Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Science as Religion Message-ID: <209@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 20-Oct-84 19:16:37 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.209 Posted: Sat Oct 20 19:16:37 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Oct-84 15:04:30 EDT References: <369@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 95 > To claim that scientific methods, however, are the only valid means of > acquiring knowledge is, however, to elevate it to a religion, and a shaky one > at that. For lack of a better word, I will use scientism to refer to this > forma of science. [umcp-cs!mangoe - WINGATE] Scientific method is the only valid means to assure that you are acquiring the best possible, the most objective possible knowledge, given your tools of observation and analysis. The study and acquisition of knowledge through science is thus a rigorous process. Knowledge gained through other less reliable methods is thus less reliable knowledge. In some cases, where no attempt is made to be objective at all, what is acquired does not qualify as knowledge. > Scientism appears to claim that only its methods produce valid knowledge. > In this case, we will have to jettison all of history, since historical > knowledge is not subject to any form of scientific verification. Attempts > to apply science to history must in fact consist of presupposing the > validity of current theory and then interpreting the evidence on that basis. We have no need to "jettison" history at all. History may not scrutinize closely enough for scientific method standards, but reasonable students of history seek independent corroborative evidence. If an ancient document is uncovered which reads "My name is Woopy Franqueezi, and in 1236 B.C. I conquered the entire world", is not likely to accepted as historical fact unless it is corroborated elsewhere by independent, hopefully disinterested sources. In fact, what historians use in attempting to get an objective picture of history through corroboration approaches scientific method, given the limits of their tools of observation. > Since it is easy to conceive that a deity exists that is too complex or > not structured to permit it to be understood in the terms of scientific > theory, scientism should advise us to be agnostics; I find it interesting > that in fact, scientism is profoundly antitheistic. It is "antitheistic" in that it doesn't hold to YOUR conception of god. It is, in fact, quite agnostic, in that it chooses to hold your beliefs up to closer scrutiny then you would do. Not finding hard evidence, it returns to its neutral position. > I am also intrigued > by the constant emphasis on objective evidence. Objectivity in the > examination of evidence is not in fact and either/or thing. There are > differing levels of objectivity. On a subject such as miracles, where > the proponents of scientism have a stake in proving that there are none, > I would not for a moment consider them to be objective observers; somewhere > along the line, there is always a subjective evaluation of "good data" versus > "bad data", and those on Rich's side of the question always seem eager to > throw out reports of miracles. Perhaps that's the problem. You see rather clear cut and rational separation of "good data" from "bad data" (i.e., data which is known to be unreliable and not worthy of inclusion for objective analysis) as "subjective evaluation". Who has the stake in proving what??? It is always those who make the extraordinary claims who must provide the extraordinary evidence. Is analyzing a "miracle" closely to discover what really happened subjective? Since YOU believe a priori that they simply ARE miracles, you are not qualified to do a rational analysis of such an event to determine if it was one or not. If you could perform such an analysis objectively, that would be another story. But you can't; not if you presuppose a certain conclusion about the event. > Scientism can lay no claim to any sort of ethical or moral suasion. If you > throw out anything that is not material, you throw away moral authority. > The response to a statement of ethical responsibility should either be > "Oh, that's just your opinion" or "Oh, really?" > since it's all subjective anyway. Fact is, this is absolutely correct. Except for a few corrections to the wording. Absolute moral authority is not "thrown away"; in the absence of evidence for it, it cannot be shown to exist (outside of certain pre- conceptions about how the universe must be). Thus, the moral authority comes from human beings, through methods ranging from absolute tyranny ("I'm the king, and *I* decide the standards!") to religious autocracy ("These are the rules because god said them, and even though we can't prove that there is a god or that this god spoke to us, trust us, we're priests, and to us these rules sound good.") to minimalist rational morality ("The only rules state that you are free to do anything you so desire, so long as it doesn't cause harm to another human being."). Charlie sees having "no claim to any sort of ethical or moral suasion" as a negative; I see it as a positive, when dealing with a means of studying the way the universe is. As opposed to things like creation science (??) which takes a particular moral/ethical/preconceptive stance before looking at the world, interpreting evidence, not objectively, but based on its preconceptions. That's not science at all. And that's no way to study "the way things are". Unless, of course, you already "know" the answers... That's the difference between constructing a human society (hopefully in a way that will give the most benefit to the most people) and analyzing the existing universe. One sets up particular goals and purposes. The other simply tries to best examine what "is". It seems what Charlie is doing is setting goals for what he would like to see as a result of his analysis, interpreting evidence to support that goal, and using the results to go back and mold society. I prefer to have the two functions, investigating the world and constructing a society, distinct. -- "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr