Chuck, Jean, Nancy, and everyone else who has made the mistake of jumping into this thread - I'm not sure what this "pure science" is. I suppose that behavioral science could tell me what conditions lead to alienation, or aggression, or depression. Environmental science might give me some insights into causes of cancer or Parkinson's disease. In a scientifically "pure" world that would be the end of it. But scientists generally to have values. These values frequently determine what they study, and what they do with the information that they obtain. So, I can't look at the products of behavioral science and then go home and conduct my family life in accordance with fundamentalist doctrine. I alsowould be less than honest if, by omission, I led my students to believe that there is no conflict between science and faith. As for the similarily of questioning that takes place in scientific and religious communities, scientists are rarely shunned for their questioning. If we tell someone with whom we disagree to, "Go to hell," we usually don't mean it literally. And although a cognitivist and a behaviorist might make unkind remarks to each other, deep down they recognize each other's contributions to knowledge. And, it rarely gets bloody. - Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Pure > science, in my opinion avoids making statements about whether it is morally > "right" or "wrong" to be homosexual or the morality of justifing the > oppression of women on the basis of any creed or apparent scientific finding. > That's an issue for an ethics/theology class. When we discuss these values > issues in a psychology class, we are not really doing science anymore. ********************************************************************** * Mike Scoles * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Department of Psychology * voice: (501) 450-5418 * * University of Central Arkansas * fax: (501) 450-5424 * * Conway, AR 72035-0001 * * ************ http://www.coe.uca.edu/psych/mscoles.htm ****************
