Sorry about taking longer than usual to reply—it was very hectic here this weekend with a houseful of relatives—things have mostly calmed down now.
Have you had time to fix the wallpaper on our blog so that the posts can be read?
The article about science vs beliefs made some good points. People on both sides do tend to reject science and resist persuasion when it doesn’t fit their pre-determined beliefs, and that can definitely be a problem. On the other hand, the author seems to have pre-determined beliefs of his own—he’s not as objective or unbiased as he would like his readers to think. It’s almost as if he has put his readers in a box—if they agree with his ideas about science, they’re fine, but if they disagree, they are automatically assumed to be unfairly biased or unscientific—thereby shutting down any meaningful conversation before it can even get started.
Evolution doubters present science as an atheistic conspiracy; antivaccination advocates consider the biomedical research community to be hopelessly corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry...The author seems to assume that all evolution doubters and antivaccination advocates ignore science and base their beliefs on other factors instead. He is painting with too broad a brush and mislabeling many people. While there may be some evolution doubters and antivaccination advocates who ignore science, there are many more who do not. Same for those who have doubts about manmade global warming. The author doesn’t seem to allow for the possibility that people can disagree with (what he considers to be) current scientific consensus for scientific, and not just ideological, reasons.
What Munro examines here is an alternative approach: the decision that, regardless of the methodological details, a topic is just not accessible to scientific analysis. This approach also has a prominent place among those who disregard scientific information, ranging from the very narrow—people who argue that the climate is simply too complicated to understand—to the extremely broad, such as those among the creationist movement who argue that the only valid science takes place in the controlled environs of a lab, and thereby dismiss not only evolution, but geology, astronomy, etc.Again, the author paints with an overly broad brush, and also seems to misunderstand what science can and cannot do. He does not seem to understand the difference between inductive and deductive (empirical) science, nor does he seem to understand the limitations of science.
An excerpt from an earlier email fits well here:
At its foundation, science is the search for truth. It is a given that no one can know all truth, as the sphere of knowledge is far too big. Therefore, it is quite likely that truth exists for which we have no conclusive scientific proof.
There are two basic forms of scientific study: empirical (deductive) science and inductive science. In empirical science, one makes an hypothesis, then runs an experiment to test the hypothesis. Such experiments may be replicated many times, giving increasing confidence that the hypothesis is true. Inductive science is what one does when an hypothesis cannot be tested in the present. In inductive science, one makes an hypothesis, then looks at available evidence to see if it fits the hypothesis. The more evidence fits the hypothesis, the more confident one can be that the hypothesis is correct. This is something that archeologists, forensic scientists (Mr. Green, in the kitchen, with the candlestick), evolutionists, and creationists do. One cannot go back and observe a past culture, geologic formation, crime in action, or development of species, but must come to a conclusion based on evidence available in the present. Neither evolutionists nor creationists can conclusively prove their perspective solely on the basis of inductive science.
Some things cannot be proven by empirical science. While empirical science can show how things work now, it cannot prove how things happened in the past. The presence or absence of God cannot be proven by empirical science. My love for my family cannot be proven. What I’m thinking or how I make the choices I make cannot be proven. How the first living organisms came into being cannot be proven. While one can make inferences about these based on observed evidence, the evidence itself doesn’t prove, or disprove, anything. The idea that the only way to know something for sure is through empirical science has not been proven empirically.
Everyone, including you and me, carries some bias—it’s a given. We can’t help it. However, if we truly want to find the truth, we will, eventually. Good scientists recognize the tendency toward bias and try to account for it in their research. Those who cherry pick or misinterpret data to make it fit with their preconceived ideas stray from good science and mislead many people.
In our discussion here, I’m working from the basis of a mutual desire to find the truth. You have a certain perspective, and I expect you to provide evidence and a logical foundation for it, just as you expect me to provide evidence and a logical rationale for my viewpoint. Unlike the author of this article, I’m not putting you in a box (and I hope you don’t put me in one). Again, as I’ve said in an earlier email,
That we come to different conclusions is not a sign that one of us lacks intelligence, has no curiosity, or hasn’t studied the evidence. The only difference between us is that we are each looking at the evidence through a different set of lenses (different worldviews, if you will). We each see our perspective as being the correct one, and we’d each like the other to come to our own way of seeing things. It’s a given that you’ll try to persuade me, and I’ll try to persuade you. That’s a good thing—in the process of trying to persuade each other, we’ll each become exposed to new ideas and evidence, will be forced to examine the evidence and our logic and worldview to see where our thinking may have gone astray, and will eventually see what is the actual truth. If we don’t go through this process, we run the danger of becoming closed-minded and of failing to see and correct our own blind spots. A person who has the attitude of “I’m right, you’re wrong, and that’s that”, no matter what his/her perspective, is on the way to becoming an arrogant fool, incapable of learning or developing wisdom. I don’t think either of us wants to fall into that category. :)Normally, I don’t copy so much from past emails, but I thought that this would be a good way to incorporate some of our discussion that took place before you started the blog, especially since it seemed to fit so well here.
Susan
No comments:
Post a Comment