Mike Scoles wrote:
> Louis_Schmier wrote:
>
> > The truth is that on that definition of zygote hinges--and
> > I told you these are dangerous waters that I don't really want to
> > stir, the crux of the abortion question which by your own statement
science
> > cannot answer.
> > And that is my point. Science does not have the answers to all the
> > questions, and there are questions asked that are outside
> > the realm of science.
>
> It's a little messier than this. In fact, science does not
> have "answers" to any of the questions. Science provides tools for
evaluating
> data and for thinking systematically about the consequences of decisions
> based on those data. But, our moral decisions might be better if we paid
> attention to science.
Maybe it's even a level messier than _that_. In the abortion issue, the
claim that science holds the answer (i.e., that science "proves" that a
zygote is a human being) is made by the NON-scientists, rather than the
scientists. That same essentialism I mentioned with respect to evolution
rears its ugly head again. Scientists insist (correctly) that they don't
have the answer to this one ("Is a zygote a human being?"), while some of
the non-scientists insist, "Oh, yes you do!".
That wonderful chapter on science and essentialism in Stanovich ("How to
think like a Psychologist") should be required reading for those in this
debate as well.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
