The Union of Concerned Scientists is based in Cambridge MA (USA). The group has released a short Statement on Science, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. The statement is supported by a pamphlet on Science, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.
Most of you have heard about other ways of knowing beside science. UCS has provided a list of those other ways of knowing for our edification. Here it is ...
Ways of knowing used in society include the following:You're probably wondering whether the Union of Concerned Scientists have a position on the possible conflict between science and religion.
- Authority: Parents, teachers, community leaders, and physicians are all figures of authority. The level of trust we have in them depends on our personal experiences and access to knowledge about them.
- Belief: God or gods, or other external or internal supernatural powers can impart or support beliefs. There are numerous deities and levels and types of belief within any society.
- Logic: Logic includes tests and rules that help to identify what is true and false. It is an important element of scientific inquiry but is limited by its lack of reference to the natural world.
- Scientific Inquiry: Science provides knowledge based on empirical evidence from the natural world. Science is the only way of knowing that provides explanations that are testable and verifiable. Ideas in science accumulate over time and are subject to revision and change.
They do.
For many scientists there is no conflict between science and religion (2)—science explores how things work while religion and philosophy ask why. They can coexist as separate areas of inquiry and even lead to enlightening discussions. Indeed, some mainstream religions (3)—such as the Roman Catholic Church—support the theory of evolution as an explanation of how humans and other organisms arose on Earth. Recent attempts to incorporate religion-based alternatives to evolution in the science classroom have elicited strong reactions by many of these groups.This is a bit confusing. Apparently, some religious beliefs conflict with science and threaten the integrity of science but other religious beliefs do not conflict. I guess it depends on which scientists you talk to.
Our policy makers rely on independent scientific information to make informed decisions that protect our health, safety, and the environment. Unfortunately, a growing level of political and ideological interference threatens the integrity of science (4) in public decision making, with wide-ranging repercussions for our social, economic, and environmental future.
In footnote (2) they refer to a poll ...
A poll of 460 college and university science professors in Ohio found that 84% thought there was no conflict between accepting the theory of evolution and a belief in God. Science is based on what is termed “methodological naturalism,” a rule of science that limits an explanation of natural phenomenon to natural causes. It has no opinion on the role of spirituality, only that it is not part of science. A related but philosophical view called “materialist or philosophical naturalist,” goes beyond methodological naturalism to say that only natural causes exist (i.e. there is no God). This is an important distinction as accusations that scientists and especially evolutionists are by definition materialist naturalists, and therefore atheists, is common in the intelligent design literature and should be countered.This isn't very helpful. It's just another version of The Doctrine of Joint Belief. Just because 84% of professors in Ohio don't see a conflict doesn't mean there is no conflict.
The difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism is interesting but not relevant. Besides, their definition is ridiculous. When they say, "'methodological naturalism' [is] a rule of science that limits an explanation of natural phenomenon to natural causes" that leaves the door wide open. All you have to do is declare that something has a supernatural cause and it is automatically outside of science and, therefore, compatible with science. Intelligent Design Creationism not in conflict with science because all the intelligent designing is out of bounds to scientific investigation.
What we really want to know is how many of those 386 science professors believe in things that conflict with scientific explanations of the natural world as most of us understand them.
Do some of them believe in a Jesus who was born of a virgin, walked on water, brought dead people back to life, rose from the dead after being executed by the Romans, and ascended into something called heaven? If so, do they believe that none of those things conflict with science? If those things don't conflict with science then what about the miracle of God creating the universe in six days and making it look old to deceive us? Is that also compatible with science?
Inquiring minds want to know ...
39 comments :
"While it is true that science cannot decide questions of value, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know."
-Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science (1935), Chapter IX
That quote by Bertrand Russell is itself an epistemological claim, not a scientific one. To say that "Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know" is self-refuting.
Peter Atkins tried this at Beyond Belief 2007 but Rebecca Goldstein replied in essentially the same way.
I'm quite familiar with that old chestnut of an argument. It's much weaker than its many fans suppose. Russell's point can be expressed as an induction from the history of human investigation into the universe- that is, as an empirical observation.
