Amos

In general the text is unscientific.

· Most obviously and as all of you realize, the intervention of a divine being insures that we perceive the text as unscientific.

· The text assumes that nature / natural events are responds to human behavior, and that god intervenes deliberately in nature to reward and punish. Science, you are suggesting, assumes impersonal forces are at work.

· Careful about testing hypotheses. Is it not readily apparent that when people misbehave, God punishs. The OT confirms (so we may believe) that this is indeed the case. So there is lots of evidence that ‘confirms’ the hypothesis of divine intervention.

Unscientific-

-The excerpt from the book of Amos is not scientific. Instead, it religious. Humans are responsible for the cause, and the effect is God's reaction to them. It uses God's reaction to human behavior as a rational for natural disasters that occured in order for the people to return to him. It's written in the point of view of a God as a message to the people telling them that he will cause these events to happen because of what they did. He explains what he gave to them and what he will take away such as food, water, their young men and horses.

-In Amos, Science is not as present as most of the text seems to just say the natural phenomenon is a result of human behavior. "Therefore thus I will do to you" implies a divine act upon nature based upon human actions.

-The assumptions that are made in these passages are that there is some kind of higher power but that we as a people can change the outcome of what occurs. For example in the Amos passage, the people could have "returned to the Lord" and all the phenomenon would have stopped. Also in the Hippocratic School passage, there assumption is that by reading their urine, it can influence the actions that they take so that they can try to control their "disease". The first one is very religous with many references to the Lord. The second, trys to describe that the diseases is connected to the color urine but doesn't give any evidence. Neither passages test hypotheses or create models to explain the events in a scientific fashion. However, in the Amos passage, the human behavior is the cause and the effect is the lords actions towards the humans not returning to him. The Hippocratic School observes the effect but has no real explanation for the cause.

1. The main assumption is that an almighty God controls everything and that the people believe this and that their actions brought about the wrath of God.

2. This is a religious story, but is based on observation, yet attributing it to an divine cause. It is unscientific in methodology and based on belief.

3. Observation occurs but is not investigated and hypothesis are formed but not tested, models include the hierarchical model with divine control. Theories operating include the supreme will and power of the divine forces.

Because these bad events happened after the people offended god then they must be the result of his disdain.

-In stark contrast to the Hippocratic document, the Amos passage unmovably connects the malevolence or benevolence of God to natural occurences observed by humans. Such instances like of famine, untimely death, and drought, God is clearly shown as the sole perpetrator; "I smote you with blight and mildew; I laid waste your gardens and vineyards;" [9]. The narrator refuses to look beyond the single explanation of God as the sole reasoning behind all these occurences. Thus, the Hippocratic document was deemed as more "scientific" of these readings.

-The first text describes divine nature and it's affect on the earth, thoroughly discussing the cause and effect. The cause is human behavior, while the effect is punishing the earth and its inhabitants. In this passage the god is punishing the terrestial level due to human behavior, '"I gave you...lack of bread in all your places, [famine] yet you did not return to me," says the LORD.' Here humans believe that the unexpected natural phenomena are explained due to divine interventoin and human behavior, therefore this text is not scientific.

-In the first passage, the assumption is that humans have the power to influence the Lord, but the Lord makes the ultimate decisions using nature: weather, disease, etc. The Lord himself in this story uses hypotheses, even though they did fail. He hypothesisized that if He brought natural disasters upon His people, they would return to Him. The Lord revealed His will, that the people return to Him, and it was up to the people to read His signs. This passage is religious because the cause is human behavior, while the effect is in the Lord's control.

-After reading the selections from Amos and Hippocratic School, we've come to the conclusion that the passage from Amos is not scientific because what occurs in the passage is a result of human action and brought about by God. Science teaches us to believe that there must be expirementation and evidence to support explinations of natural events. Because none of the information can be recreated or expiremented with can not be scientific.

