Ch. 1 - Science: "Truth Without Certainty" - Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction - by Eugenie Scott - Archived Book Discussions - www.BookTalk.org - Message Board

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Ch. 1 - Science: "Truth Without Certainty"

Author	Comment
Dissident Heart	Re: Dogma, dogma everywhere	#21	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1868 10/20/06 16:24:05 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Mr. P: All I have ever said is that science strives for knowledge. Science doesn't strive for anything: scientists do. Mr. P: I think you are attributing more to it than I am by implying there is a motive. Anytime you introduce humans to an equation, you are introducing motives. And, there are motives behind introducing and leaving humans out of equations too. Mr. P: Science itself is a system of gaining knowledge, humans will manipulate it from there. There is no "science itself"...only humans acting scientifically, applying scientific tools, methods and rules to the agendas that dominate their attention, or the allegiences that dictate their roles and evaluate their performances.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
misterpessimistic	Re: Dogma, dogma everywhere	#22	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 10/20/06 17:37:11 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Now you are nit-picking. I mean science as a system is a systematic attempt to gain an understanding of the way things actually work and how other things function. Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!! The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P. The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets" I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Dogma, dogma everywhere	#23	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 10/21/06 15:48:13 Indisputable BookTalk Master	misterpessimistic: The periodic table is structured by observed properties of the elements. What "function do we ascribe to those elements", regarding how the table was structured? But what criteria made us decide to arrange elements into a table according to their atomic weight? You see what I mean? Once you start asking questions like that, it's easier to see science as a creative endeavor. It functions in large part by manufacturing a framework that we can use to organize our observations about the world in practical ways. We've constructed a "table" for the elements not because it was obvious that the atomic number was a more essential knowledge of the elements, but because it was handy. It allowed us to treat elements in certain ways, and those way of handling the elements allow us to do certain things with them. And I, for one, don't think that saying so robs science of either its potency or its dignity. Jacob Bronowski, just to give one example, does an excellent job of communicating the majesty of science as creative act, rather than one of sheer discovery. All I have ever said is that science strives for knowledge. I don't think it does, and I think attempts -- like those made by Popper, Ayer, etc. -- to build a stronger relationship between science and truth have demonstrated that it requires more effort to defend that claim than it does to simply accept the alternative view that science is a creative, cultural institution with certain practical strengths and limitations. What science strives for are different ways of dealing with the natural world.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Dissident Heart	Re: Dogma, dogma everywhere	#24	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1868 10/24/06 18:23:05 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Something I didn't see in this chapter (which has been an extremely accessable education in the fundamentals of science) is an examination of the psychology of the scientist; more to the point: a discussion regarding the motives, agendas and goals that mobilize a scientist to engage her practice and expand her field. Tied to this involves the role of political ideology, economic class, and gender relations in shaping not only the motives of the scientist, but determining the avenues made available to the scientist through grants, institutional support, etc. I know this muddies the water and makes it difficult for us to enjoy the pristine splendor of the scientific endeavor: but I think we do ourselves a disfavor if we think we can understand this tremendous ability and knowledge if we simply divorce it from the human, all too human. I hope it was this chapter, but I was very impressed with the distinctions between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. An atheist will always be both a philosophical and methodological naturalist, but a methodological naturalist will not always be an atheist or philosophical naturalist. Anybody care to pursue this line further?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Saint Gasoline	Re: Dogma, dogma everywhere	#25	[url]	[-]
Posts: 220 10/30/06 21:34:59 Ph.D.	*Quote:* Something I didn't see in this chapter (which has been an extremely accessable education in the fundamentals of science) is an examination of the psychology of the scientist; more to the point: a discussion regarding the motives, agendas and goals that mobilize a scientist to engage her practice and expand her field. I don't think this information is really relevant to the purpose of the book. It would be a lot like having a cookbook expound on the psychology of cooks along with descriptions of their agendas, goals, and motives. *Quote:* I hope it was this chapter, but I was very impressed with the distinctions between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. An atheist will always be both a philosophical and methodological naturalist, but a methodological naturalist will not always be an atheist or philosophical naturalist. I don't think it is true to say that an atheist will always be both a philosophical and methodological naturalist. For instance, one can be Buddhist (this entails the denial of philospohical naturalism) and atheistic. The problem I have with this distinction is that I don't think there is any adequate definition of "natural" or "supernatural". Let us suppose that God suddenly appeared on the horizon and everyone could see him. Astronomers could look at him and physicists could judge his speed and trajectory. What would this mean? Would this mean that God is "natural"? Or would it mean that God is supernatural and we have the ability to know the supernatural? It seems to me that what marks something as supernatural is its knowability. (Indeed, this is what makes