A more apropos way to try to refute it, therefore, is to give examples of things you believe qualify as genuine knowledge, but which are neither logical (or mathematical) truths, nor results of empirical investigation. Have at it. I don't think the attempts by the Union of Concerned Scientists (authority is a source of knowledge??) are very impressive, do you?
Intelligent Design Creationism not in conflict with science because all the intelligent designing is out of bounds to scientific investigation.
But if IDC said that the intelligent designer is out of bounds to scientific investigation because it is God, then it would be quite ordinary theology. Do you think science should be in the business of theology?
... give examples of things you believe qualify as genuine knowledge, but which are neither logical (or mathematical) truths, nor results of empirical investigation.
I know that Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers in English, Mozart wote sublime music and JMW Turner painted some of the greatest works of art. If that is not "knowledge," please explain why ... empirically.
Those are opinions. I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference.
"I know that Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers in English, Mozart wote sublime music and JMW Turner painted some of the greatest works of art. If that is not "knowledge," please explain why ... empirically."
What on Earth allows you to call these emperical assertions in the first place?
authority is a source of knowledge??
I "know" that the universe is expanding (for example), but I haven't observed it, nor do I have any empirical evidence that it is. I "know" this based on the authority of people who DO study this kind of thing. (Of course, THEIR knowledge comes from scientific inquiry). Sure, you can say that I don't really know it without personally investigating but I don't think it's that type of absolute certainty that they mean when they say "ways of knowing used in society", but rather a more informal definition of knowledge.
Similarly, I "know" my parents love me, but this is 'knowledge' from belief. You could say that there is empirical evidence (they fed and clothed me through my childhood, for example) but that evidence lends just as much support to the idea that they behave in that way because of societal pressure and a selfish desire not to be seen as bad parents.
Again, the UCS statement is referring to a more informal definition of the word 'know'.
I take your point. Note, though, that those are not the kinds of authorities that feature prominently in UCS's list. They were speaking very informally indeed.
Your parental love example needs work, by the way. Those particular behaviors might be equally consistent with selfish explanations, but others (eg. various kinds of apparently spontaneous displays of affection) might weigh more heavily on the "love" side of the likelihood ratio.
Those are opinions.
That's a semantical assertion, not empiric evidence. If Russell is right, your claim that they are opinion must be attained by scientific methods. If you can't do that, your claim that they are opinions does not amount to "knowledge."
What on Earth allows you to call these emperical assertions in the first place?
I didn't call them empirical assertions. Steve asked for "examples of things you believe qualify as genuine knowledge, but which are neither logical (or mathematical) truths, nor results of empirical investigation."
but others (eg. various kinds of apparently spontaneous displays of affection) might weigh more heavily on the "love" side of the likelihood ratio
That's true. It was a crude example, I guess. I'll work on that.
Interesting; I just discussed this issue in my brand new blog at http://theopathology.blogspot.com so check it out! And flame away if you like; I'm wearing my asbestos underwear.
That's a semantical assertion, not empiric evidence.
So are your assertions of your aesthetic opinions (ones which also are bound to a particular cultural tradition, unlike the results of science). They were not derived from any process of observation and testing.
You present non-empirically-derived opinions- thus completely failing in your task of presenting examples of non-empirically-derived knowledge- and demand some kind of empirical evidence in response? You are a very seriously confused man. Which we already knew.
Here’s a little poser: Our knowledge of ontology is a function of epistemology. But we being part of the very ontology that our epistemology probes implies that epistemology is a function of ontology. Hence we get a recursion: known ontology is a function of epistemology; epistemology is a function of ontology and so on. I love it when things get circular.
Example: My knowledge of big bang ‘ontology’ is a function of the theorise/test/theorise/test epistemological cycle that (I assume) has been correctly carried out vicariously by scientists. But for that epistemology to work ontological assumptions about the nature of the world (such as the trustworthiness and competence of scientists) must be made, assumptions which in turn presumably have been formed (informally) within the cauldron of a kind of meta-theorise/test cycle. I love it when things get circular.
BTW Larry: the evolution vs. flood geology debate involve rather gross ontological objects, which accordingly leave a fairly strong signal in the Earth. (Hence we favour evolution on this blog). Unfortunately, things like ‘water into wine’, ‘virgin births’, if they happen, don’t leave a very strong signal on an impartial medium such as archeological traces – instead we are stuck with evaluating historical texts. Stick that in your test tube and precipitate it.
