Title: Re: paleonet Faith and
skepticism
> When studying the topic of
evolution, for instance, there is no role
> for a deity (in spite of the ID 'arguments') that does not
complicate
> the picture.
Defining a complication becomes problematic here. Science seeks
for more encompassing laws, even though these can be considered
"complications". E.g., we don't reject the theory of
evolution as an extranous layer of talk about data, even though the
theory is not itself data and is dependent on the data.
Darwin's single most powerful contribution to the theory of
evolution was his articulation of the principle of natural selection.
Of course everyone on this list knows this. But my point is that
this was a mechanism that simplified the interpretation of previously
puzzling observations.
The recognition of patterns in data and the discovery of
first mechanisms and then algorithms that produce those patterns is
the essence of science. Darwin failed to provide an algorithm
because he did not apprehend genetics.
When genetics was introduced to the scientific community over 40
years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, it
provided the long sought algorithmic dimension for the mechanism of
natural selection. This constitutes further simplification in my
mind because fewer explanations explain more different cases.
From this perspective, viewing God as the
ultimate explanation of everything is a simplification. Not that
this is a particularly good reason, in itself, to believe in God, but
that Occam's razor is not a good reason not to believe in God, either.
God makes Occam's razor too sharp. Omnipotence itself is
inexplicable and un-explorable. And therefore of no interest to
science.
> The enormous 'revolutions' in
science...have been achieved by entirely overturning earlier
scientific models.<
Not exactly. At least, they must be
perceived as better explanations of the available data. In most
cases, the earlier scientific models survive as special cases of the
new model
How is the plate tectonics explanation for mountain building not
a complete dismissal of Kelvin's contracting earth hypothesis?
How is the acceptance of continental glaciation not a complete
dismissal of the Noahic flood as explanation.
(e.g., the implications of quantum
mechanics look very much like previous models when dealing with most
macroscopic entities).
But the equations are quite different. As are the
assumptions of the nature of matter and energy.
ID advocates are fond of invoking
scientific "revolutions" as evidence that ID is the next
scientific revolution. In addition to the presumptuousness of
boasting in advance, this ignores the fact that any credible account
of origins must explain the existing overwhelming data that support
evolution. A new scientific paradigm must better explain the
data; it cannot be rooted in ignoring the data.
I agree entirely. Which is why complexity theory (which is
really a simplification of complexity) appeals to me in
principle.
> Comparable revolutions in matters of
religious faith lead to
> mayhem (e.g., the Reformation/Counter-reformation or the
division
> between the Shi'a and Sunni).
Not sure that these are directly
comparable. The Shi'a-Sunni split was based on a disagreement
about who was the correct successor to Mohammed; the Reformation was
based on claims that the church had deviated from the Bible.
Probably more analogous would be the founding of new
religions.
The point I was trying to make is that there is no bloodshed
during scientific revolutions.
> 2. This self knows itself and
the world through reason, or
> rationality, posited as the highest form of mental
functioning, and
> the only objective form.
> 3. The mode of knowing produced by the objective rational
self is
> "science," which can provide universal truths
about the world,
> regardless of the individual status of the knower.
These (and the other listed tenets of enlightenment thought) are not
scientific statements. Thus, by these standards, these standards
are suspect. More importantly for Paleonet, these views are
compatible with but not necessary for the practice of science.
8. Science thus stands as
the paradigm for any and all socially useful forms of knowledge.
Science is neutral and objective; scientists, those who produce
scientific knowledge through their unbiased rational capacities, must
be free to follow the laws of reason, and not be motivated by other
concerns (such as money or power).
Not this one either?
> 5. The knowledge/truth produced by science (by the rational
objective
> knowing self) will always lead toward progress and
perfection.
With such beneficial products as nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons; addictive and health-destroying chemicals; novel methods to
rapidly plunder the environment...
The article from which those were taken was about the development
of Post-modernism from Modernism. Modernism was essentially the
maturation of the Enlightenment, including early critiques of
Enlightenment assumptions. Post-modernism has been very much a
re-evaluation of the excesses of Modernism, like the ones that you
identified above. Many of the excesses of Modernism were caused
by our mistaking our selves for God. Mice playing while
that cat was believed to either never have existed or to be not given
to attending to the affairs of mice.
Science can be used for good, bad, or
indifferent ends. Familiarity with current evolutionary theory
should make us doubtful about claims to find teleology in science.
We can apply scientific information towards teleological ends that we
have identified based on our philosophies or religions, but science
can't tell us what is progress versus just change versus going
bad.
Very much agreed. Which is why I don't think that secular
humanism can be divorced from science. It is the ethical
dimension of science.
Again, the main relevance for Paleonet is
not the merits or lack of enlightenment ideas, but rather the fact
that they are outside of science and need to be distinguished from
science.
I do not think that there is any modern science without the
precedent of the Enlightenment. The flaws of science are the
flaws of the Enlightenment. Its strengths are its strengths.
All of science comes from the progressively tighter embrace of the
autonomous power of the self.
The surge in the power of fundamentalist Christianity and its
entrance into the socio-political arena as a public policy maker is a
conservative reaction to the over-reaching of the Modernist impulse,
the slide into arrogance that you referred to above with your list of
technological disasters.
This distrust and critique of science began as a strain of
Modernism, namely Romanticism. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
(or the Modern Prometheus) [1818] is the most obvious and
accessible example of the growing backlash against science through the
19th and 20th centuries. This questioning of the power of
science on the progressive side of the political spectrum is often
used selectively by conservative Christians to show that there is
dissent among their enemies. They identify themselves as unified
and this show of unity is given as proof of their rightness.
That many paleontologists and other scientists have simply
ignored these historical trends and claimed that they do not inform
their work, is how we got into this mess. This mess being the
co-optation of school curricula by activist Christian
conservatives.
I am getting the idea that many on PaleoNet who profess faith in
a deity, simply put that faith on the other side of a partition from
their adherence to the theory of evolution. Conservative
Christians are categorically against such partitions. So they
are quite deaf to this argument for allowing the teaching of evolution
in public schools.
The very existence of this thread on PaleoNet represents an
intrusion of politics, philosophy, history and religion into the realm
of science.
Science is often taught as if it were separate from the influence
of all of these things. That is why a lot of students find
science classes to be very dry and uninteresting. I believe that
some of the more clever students understand that the separation is not
real and that the cultural assumptions in science are simply
unexamined. To the contemporary student this makes the science
professor look rather oblivious, which is not a way to attract
students.
Sincerely,
Bill
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
William P. Chaisson
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY 14627
607-387-3892