methodological naturalism so plausible. It doesn't take a stretch to say "All we can know is the natural" because if we COULD know something supernatural, we wouldn't think of it as supernatural anymore.) But if this is the case, then it seems to me that the distinction is rather trivial. Philosophical naturalism would seem to be the best view given this stance. Could something be "unknowable" and exist? I can certainly conceive of something being "unknown" and existing--a rock that I have never seen before would exist even if I never knew about it--but I cannot conceive of something existing and being fundamentally unknowable. For me, "existence" seems to entail knowability. How could we speak of something as existing or being real if we wouldn't even know what we were speaking of--if, indeed, it were conceptually no different from nothingness or a pure void? I tend to think that saying something exists in a supernatural realm is sort of a logical error, like saying something is round and has four sides. This all boils down to what we mean by 'existence' as well as 'natural' and 'supernatural'--but how could you even say meaningfully that "The supernatural exists" if you didn't even know what the supernatural was or how it could exist?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Dissident Heart	Re: Dogma, dogma everywhere	#26	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1868 10/31/06 15:08:25 Indisputable BookTalk Master	St. G: I don't think this information is really relevant to the purpose of the book. It would be a lot like having a cookbook expound on the psychology of cooks along with descriptions of their agendas, goals, and motives. IF the Cookbook was titled, "Flame Broiled VS. Deep Fried" I think we should be interested in the motivations that dirve either culinary paradigm. Evolution Vs. Creationism is about many things, of which includes the agendas, goals and motives of those involved.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Dogma, dogma everywhere	#27	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 10/31/06 16:03:26 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Dissident: Something I didn't see in this chapter (which has been an extremely accessable education in the fundamentals of science) is an examination of the psychology of the scientist; more to the point: a discussion regarding the motives, agendas and goals that mobilize a scientist to engage her practice and expand her field. Gasoline: I don't think this information is really relevant to the purpose of the book. I think it's relevant -- at least as relevant as reference to the psychology of anti-evolutionists -- but the operative limitation was probably space. I doubt that Scott would have been able to do justice to her sources on the psychology of scientific work, so it's probably just as well that she omit that topic and leave it to more expansive works to cover it. This is, after all, a primer. Dissident: An atheist will always be both a philosophical and methodological naturalist, but a methodological naturalist will not always be an atheist or philosophical naturalist. Gasoline: I don't think it is true to say that an atheist will always be both a philosophical and methodological naturalist. For instance, one can be Buddhist (this entails the denial of philospohical naturalism) and atheistic. Another example, this one from pop culture biography, might be Salieri is "Amadeus". Definitely atheist (in the strong sense of the word) but by no means a philosophical naturalist. It seems to me that what marks something as supernatural is its knowability. (Indeed, this is what makes methodological naturalism so plausible. It doesn't take a stretch to say "All we can know is the natural" because if we COULD know something supernatural, we wouldn't think of it as supernatural anymore.) But if this is the case, then it seems to me that the distinction is rather trivial. Philosophical naturalism would seem to be the best view given this stance. Historically, that wasn't the case. Most of the ancients conceded the knowability of the supernatural. What distinguished the supernatural from the natural -- where such distinctions were acknowledged -- was essentially the simple relation of knowing to the sense impressions created by a thing. Thus, supernatural beings could manifest themselves to the senses, while natural things were always manifest. I tend to think that saying something exists in a supernatural realm is sort of a logical error, like saying something is round and has four sides. And it still looks to me like your arguments are derived -- indirectly, perhaps -- from the arguments of the logical positivists. But the logical positivists stacked the decks against metaphysics by asserting that their definitions of existence and nature and so forth were the only reasonable ones.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Saint Gasoline	Re: Dogma, dogma everywhere	#28	[url]	[-]
Posts: 220 11/01/06 01:52:16 Ph.D.	*Quote:* And it still looks to me like your arguments are derived -- indirectly, perhaps -- from the arguments of the logical positivists. But the logical positivists stacked the decks against metaphysics by asserting that their definitions of existence and nature and so forth were the only reasonable ones. I do have a sort of positivist outlook on this subject, but I don't think it is true that I am "stacking the deck" against metaphysics by assuming my definitions are correct and others are flawed. Indeed, I think that the opposition has stacked the deck against themselves by using definitions of existence and nature that don't really make sense, or that are conceptually vacant. If we were all trapped in a metaphysical box and could not escape it, it would be rather silly to speak of existence outside of this box. We can only know what is inside the box, and thus our concepts of truth, existence, and so on--if we wish to actually know these things--should be based upon life in the box. Whether there is something beyond the box is a meaningless and pragmatically useless question for us to entertain. Ultimately, I differ from traditional positivists because my justification for this view is more pragmatic than logical.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Chris OConnor	Re: Dogma, dogma everywhere	#29	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 9511 12/12/06 14:35:44 BookTalk Owner	Reminder: Live chat with Eugenie Scott Thursday at 9:00 pm eastern, 6 pm pacific. Please attend if you can!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

About BookTalk.org

BookTalk.org NEWS

Ch. 1 - Science: "Truth Without Certainty"

Quick Reply