Sick Hume's "On Miracles" in yours, buddy.
"The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence."
Once again we have a particular religious/philosophical belief (naturalism/darwinism/atheism) being labeled as "science" on the starting point. This is called "poisoning the well".
Let me comment on a few things, God willing:
"The Union of Concerned Scientists"
LOL Concerned scientists?!!! Concerned about what, exacly? People's lack of faith in naturalism?
"Scientific Inquiry: Science provides knowledge based on empirical evidence from the natural world.
Not everything that is considered "science" today is based on empirical evidence. For example, there is a odd religion going about which says that living forms created themselves, and wrote their own genetic codes. The total lack of confirming evidence doesn't stop believers in that worldview to consider their religion as the "scientific" position.
Science is the only way of knowing that provides explanations that are testable and verifiable.
Self-refuting, and circular reasoning. This can be made obvious with the question:
How do we know that science is the only way of knowing that provides explinations that are testable?
" Ideas in science accumulate over time and are subject to revision and change."
Except evolution.
"You're probably wondering whether the Union of Concerned Scientists have a position on the possible conflict between science and religion."
The "imaginary" conflict, you mean.
For many scientists there is no conflict between science and religion (2)—science explores how things work while religion and philosophy ask why. They can coexist as separate areas of inquiry and even lead to enlightening discussions.
This is, of course, total beloney. This can be clearly seen by the fact that unfulfilled atheists don't shy away from making religious stipulations based on theoir (wrong) understanding of science.
"Indeed, some mainstream religions (3)—such as the Roman Catholic Church—support the theory of evolution as an explanation of how humans and other organisms arose on Earth."
Oh, so the "science" the "concerned" scientists are talking is..... evolution.
Secondly, the RC knows that the living world came into existence by Supernatural Design. Therefore, the RC is against the heart of the theory of evolution, which says that the living world came into existence solely due to the effects of natural, unguided, impersonal forces of nature.
Those two couldn't be more against one another.
"Our policy makers rely on independent scientific information to make informed decisions that protect our health, safety, and the environment"
TRANSLATION:
"If you don't believe that the living world created itself, you endanger your health, safety and enviroment."
"Unfortunately, a growing level of political and ideological interference threatens the integrity of science"
Of science or evolution? I don't see people going against scientific theories, like Newton's laws, or Einstein's theory of relativity.
" (4) in public decision making, with wide-ranging repercussions for our social, economic, and environmental future."
More scaremongering. It is getting rather boring to see darwinists threatening global disaster if we question darwinism.
"This is a bit confusing. Apparently, some religious beliefs conflict with science and threaten the integrity of science but other religious beliefs do not conflict. I guess it depends on which scientists you talk to."
..and it depends on which "science" we are talking about..
"Science is based on what is termed “methodological naturalism,” a rule of science that limits an explanation of natural phenomenon to natural causes."
This is not a scientific rule of science, but a philosophical one. The philosophy behind this "rule" is the a priori belief in the magical creative forces of nature.
"It has no opinion on the role of spirituality"
Nonsense. Every single major evolutionists has used his faith in evolution to draw religious conclusions. Starting from Darwin himself, passing through the Huxley clan, not forgetting Gould and Carl Sagan, every single evolutionist has "concluded" many things regarding God, Christianity and religion based on their view of "science". Therefore, the "concerned scientists" are totally wrong on that one.
" only that it is not part of science."
By saying that it is not part of science, they are showing that "science" DOES have a role on spirituality.
"This is an important distinction as accusations that scientists and especially evolutionists are by definition materialist naturalists, and therefore atheists, is common in the intelligent design literature and should be countered."
Actually, the overhwhelming majority of NAS' biologists are atheists. No wonder they try to shove their creation myth down ppl's throats.
"Intelligent Design Creationism not in conflict with science because all the intelligent designing is out of bounds to scientific investigation."
Only if you assume that which has to be proven, namely, that it's impossible for humans to detect the effects of intelligent activity.
