Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alamo-Girl
Me;
Okay, but how in the world is ID going to be judged "best" in the absence of any theological bias?

You:
That should include ideological bias as well. Nevertheless, it ought to be very straight forward to judge evidence without bias. Juries and judges do it every day - as has a previously very biased general public in recovering from centuries of racial bias. Sure, none of these have been perfect - but a good faith effort over all these years has served us very well indeed. In sum, it requires awareness, honesty and personal discipline to recognize when one is harboring a personal prejudice and then overcome it.

I can't go with this. Using lovely-sounding language ("good faith," "honesty"), plus a really neat analogy to racial bias, you are cloaking yourself in what you imagine is a guise of intellectual neutrality, and from that supposedly lofty position you are attempting to do what the Kansas school board is doing -- you want to change the very definition of science to include the supernatural.

As we've discussed many times before, science can't do that. It's not bias; it's reality. It's not philosophical materialism; it's the necessity of the workplace -- procedural materialism. The evidence that science works with was often neglected or misunderstood in pre-scientific times, because people were so preoccupied by thoughts of the supernatural that they neglected to investigate the natural world. Pre-scientific intellectuals usually had disdain for the natural world.

So into that scorned and neglected area came the grubby, getting-his-hands-dirty naturalist -- doing natural (not supernatural) philosophy. Science works, and works very well, because it's limited to searching out natural causes and explanations. It's got a niche and it stays there. A scientist can't do deity-research in the lab. There's no DeoScope, no DeoMeter, no deity scales or tools of any kind for a scientist to work with.

Call it an "ideological bias" if you like to feel victimized, but that's not what it is. It's the procedural method that makes science ... well, science. There's no way in this world you'll ever persuade the scientific community that unseen interventions by the unknown, un-evidenced, "green men from Uranus" have equal (or possibly superior) standing as the cause of anything.

1,779 posted on 05/29/2005 4:35:59 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1741 | View Replies ]


To: PatrickHenry; betty boop
Thank you for your reply and for sharing your frustration on how to value "best"!

I can't go with this. Using lovely-sounding language ("good faith," "honesty"), plus a really neat analogy to racial bias, you are cloaking yourself in what you imagine is a guise of intellectual neutrality, and from that supposedly lofty position you are attempting to do what the Kansas school board is doing -- you want to change the very definition of science to include the supernatural.

This "procedural" materialism - which Whitehead coins as "scientific materialism" - has oftentimes given the public a bitter cup of discovery from which they drank. Should science now refuse to drink from its own cup?

Science can and should, IMHO, like mathematics, address the non-corporeal.

We are leaving now to go visit the graves, but I look forward to discussing this further with you this evening or tomorrow. Hugs, my friend!

1,794 posted on 05/29/2005 8:00:51 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1779 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson