: kronia-l@teleport.com, velikov@teamnet.net
Subject: Not explainable
Sender: owner-kronia-l@teleport.com
Reply-To: kronia-l@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: R


  The phrase 'not explainable by science' shows up with great
regularity in catastrophist, creationist, and several other
groups' writings.  That has always puzzled me.

  First, the person saying so is usually wrong.  It is merely
that _they_ don't know what the scientific explanation is.
Or that they've encountered it, but reject it on non-scientific
grounds (such as, it was too complicated for them to understand,
used math, relied on an observation they didn't know about and
refuse to accept, used a scientific fact they disagree with on 
religious or philosophical grounds, etc.)

  Second, it is a useless statement.  A) It is usually wrong:
'not explainable by science' really always must be followed by 
'currently'.  Tomorrow science may discover an explanation.  
Over the last couple hundred years, that does seem to be the
way to bet.  B) Even if the statement were true in some instance,
it has no teeth.  Ok, there's something science can't explain.
That's nice.  Since science (certain scientists notwithstanding)
doesn't claim to be able to explain absolutely everything, it
isn't even an interesting observation (except insofar as one 
has been impressed by the range of things that science _has_
explained).  On the other hand, having observed that there's
something that science can't explain, there's also no conclusion
that can be drawn.  It doesn't prove that your religion, for 
example, is correct in all particulars.  Nor does it prove
that all science may now be ignored.   

Robert Grumbine