"Do some of them believe in a Jesus who was born of a virgin, walked on water, brought dead people back to life, rose from the dead after being executed by the Romans, and ascended into something called heaven? If so, do they believe that none of those things conflict with science?"
If they believe that such things doesn't conflict with science, they are right, since those historical facts do not. However, theh conflict with naturalism, which is really your concern.
"If those things don't conflict with science then what about the miracle of God creating the universe in six days and making it look old to deceive us? Is that also compatible with science?"
There is nothing in testable, empirical, repeatable, verifiable science that conflicts with the fact that God created the universe in six days.
Oh boy, look who's back! I guess this thread has officially jumped the shark now.
Little snag there Steve: reality is open ended, hence it doesn’t provide a closed sets of possibilities for the conventional estimation of probabilities and reality is therefore quite capable of scuppering any intuitive sense of what is probable. Hume never could guess that medical science would reach a point where modern resuscitations would (to Hume) look a little like raising people from the dead. Clearly those frozen corpses at Alcor are hoping for an even bigger ‘miracle’! Vain hope perhaps, but it is a hope that is based on the open endedness of knowledge. It’s been pointed out before that Hume’s argument is based on presuppositions about the way the world works; that is, certain ontological assumptions are built into his argument, which then colors his epistemology.
Reality is what it is. It's credulity that's open-ended. Nobody ever disputed that humans have an enormous capacity for it. But it's nothing to be proud of.
Fair enough Steve, I can certainly accept that! Having moved in the circles of religious people, I can think of many examples!
..oh and by the way, what are we going to do about the return of Mats???!!!
Larry's no-banning policy is admirable, but does have its downside.
John Pieret was asked to give some examples of genuine knowledge that are not scientific. He replied with ...
I know that Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers in English, Mozart wrote sublime music and JMW Turner painted some of the greatest works of art. If that is not "knowledge," please explain why ... empirically.
None of those things count as "genuine knowledge" in the sense that I'm using the term—or in the sense that Steve was when he asked the question.
What you are referring to is the opinion you have formed after being brought up and educated in a certain culture. While your opinion about Turner may be shared by many, it hardly counts as "genuine knowledge" to anyone except you.
We are capable, in theory, of investigating how you came to that opinion. The result of that investigation might be called "genuine knowledge" because it could be shared with others who would recognize it as factual.
However, that result would say nothing about the truth of your opinion, only about how you came to believe that it was genuine knowledge.
Now, I suppose we could empirically investigate why so many people like Turner's paintings. I'm partial to them myself—The fighting Temeraire ... is one of my favorites—and there might be many others who share our opinion. We would ask what it is in our upbringing that makes up like Turner rather than other styles in other cultures.
That information would also be genuine knowledge but it would be more general than just your opinion. The point is that in order to be "genuine knowledge" it has to be more than just an off-hand statement of a personal opinion. It has to be the kind of "knowledge" that others can evaluate.
We now know one bit of genuine knowledge; namely that John Pieret likes Turner paintings and thinks they are some of the greatest works of art. We do not know, without further empirical investigation, whether they really are great works of art. If we discover that a great many people like Turner's paintings then we can assume that they will subjectively agree to call them "great works of art." That is genuine knowledge, arrived at by scientific investigation.
Timothy V Reeves says,
Unfortunately, things like ‘water into wine’, ‘virgin births’, if they happen, don’t leave a very strong signal on an impartial medium such as archeological traces – instead we are stuck with evaluating historical texts. Stick that in your test tube and precipitate it.
I quite prepared to evaluate those miracles to the best of my ability. Turning water into wine violates everything I know about science so I'm curious to see whether this miracle really did happen.
Let's do a scientific investigation since that's the only valid way of knowing that has stood the test of time.
Did Jesus turn water into wine? The only evidence that's presented is that it is written in the Bible. It's quit reasonable to evaluate the accuracy of that evidence by investigating whether most of what's in the Bible is accurate or not.
I didn't get past Genesis before arriving at a conclusion. How far did you get?
In their list of "Ways of Knowing," they left off one method:
Gastro-epistemology, when you just know it in your gut.
Larry said
Let's do a scientific investigation since that's the only valid way of knowing that has stood the test of time.