-Amos discusses a series of natural phenoma attributed to a divine source acting in response to human behavior. Additionally, natural phenomena are not considered to be product of divine judgment/influence. Therefore, people are accepting these occurences as part of the natural order and are not questioning why they are happening.

-Nature is an act of God, a punisment to man for not following God's Will. Nature is explainable, ordered and ultimately controllable in its outcome. If Israel had simply listened to God, all disaster would have been prevented. "Yet you did not return to me.....Therefore thus I will to do you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel!"

The passage from Amos is not scientific in practically any way. It is some form of an hypothesis, but since it is adamantly absolute in what the "cause" is of the effect, it really isn't classifiable as scientific.

Hippocratic This document received a mixed response about its scientific character.

· Agreed: there is no theological explanation, but does that make it science?

· Other criteria: accurate observation…most of you accept that there was. But does that make it ipso facto science?

· Is the document culturally neutral observation? Here there is some uncertainty. But is this truly possible? Consider whether cultural biased observations ipso facto produce ‘unscientific’ results.

· The problem of cause, effect and experiment. There is no explicit experimentation here, but there is an implicit sense that accurate observation as some potential value. Consider whether the lack of an explanation automatically means that the document is not scientific?

Unscientific-

The Hippocratic School document has elements of science. The writer has observed different colors of urine in individuals and noticed alongside them diseases related to those colors. It is not, however, a scientific writing, it is merely an observation and a hypothesis. The darker colors of urine are termed as being "worse" than others and no explanation is given for why, but merely that they are bad. To explain differences in illness between adults and children the writer says :in adult men and women the black is of all kinds of urine the worst, but in children, the watery," and no scientific explanation is given.

-Hippocratic

1.Assumption of connection between appearance(color, quality, properties) and the person's health. Assumptions that Hippocrates' description is accurate to phenomenon that occured likely due to an assumption of his knowledge on the topic.

Clear logical fallacy-inferring cause from effect. Looking at the symptoms to describe, understand state of the cause.

Observation is complete source of the understanding of this phenomenon.

No religious explanation.

Not scientific in the fact that it is merely describing a phenomenon rather than investigating it or examining cause and effect relationship.

-In the Hippocratic passage what is stated seems to be expirimental evidence due to its conculsions, however there isnt anything telling us that what is stated is true. From the passage we are almost made to believe that they are making up the information. Also, there is not concrete experimental evidence. Therefore, due to lack of scientific process, and experimental record, both the Amos and Hippocratic School passages do not seem to be scientific.

Scientific-

-The excerpt from the Hippocratic school uses experiments and detailed observations to explain the relationship between urine types and disease. Therefore, this is considered scientific. It uses more than one isolated event to determine the cause and end result of the disease. The effect (disease) is natural, and now the cause (urine types) can be controlled.

-The Hippocratic document is more "scientific" in nature because the narrator is documenting various physical characteristics of urine samples and trying to conclusively give reasons for certain urine qualities. More specifically, how certain physical qualities of urine are symptomatic of disease. For example, specific smells, coloration, and consistency of urine are given classifications to the severity of disease in a bearer. The Hippocratic document strives to give qualitative reasonings for a natural process like the connection between sickness and the urine sample of the bearer.

-This text can be cosidered scientific because it describes the effects of urine, however it does not provide adequate explanation of the causes.It observes urine in different stages and different diseases, however it does not provide the primary foundation as to why these stages of diseases occur.

-Unlike Amos, in the Hippocratic School passage, the effect is clear, but the cause is unknown. The ball of science is similar to the black urine in the sense that, if I drop the ball of science, it hits the table because of gravity, but we dont' know what gravity is. With the black urine, we know that it means there's a sickness present, but we don't know how you ended up with black urine.

-The document from the hippocratic school seems more rooted in scientific principles because of the stress it puts on observation and deduction and cause and effect. The document discusses the symptoms or effects as part of a natural disease rather than the product of a divine will reacting to human behavior. It identifies the symptoms and attempts to explain them.

