# Michael Butler, Science, Overton



## nwink (Jun 15, 2011)

I was recently listening to a lecture by Michael Butler ("disciple" of Greg Bahnsen) about the philosophy of science. In the lecture, he critiqued US District Judge William Overton's 5 characteristics that define the essence of science:

(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) It is falsifiable. 

The problem in Mr Butler's approach is that he only addressed and critiqued each of these items on a one-by-one basis showing that other things could be included under each item...whereas I think someone could argue Mr Butler's approach was wrong because ALL of the items had to be met to be considered "science" by Judge Overton's definition.

Has anyone listened to this or a similar lecture by Michael Butler? Would you agree he had a gap in his thinking in this lecture? I'm just curious if I was missing something...


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 16, 2011)

nwink said:


> I was recently listening to a lecture by Michael Butler ("disciple" of Greg Bahnsen) about the philosophy of science. In the lecture, he critiqued US District Judge William Overton's 5 characteristics that define the essence of science:
> 
> (1) It is guided by natural law;
> (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
> ...



I listened to that lecture and you are correct. He addressed and critiqued each of those items on a one-by-one basis. 

There are certain fields of study that people consider to be scientific, but do not meet all of that criteria. For example, forensic science does not always make reference to natural law. Human agency is used to explain things in forensic science. 

Many scientific theories and laws are not held tentatively such as the theory of evolution and Kepler's laws of planetary motion.


----------