Historical investigation more like – although I concede that even history uses (although much less formally) that juxtaposition of theory and observation we are familiar with in ‘hard science’. This is where it gets tricky – historical theories being such complex objects draw from a conceptual hinterland that is much more diverse than say physics. Physics tends to attract the ‘quasi-autistics’ like myself who like closed systems that they understand and feel secure in. However, in spite of that, I’ve tried to widen my interests, and have realized that something like historical interpretation does have inputs from a very wide variety of sources – e.g. political bias, hidden agendas, a-priori historical theories like social progressivism, and for me the awe inspiring possibility (Gastro–Epistemology at work I think!) that the foundational ontology behind the universe is some kind of asiety based on personality. Fair enough Larry I realize that will look like superstition to you and I accept your point of view as plausible and have no hard feelings about what to you is a perfectly reasonable perspective.
I got well past Genesis as I interpreted it mythologically and symbolically – the gospels, however, purport to be historical. Religious beliefs seem to be standing the test of time too!
... give examples of things you believe qualify as genuine knowledge, but which are neither logical (or mathematical) truths, nor results of empirical investigation.
I know that the American flag is red, white, and blue. If there is an element of empiricism in my own discovery of this, that does not change the fact that it is red, white and blue by decree, not by empirical discovery, and my own full knowledge that the American flag is red, white and blue reflects the knowledge that it is simply defined to be so.
I know that one spells "obstinant" with just those letters in that sequence. Again, there is an element of empiricism in my particular knowledge, however that one can even know that depends on convention and collective agreement, "intersubjectivity" if you will.
I know what green "looks like," what touch "feels like," and the sensation of being "off balance". I also know what love and hate are, what shifting states of mind are like, that I can think, and what it is like to be aware. Again, perhaps in some manner this kind of knowing could be considered to be somewhat empirical, however it would be far too great a stretch to say that these are the "results of empirical investigation." Rather, these underlie our ability to perform empirical investigations.
The fact is that we are not born tabula rasa, and by no means does our pre-natal "programming" consist simply in logical capabilities. We come to know things via prior "knowledge" (depending on how we define "knowledge"), or perhaps more properly, by givens such as the qualia.
This all is important, because in fact science and related empirical investigations are subsets of our ability to deal with the world. For instance, we claim that we rely on "observation," and yet we typically disparage observations coming out of dreams when these are taken at face value. Yet the ancients did not, or in any case, found dreams to be confusing for presenting as sensory perceptions while seeming not to comport well with waking sensation.
So how do we get around the problem of dreams, or indeed, of crazy individuals? By "intersubjective" agreement, that is, by comparing our qualitative and conscious knowledge with each other, and by conventionalizing symbols such as "obstinant". When it became clear enough that dreams were not observations which we could collectively rely upon, we decided not to trust them at face value (though they remain probes of our minds).
Issues such as these are important in these debates, not because science is confusing or unreliable, but because many people have not learned science. We deny things, like "subjective sensation" or dreams where God spoke to people? Why? Aren't we supposed to be open-minded?
Well of course we are open-minded, we just happen to have progressed from treating all "observation" as equal, to using the methods which make sense across individual viewpoints, and in fact, make sense across many cultures. But many of our "critics" do not understand that what they "know for sure" is entirely built upon non-universal cultural beliefs, nor do they know how to reliably attain better answers (they judge science by the Bible because they know that standards are essential--and they do not know that normal standards allow us and them to "deconstruct", so to speak (it's not what deconstruction is really about), the Bible)).
The problem is that epistemology is in fact far more complicated than is generally understood by scientists, and that science itself relies upon good knowledge before it can actually evolve to become science. Thus science was for a considerable period "natural philosophy," where reliable methods of knowing (philosophy (which studied logic, but not just logic), more or less, along with mathematics) were applied to empirical matters.
Various kinds of knowledge, from the conventional and definitional, to the kinds of knowledge that exist in our heads largely apart from "empirical investigation," are what allow and give rise to empirical investigations. The latter depend on more "basic" knowledge, and they extend our otherwise limited knowledge into realms that would not have been supposed by the ancients to be possible for us to understand.
