Hi
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Louis_Schmier wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Jim Clark wrote:
> >....My own view is that the rise in
> > "new age" religions is just one more manifestation of the rise
> > in an anti-scientific worldview.
>
> Not exactly an empirically--albeit scientific--based statement. Jim,
> you can't have it both ways: demand others to be empirical and then
> come out with an obviously biased statement that fits your position. Be
> that as it may, why to you think they are anti-scientific.
1. Why do you assume it is not empirically based? I have read
widely in the area of parapsychology and related beliefs and
would not be at all surprised to be able to document an increase
in such beliefs.
2. Science always ends up with empirical evidence as the
ultimate criterion. It does not always start out that way. It
often starts with informal observations (e.g., the appearance of
magazines devoted to things new age) that get translated into
more formal investigations. Again there are numerous signs that
our society is becoming more fascinated with the non-worldly.
These do not yet meet the criteria of scientific evidence, but
neither should they be ignored completely until firm evidence is
available. Science does not advocate doing nothing in the
absence of a firm scientific position on some issue.
3. Why is it obviously biased? Which words indicate bias and
make it obvious?
4. I have absolutely no problem with the same criteria being
applied to science as to other ways of knowing, and have never
indicated anything to the contrary. I believe I have said so
explicitly on this list. I have even done empirical work on
scientific language (psychology as it turns out) and published
it. So I see no reason to be called to account for being
hypocritical and view it in this case as just another rhetorical
device that perverts rather than furthers discussion.
5. They are anti-scientific because: (a) they promote a
worldview in which supernatural forces (e..g., invisible energies)
are suppose to operate, and (b) they do so without any serious
supporting empirical evidence and despite much negative evidence.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9313
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L02A
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
