Richard Jernigan -> RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (Sep. 25 2014 20:19:27)
|
Britguy's thread has already been hijacked. I apologize for my part in it, nonetheless here goes.... In my experience with fundamentalist Christians (there are some in my extended family and large numbers of them in the state of Texas) they believe they have an unbeatable argument. The scientist begins by not only admitting, but firmly asserting that all physical knowledge is provisional, subject to revision if new data require it. The new earth creationist knows he has the advantage of certainty, derived from Genesis. To the new earth creationist, the scientist not only admits, but advocates doubt. The creationist is secure in his certainty, no matter what argument may be advanced by his opponent. His knowledge is superior to the scientist's doubt. I don't think debating the distinction between hypothesis and theory is going to get anywhere. The fact that there is only a fuzzy boundary between the two weakens the argument further, in the eyes of the creationists. In my opinion the only way to counter the new earth creationist is through education in science and its history. Some fraction of young people will get the point of the numerous scientific revolutions, as well as the unparalleled success of admittedly provisional scientific theories in understanding the world around us. Others will remain faithful to their parents' religions, or adopt new ones in rebellion. At some level, religious fundamentalists understand the dangers of education. That's why ISIS has outlawed the teaching of evolution, mathematics, and other post-neolithic subjects. That's why some Texas school boards and the state of Louisiana have insisted that the wells of scientific knowledge be poisoned by religion. Belief in God is not logically opposed to science. You may append to any scientific theory the religious codicil that "This is the way God does it." In the view of most scientists this is unnecessary, however there are a significant minority of actively contributing scientists who do exactly that. But if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, the Torah or the Q'ran, you are morally obliged to oppose evolution--and you have an impregnable argument--you think. Thomas Jefferson said he was more proud of passing the religious freedom statute in the Commonwealth of Virginia than he was of writing the Declaration of Independence. Another example of his remarkable penetration and foresight, and another example of his political genius. He used the resentment of the non-conformists over having to pay taxes to support the Church of England, which they didn't belong to, as a lever to entirely depose religion from its position of government power. Religion has never stopped fighting back. In the USA, the defenses against poisoning the well of scientific knowledge are the ballot box and the Constitution. Professional politicians learned long ago that slogans and "gotchas" (known as "staying on message") are far more powerful tools than thoughtful debate. Advocates of science aren't very good at politics, because they are used to thoughtful debate, and are warned against inflammatory rhetoric. Religion has had millennia to develop and refine its political rhetoric. Still I believe scientists should continue to try to inform the general public, while adhering to their scientific values. The distinction between hypothesis and theory at least gives the scientists a short reply to one of the creationists' "gotchas". But I think the real debate is between productive doubt and stultifying dogma. In my teens I was bored with the history of science. I was eager to get at the real stuff. Now I think the history of science is one of the most important subjects for a general education. But you can't really appreciate the history of science without at least a whiff of the real stuff. You can't appreciate the tremendous impact of the 20th century revolution in physics without an appreciation of what a beautiful, comprehensive, effective and deeply validated theory classical physics was. But many educators still seem to think real science is kind of optional. Scientists recognize the difference between hypothesis and theory, though you would find a wide divergence of opinion where the division lies. In the battle between fundamentalism and science, as far as I can see this distinction ain't in it. To the fundamentalists both of them mean "doubt" while he enjoys certainty. Watch any debate between a well prepared scientist and a fundamentalist creationist. You won't see a millimeter of movement in the position of either. Precision in language is anathema to the politician. But maybe that's your point? You may still expect educators to inculcate precision in language and critical thinking. Lawyers employ precise language, but at times more in the service of their employers than in the service of principle. After all, most politicians in the USA are lawyers manqué. RNJ
|
|
|
|