Glen Davidson
Shortly put: I think that the different areas of science are autonomous, that is, each feld has a unique advantage in understanding the phomenon its predilect phenomenon
(This is completely different from the typically reductionist attitude of many positivists-"rationalists", who think things are only ultimately explained, when explained in the language of physics)
In other words, I firmly belive there is no true "jumping" over seas of missing data. How does this relate to religion? Quite simply. Religious traditions have produced many great rationalizations concerning human society, true achievements of humanism.
This is why when a brilliant student who wanted to do good for humanity asked einstein if physics was the way, einstein responded that all the effort of all physicists had been nothing in comparison to the achievements of the types of Buddha and jesus.
Indeed, how long do you think it would have taken to infer these intellectual achievements from physics?
In fact, the autonomy of the scientific disciplines reflects true non-reductibility of phenomenological domains. I can therefore quite confidently bet that to establish a scientific connection from physics to humanism is simply impossible.
To say that science is the only way to gain knowledge is not to say that gaining knowledge is the only worthwhile kind of human achievement. It isn't, indeed I would say that it is more of instrumental than of fundamental value (though I also think that true wisdom requires us to accurately assess our real place in the universe, which is far more humble than the one traditional religions assign us). Oddly, it seems to be precisely some of those who rail against "scientism" who forget this and who therefore have to make bogus claims about other supposed routes to things that they insist on conflating with the concept of knowledge.
Larry:
None of those things count as "genuine knowledge" in the sense that I'm using the term—or in the sense that Steve was when he asked the question.
That was my point, Larry. What counts as "genuine knowledge" is simply an assertion that you and Steve are making. How do you reach that assertion by the exercise of the scientific method? In other words, how can you use the scientific method to establish that only the scientific method delivers "genuine knowledge"? Unless you can scientifically demonstrate that only science delivers "real" or "true" or "genuine" knowledge, then, by Russell's formulation, your sense of what is "genuine knowledge" is not itself knowledge.
This is the problem Hume pointed out 200+ years ago and no one has solved: you cannot justify empiricism by empirical means, except circularly.
All the rest of your objections to my examples of "knowledge" are based on a circular definition that says they are not knowledge because you've defined "knowedge" in such a way as to exclude them. (Steve can't even muster that, he just applies labels such as "opinion" and "knowledge" as if that counts as an argument.)
It's a very easy philosophy, but a rather silly one.
"I know that Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers in English, Mozart wote sublime music and JMW Turner painted some of the greatest works of art. If that is not "knowledge," please explain why ... empirically."
Most people think of science as strictly a posteriori and empirical, but at its core, there is still an element of a priori reasoning and the invocation of things such as logic and mathematics. If what Russell meant by "scientific methods" extends to these kinds of a priori reasoning methods, then we can reject claims such as "Shakespeare was a great writer" as unjustified (not knowledge). "Shakespeare was a great writer" is a value claim, distinct from facts (i.e. this is just an application of the fact-value distinction which is very much tenable from straightforward reasoning).
There are two points that have been made above that I think should be taken seriously:
John Pieret said:
This is the problem Hume pointed out 200+ years ago and no one has solved: you cannot justify empiricism by empirical means, except circularly.
And after noting the presence of circularity Mats asked:
How do we know that science is the only way of knowing that provides explanations that are testable?
For myself I’ve never been too worried about circularity and self-reference provided they are self–affirming and don’t lead to inconsistency (e.g. as in Russell’s paradox). Accordingly there is, in fact, an element of empirical justification behind the methods of science itself – one can observe the process of science and theorize about its methods and create a theory of epistemology; ‘meta-theory’. However, it is clearly a knotty subject as philosophers of science have been making heavy weather of the science of science for many a year!
BTW Mats: as a six-day creationist I take it that you wouldn’t accept the ID notion of a kind of ‘evolution’ punctuated with design miracles?
Accordingly there is, in fact, an element of empirical justification behind the methods of science itself – one can observe the process of science and theorize about its methods and create a theory of epistemology; ‘meta-theory’.
There are certainly ways to address this problem (as Russell and Hume before him well knew). The kind of "knowledge" that Shakespeare or Turner may give us about the world and ourselves is not the same sort of knowledge we get from careful empiric study of the material world. But simplistic pronouncements about deep problems need to be exposed for what they are.
