I said:
> I never said that "Science" was exclusive in any way (or that > "Scientists" were superior in any way ...). _Of course_ it's > the way many people think. I > think that's a good way to think. What I was saying was that we need > more of it.
ravi:
Then perhaps we can just call it open-mindedness, rational thinking, or what-have-you.
I don't think it's worth quibbling about the meanings of words.
I didn't suggest that you said Science is exclusive. I am sort of responding a bit generally here, not just to you. What I mean by exclusivity is the claim often heard by some scientists and many science groupies that such a way of thinking is not only unique to Science but is the defining characteristic of it. There are a lot of consequences, with regard to power and relationships, that follow. All IMHO, of course.
I find it useful to distinguish between "science" (which I value) and "scientism" (which is silly). It's the latter you're criticizing. me:
> I don't know if professional biologists believe that Darwin's theory > is absolutely true, since I don't know enough biologists. (I would > guess that most say it's the _best_ theory there is currently; I > agree.) > > I do know that professional physicists _know_ that Newtonian physics > is only a special case rather than being absolutely true. I'm pretty > sure that professional physicists think of the more general > Einsteinian physics as the best theory that currently exists.
ravi:
I need to explain myself better here. What I mean is that physicists, or biologists, when they are operating within the spaces where those theories (Newtonian physics, evolutionary biology, etc) are applicable, believe in the objectivity/universality of the laws they describe. A related way of expressing my point is to say this: that biologists believe not that Darwinian theory provides a good way to describe and predict biological data and events, but that it actually says how things exactly happened.
probably biologists believe that Darwinian theory "actually says how things happened." But if there were evidence against that theory (which there isn't as far as I know) or if there were logical holes in that theory (which there aren't as far as I know), then the honest ones would say "we may need to develop a new theory or to amend the existing one." me:
> By the way, my view that scientific skepticism and respect for the > paradigm should form a tension-filled whole (a unity of opposites, > perhaps) was somehow forgotten or ignored.
ravi:
Not ignored or forgotten. You are interpreting (perhaps because of my choice of words?) that I am arguing against your viewpoint. Rather, I am questioning your use of terms: I am not happy about science/scientific-thinking being bi-directionally equated to certain ways of thinking that are important (open-mindedness, contingency of belief, etc). Hence you won't find me arguing against the bulk of your thinking, since I tend to agree with it mostly.
okay. But again, I don't find it worthwhile to argue over the "true" meaning of terms.
> I was NOT making a distinction between scientists and "lay people" or > arguing that the former are superior to the latter. Rather, I was > arguing for more of the "scientific thinking" that scientists profess > (but may not practice).
But here's my problem restated: its not clear to me what "scientific thinking". So far, the descriptions I have heard list activities that are practised elsewhere, in almost all cases long before science appeared on the horizon.
scientific thinking is probably as old as humanity (if not older). It's only the scientific institutions that are recent. at this point, I don't think there's any point in continuing, since this was all a matter of miscommunication, not a real matter of disagreement. See you all next week. -- Jim Devine / "Force cannot, like opinion, endure for long unless the tyrant extends his empire far enough afield to hide from the people, whom he divides and rules, the secret that real power lies not with the oppressors but with the oppressed." -- the Marquis de Condorcet.