-This one is somewhat more scientific in its assertion that types of Urine are determined by diseases and not devine intervention. The main difference here is that the effect is the main focus and due to the effect the search for the cause is conducted. It does not asssume that God absolutely turned your Urine rainbow colored as a sign of Noah's covenent, or that your Urine is black because you have neglected to follow God's will.

Omens

There are problems here.

· There is accurate observation. And though there is some sense of divine activity in some documents it does not occur in all.

· Is a document scientific because it provides an explanation? Bear in mind that there is a lot we do not know about the way quantum mechanics works, but does that mean the theory is not scientific? Can a document be scientific without an explanation?

· The core of the problem may be in the logical error, post hoc ergo propter hoc. But many scientists make such errors. Might it not then just be ‘bad’ science?

· I suggest that omens are not scientific because the underlying assumption is that the future is revealed to humans, whereas science is predicated on what humans can learn for themselves. The difference is subtle but may be significant.

Unscientific-

1. We do not consider the Omens text to be scientific. These texts of religious and/or mystical origin attempt to explain actions and results of happenings in nature through "scientific" observation, but there is no real rational way of testing these theories. In these texts, people are trying to relate a natural occurance as a cause that directly effects the outcome of unconnected human actions. The Omens relate a cause and effect that are not logically related and cannot be directly and consistently scientifically proven. When a "great star" shines, it cannot always be connected directly to a king or ruler accomplishing exactly what he or she desired.

-The Omen texts are not scientific--they involve cause and effect with the human behavior being the cause and the effect being the natural disaster. It does not ask or wonder why the natural disasters happen, such as the earthquaking results in revolt or devastation, but they do not wonder why it causes such effects. With Thunder, it assumes that crops will prosper, just because there is thunder at a certain time of day, but does not explain why the crops will prosper, other than the cause will result in the effect. They do not try to explain the cause, as much as they do to give reason for the effect which makes it a less scientific approach.

-Omens--We feel this is the more "religious" of the two: in some circumstances, the gods directly act upon nature as a result of human behavior. Also, in terms of cause and effect, the cause is known with certainty, or else is inevitable based on the effects that have already been observed. For example, when a doctor observes a black pig (the cause), it is inevitable that his patient will die. This is accepted without question. They compare two events that may not logically be connected to each other, like the moon's disappearance on a certain day and the coming of the crops.

-The omens are not scientific because they offer only an explaination of what happens as a result of certain events. For example the color of a pig which crosses the docters path effects the outcome of the docters treatment of the patient. This omen attempts to explain events (such as life and death) which are out of human control. They do not offer an explaination of why these events occur or have this effect. There is is no explaination of the coralation between two occurences.

-The omens are all a bunch of bull $#!^. It would seem apparent that all the omens are, are people making things up to explain the unexplained. Obviously, what color of pig you see means little in the way of who lives and who dies, because there is no causal relationship between the color of a pig and the immune system of a man. People create these superstitions as a way of trying to find order and continuity in their environment. There is no experimentation, because if there were, it would be apparent that the link relationship doesn't exist.

-The assumption made in the Omens section, is that nature is controllable, and that human behavior can and does affect natural events. It assumes that people are punished for their actions, and that negative events are explainable by peoples actions.

We believe the first passage is unscientific. None of the omens can be definitely proved as having a cause and effect relationship. Also, the natural world is personified, such as "the land will revolt" and "the crops will prosper" as if they have a mind of their own. No alternatives are offered to be tested against the hypothesis, or omens. These are all complete explanations, therefore religious.

-The Omens text is less scientific because it assumes a definite connection between things that, from a modern perspective, aren't ostensibly related. There is also no explanation of the alternative; if it weren't to rain on the day of the Moon's disappearance, for example, what would be the outcome? Everything is stated absolutely, and there are no questions or inquiries about the explanations of these unexpected connections and what causes the rain, etc. There is clearly a superstitious assumption that gods, kings, and priests can control the outcomes observed in the natural world.

