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