Replies

Do you see? It is NOT the theory, facts or evidence that drives his rules. It is the philosophical presupposition. And unless you are a famous scientist like he is I'd say that he speaks for the community moreso than you do.

I don't care how important a scientist he was (and he did do some important work) Lewontin is wrong here. Also, never forget Lewontin was a communist first and a scientist second. Anything he says about philosophy must be viewed in that light.

Look, I agree that what you say is the way it SHOULD be, but the guys you look to are doing it the OPPOSITE of the way you think it should be done.

What they say or believe is not relevant. What scientists do (in terms of the ideas they actually utilize or implicate in their research) is what matters. That is what determines the content of science, and nature of this content determines the nature of science, and the dicta of what compromises "good" or "proper" theories.

Those theories that scientists find useful in organizing their research, framing and solving scientific problems, and so on, are the ones that they will use. You can't get around that. Sure there will be various prejudices tied to the ruling assumptions (and the dominant theories) at any one time, but these won't keep scientists from using an idea that's useful. Since you can't say that a theory used by scientists to do science isn't "scientific," a deviant theory (that has been widely adopted) will inevitably change the assumptions about what does or doesn't qualify as "science". There isn't any getting around that either.

You're just trying to avoid the obvious: That the prejudice against creationistic science doesn't (in the end) derive from philosophical bias, but from the fact that creationism doesn't work (as science -- I'm a cautious creationist myself philosophically). I suspect you are like most creationists (at lest the more sophisticated ones). Deep down you realize that modern creationism has utterly failed to produce a coherent and useful scientific theory of any kind, and you fear that it will never be able to. Therefore you're desperate to exempt creationists from the standard that applies to any normal scientist: "Put up or shut up."

PS- Your example is anchronistic. Materialism was not even named before Newton and gravity. His theory was already part of the "natural world" long before the "classical dictum of amterialism" was ever codified.

Huh? By "classical materialism" I had in mind Greek atomism. This certainly did come before Newton, by a millennia or so! If my example is bad, how do you explain the contemporary objections to Newton's gravitation as "occult"? How do you explain that no one before Newton (I believe I'm correct in saying) ever proposed a natural force that acted without physical contact between bodies?

In any case there are plenty of other examples. Both Galilean and Newtonian science, for instance, were based on the assumption that space was euclidian. This metaphysical assumption was abandoned when useful and fruitful theories emerged that required it to be abandoned. For hundreds of years the notion of a "vacuum" was rejected as "unphilosophical," but this objection too was brushed aside when the kinetic theory of gases, and other considerations, rendered vacuums useful notions.

There are innumerable theories accepted today that would have once, and in some cases not so very long ago, been considered as inherently "unscientific," or as standing in violation of some dicta defining good, proper or acceptable scientific theories.

So, back to the main point, it's pointless to whine about what's "allowed" in science. Anything is allowed if you can show it works. If you think "supernatural" considerations should be allowed in scientific thinking and problem solving, then fine. Show us how that's gonna work.

You are idealistic, and your ideas are not bad ones, but it is the Lewontins of the world that actually control the grants, funding, journals, and prestige. The actaul achievments of actaul scientists has been subverted by the dictates of Naturalism. Consider this case of Creationist Dr. Ray Damadian...

Nobel Prize Committee Accused of Rewriting History 10/10/2003
When Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield got the Nobel Prize for Medicine last week for their work on MRI scanning technology, Dr. Raymond Damadian was shocked. It was he who had first envisioned whole-body MRI scanners in 1969. It was his paper, written in 1970, published in Science in 1971, that demonstrated that water molecules in living tissues responded to nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and affirmed that this held promise for biological diagnosis. It was he who proved this with experiments on laboratory animals, and later on humans. It was he who had produced the first working MRI scanner (now in the Smithsonian). It is he who holds the patent on MRI, a patent hard-won against technology thieves over the years that resulted in his vindication by the Supreme Court in 1997.

He has the National Medal of Technology for his work on MRI, is enrolled in the Inventor's Hall of Fame for his invention of MRI, and is the president of a company Fonar Corporation, that builds MRI scanners. It is his company that remains on the cutting edge of MRI advancements. No one has devoted more of his life to MRI technology; his name is almost synonymous with MRI.

None of this seemed to matter to the Nobel committee. They gave the prize, with all its historical prestige, to two men who merely made technical improvements based on Damadian’s foundational discovery. Without Damadian’s pioneering lead, they might never have considered the possibilities of MRI. (See this timeline of MRI for credit discovery and invention, and also this background of the dispute over credit for MRI in Opinion Journal, written over a year before the Nobel announcement.)

Damadian’s company and supporters took an unusual step. With the support of colleagues at the State University of New York School of Medicine, where much of his research was done, and with quotes from colleagues and authors of books about MRI, they took out full page ads in the New York Times and Washington Post. The ad accuses the Nobel committee of revising history. Their evil was intentional, the ad claims, because the rules clearly allow for three people to be named for the prize, so there is no excuse for excluding Damadian. It is also contrary to the purpose of the prize as stated in Alfred Nobel’s will, that it should be awarded for the “most important discovery [not procedure or refinement] within the domain of physiology or medicine.”

Damadian feels the committee has robbed him of 33 years of his identity, and has been effectively written him out of the history he helped make. The decision is “a shameful wrong that must be righted,” the ad proclaims in bold type. The committee showed “inexcusable disregard for the truth,” it says, making a decision that is “simply outrageous.” Now that the committee has “disgraced itself,” the ad calls for readers to join their voice with “the many distinguished physicians, scientists and authors who are expressing their outrage at this decision,” and to urge them to include Damadian in the 2003 Nobel Prize for Medicine. The Nobel committee claims the award was correctly chosen, however, and the decision cannot be appealed.

This guy was cheated. He can get technology awards, but not science awards. This is just one example. The bias of naturailists that control the process have a chilling effect on those who would question the status quo.