Hi
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Louis_Schmier wrote:
> Jim, am I reading you correctly? Are you saying that the
> asking of questions or a discussion such as the one we are
> having about science, in this cas vis avis religion, is a
> tearing down of science? I hope not.
I am saying that some of the questions being raised about science
are old questions that have been asked and answered numerous
times before. Some general questions raised about science are as
unfounded as specific questions that creation scientists continue
to raise about evolutionary theory. They are at best wrong and
at worst deliberate attempts to obfuscate and confuse naive
readers.
> That sounds like the 13th century Pope who wanted to
> excommunicate Thomas Acquineas because he devised 10,000
> questions which objected to Christianity. Later cannonized,
> Acquineas, having answered all the questions, argued that to
> have a belief without any cause, without any reasoned
> reflection was to have no true belief at all and to be exposed
> to attacks. Acquineas argued that self-examination strengthen
> the foundation of one's belief and offered ammunition as it
> were in any discussion.
Here is the crux of the matter. Science has questioned itself
and been questioned through the ages and has shown itself
empirically to be a sound and valid way to arrive at answers to
questions we have about the external world. Yet some people
continue to maintain that we have belief in science "without any
cause, without any reasoned reflection." To make such assertions
is a gross misrepresentation of the history of science and its
contemporary practice. Isn't it ironic that some of the groups
calling for critical evaluation of science (e.g., postmodernists)
are themselves new and have not passed through the crucible of
critical evaluation that science has?
> It would seem the same is true about the role of science in
> society. To say merely "trust me and believe me," I think is
> insufficient and a weakened position.
Nobody is saying "trust me and believe me," at least not on the
science side of this debate. Any scientific assertion is
amenable to independent testing, although it might require
considerable study to get oneself to the point of being able to
do that. Its publicness is one of the mainstays of science. And
the same thing holds true for the value of the scientific method.
I do not see how anyone could be exposed to scientific knowledge
and not appreciate how strong are scientific methods for
advancing our understanding of the world. Nor were we talking
particularly about the overall role of science in society; we
were (or at least I was) talking about the role of science in
arriving at valid views of the world. Much of society could care
less about that. The overall role of science in society depends
on far more than science. Despite an accurate germ theory of
many diseases and efficacious treatments, millions of people
still die worldwide. That is _not_ a failure of science. It
is a failure of our political, economic, and other institutions.
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
============================================================================