Herodotus

Scientific…this text, along with that of Amos, was probably the easiest to interpret and the explanations given here do work.

· H rejects the religious; no sense of revelation.

· H understands that explanations need to be tested against other observations in a systematic way;

· H assumes that nature acts in an impersonal, yet consistent way, that there are laws or principles that humans can identify.

· H feels it is not enough to criticize others, one must also try to explain the phenomenon.

Science-

-Herodotus provides a scientific approach in explaining why the Nile River will rise and fall. He measures the depth of the river in the different seasons and compares his data to other streams and rivers he has visited and collected data from. He does not jump to any conclusions and actually admits that he does not understand what causes this phenomenon. Herodotus is following a scientific method and continually observing, testing, and applying his theories in order to hopefully discover the truth. He may not discover the actual reason to why the water levels rise and fall, but he goes through a process of scientific thinking to gain as much knowledge about the river as possible in order to make an educated conclusion.

-The Herodotus text involves Herodotus questioning why the Nile river rises during certain times of the year and not others, and the priests inability to give information. Herodotus is here asking questions, trying to find reason in the effects and asking why. He takes into account other streams that do not do the same thing, instead of just looking at the river and the surrounding bodies. He attempts to use patterns of nature that have worked before for similar rivers and places. These steps are scientific because he does not have a definite answer, and he attempts to use multiple sources to try to come to a consensus for his research instead of just taking the easy answer. Herodotus assumes that the priests and Greeks are not giving him the right answers. He tries to use the scientific cause and effect, taking the effect of the rise during the summer and trying to find the cause of such thing.

-Herodotus--This is the more scientific of the two pieces. Most obviously, he rejects religious explanation from the religious authorities. Unlike the first piece, the author is uncertain about the cause of the Nile's flow. He tests various explanations without knowing whether or not they are correct--he makes observations without assuming they are sufficient explanation for what is happening. At the end of the piece, he believes the sun to be the cause for the Nile's flow, but admits that there could be other possibilities.

-The example for Herodotus is scientific. After presenting an anomoly Herodatus attempts to find a logical explaination for the odd flood patterns of the river. He observes an effect but has yet to determine a cause. It is this cause that he tries to find through disscusion with other and his own reason.

-Herodotus' views are much more scientific in that he not only spends ample time observing, but he also tests the previously offered hypotheses and discusses why none of them are plausible explanations. He uses his observations of nature as a way of disproving the idiotic hypotheses of his predecessors. So in a sense, he uses his observations to test the validity of their views. He then goes on to offer his own hypothesis, based on his observations. He uses the knowledge of nature he has gained from his observations to create a logical hypothesis that makes more sense then those of his predecessors. He explains the entire process, step-by-step, of how his hypothesis works, making his hypothesis more credible and scientfic. Herodotus' hypothesis is scientific because he does employ experimentation and observation. Though he was wrong, he backed up his hypothesis with solid observations.

-The second passage, Herodotus, attributes natural phenomena to other natural causes or forces. It does not rest responsibility of nature on human behavior or actions. This makes it uncontrollable.

We believe that the second passage is scientific because he actually goes out and observes nature, not simply relying on a supposed authority. While he does not accept many of the explanations he is given, by presenting them he is not completely rejecting them. None of the explanations presented are complete, this room for doubt and acceptance of the unknown shows that it is scientific rather than an all knowing religious exlpanation.

-In our opinion, Herodotus is the more scientific text, whereas the Omens text is more concerned with the king's will, superstition, and the gods. Each document assumes some sort of order and explanation for the natural world. The Herodotus text has a systematic approach to determining the nature of the Nile River. First, observations are made about the behavior of the river. Then, priests and lay people are asked about their theories and observations. The major theories are then compared in a critical manner and a new one is suggested. However, experiments are missing from the process and theories are based on observations and assumptions.

Nicols Wins

if Nicols says its science then so be it