Tim makes a good question:
"BTW Mats: as a six-day creationist I take it that you wouldn’t accept the ID notion of a kind of ‘evolution’ punctuated with design miracles?"
That is one of the things I find it illogical in the ID community if they believe that the Designer is God.
The kind of "knowledge" that Shakespeare or Turner may give us about the world and ourselves is not the same sort of knowledge we get from careful empiric study of the material world.
The former isn't knowledge at all. Above I gave my opinion of why people like John feel they must conflate such things with knowledge. But that's really quite unnecessary- I can reassure John that I value Shakespeare just as much as he does (though I admire Dante even more.) ;)
Art, and more generally imagination, are absolutely essential to being human. (So is compassion. So is the instinct for fairness that makes social existence possible.) Knowledge is not the only thing that matters, by a long shot. But it's important (both as a tool and as an end in itself), and it's important to accurately understand how it can be acquired.
2 Belief: God or gods, or other external or internal supernatural powers can impart or support beliefs. There are numerous deities and levels and types of belief within any society.
This is very confused. Gods can't impart or support anything if they don't exist, now can they? The gods are the object of the belief, not the source of it. The second point is identical to the first, except that the authority to be trusted is imaginary.
The French have their IDiot "scientists" as well. But he has some difficulty evangelizing.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/french.asp
"Dr Eggen: France has about 55 million people. Perhaps 20-30% would claim to believe in God in some way or another. Those who are really believing Christians would, I think, be less than 2%."
...
"Although I know the opposition can be strong in such countries, I actually find that French scientists are even more intolerant, on the whole, of someone that doesn't believe in evolution. In America, for example, I was more often able to share my mind on creation and they respected me. Maybe because they knew me from the scientific work I've done. But in France, the intolerance against creation is very, very strong."
...
"In France, evolution is taught as a fact that you have to learn, and if you try to oppose that, you will be in trouble."
...
"What would you like to say to readers in closing?
First, please pray for France, for the ministry that is just beginning here. And especially for the battles we will have to fight here in France, because like your experience elsewhere in the world, this is a spiritual fight, and it won't be easy. Creation really is the work of God."
The rest of the interview is enough to make a grown man cry.
Reply to MATS.
(Intellectual health warning for atheists: the following contains theology and may damage your cognitive development)
I suppose, Mats, it all depends on what time scale the ‘miraculous’ is spread over: In conventional evolution ‘reconfiguration miracles’ are spread ‘evenly’ over lots of little increments so as to make it difficult to detect (my current view). ID people believe it’s concentrated in many design spurts (I think that’s their view). You believe it’s concentrated in 6x86400 seconds. If you want to rank the ‘designer and power competence’ of your Deity on how fast s/he is able to complete a design I suppose it’s possible to imagine it all coming about in one grand slam act in the first nanosecond or smaller – a kind of ‘now you see it now you don’t’ act but the other way round, if you get my meaning! (Funnily enough Augustine of Hippo flirted with this very idea). This would make the AnswersInGenesis 6x86400 second creation period look like ‘deep time’. (BTW there are some YEC pundits out there who have accused AiG of compromising with science!You never know, perhaps Larry and AiG could get together!)
However, time, absolutely speaking, is measured in terms of physical activity, so even if it all happened in the first nanosecond that first nanosecond must equate to an enormous amount of activity; so once rescaled in terms of eventfulness, we would be back to a creation that took billions of years in the forming! If we look inside that first nanosecond to see the way creation assembled itself in the mind of God, who knows what we might find – 6 days?, ID?, evolution?
And don’t forget, all said and done everyone of us, from evolutionist to YEC, is still left with that one biggest, most mysterious logical discontinuity of the lot; or as the philosophers say ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’
Woops! I really muffed it when I wrote....
In conventional evolution ‘reconfiguration miracles’ are spread ‘evenly’ over lots of little increments so as to make it difficult to detect (my current view).
.. which might be interpreted to mean that I am suggesting evolutionary pressures are anisotropic in 'morphospace'. Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that; such an idea is the equivalent of Blasphemy on this blog! - sorry Larry!
Post a Comment