Tim, Nina, all,

Sorry it took me a little while to digest those responses. Forgive me if I
took them out of order, or if I repeat other comments. Quiet reflection is
very fun after a long weekend of lights and noise.

First we have to deal with the semantics of the issue. I realize this has
been discussed and the intent was not consciously incendiary, but it was
difficult to glean some of the points of view. The "how and why" issue is a
firm one, but can certainly be twisted in any way you see fit; much like
"theory" or "reality". In many cases "how" and "why" are going to have the
same colloquial meaning in terms of a scientific explanation. That is
irrelevant in this context. We are talking about the HOW of something and
the WHY of something. HOW being the function of a particular event down to
the last measured joule, chemical bond, or muon interaction within the
physical universe. The WHY of something assumes the metaphysical, and is
not the realm of science. Lets try to keep those words out of the ring if
possible. The other word we need to avoid is reality. Reality for any
individual includes all they know and feel and believe, and is highly
subjective. That is why I tend toward phrases like "what is" or "natural
world". Reality in our discussion refers to the physical world and HOW it
functions. It is not a subjective thing, although as Tim pointed out, it is
an almost incomprehensibly complex thing.

from Tim: If science isn't the complete tool for understanding reality that
I
think it is, then isn't it as ultimately useless as religious myths? At
least as far as enabling humans to fully explore and understand their
reality? And what is the point really of science, what's its "telos"? I
understand that the scientific process itself is neutral to an ultimate
end, but would that process exist if we didn't have a goal in mind? Are
scientists just doing they're thing because the process is there so they
had best follow it? Or are they doing it because they are searching for
something? Kinda like religions are searching for something. Difference
is the neutral process of testing on one hand (science) and some process
of divinely gifted knowledge on the other (religion).

Fortunately, science IS the complete tool for understanding the universe
that Tim thinks it is, precisely because it can not be useless. What people
do not often grasp is that science is often its own point. Pure research
has no goal but to find things out. Yes, there are numerous short term
goals for scientific inquiry, but no overarching "ultimate goal". Knowing
everything is of no concern to science.

Religion is essentially the reverse. Religion in the general sense seeks to
answer the ultimate question which science can not touch. It does not seek
new knowledge or understanding of the universe, but rather new ways to
express or codify the unknowable in ways the human mind can grasp.
Individual faiths, such as Christianity or Islam, seek to set certain ideas
in stone, essentially preventing or denying any further development of the
idea. Those faiths are not searching for anything, since they have divorced
themselves from the broader search. The search continues whenever a new
faith makes a new proposition which modifies an existing dogma. Sounds like
a process, but there is still no testing going on. Philosophical
interpretation is not the same as scientific testing.

The big bang question is a good example of where science's limits may be.
The big bang is a theory(non-dismissive tone) for which there is
significant evidence. That evidence is testable and repeatable, but not
proof. The central problem is that the big bang represents the beginning of
the universe, or at least our local bubble within it, and testability fails
at the event itself. This makes it technically impossible to test, since we
would have to recreate the event and survive to observe it in order to test
it. Over time, lots and inconceivably lots of time, science will ask all of
the questions that can be posed and tested, and know all of those answers.
The quandry is what will happen then. The science fiction industry not
withstanding, my personal opinion is that we will still not know whether
there is a higher power or not, but it will not matter at that point.

From Tim: Another way of saying "what is" is "reality." Add any title you
want in
the place of "science, and you have a nicely precise definition of
Metaphysics (going back to an earlier thought of mine). Sorry this was a
perfect situation to use someone else's thought to make my own point.

There is no more precise definition of metaphysics, beyond the study of or
belief in that which can not be tested or understood through science. I am
not quite sure where you are going with this comment, but misuse of a quote
by me will always inspire a response. I have already covered this kind of
misuse of the word "reality."

from Tim: I'll tie in my last line of thought with this thought of yours,
Mark. If
you're basing your perception of reality on a process that simply
ignores what it can't (currently) test and observe, isn't that a poor
system for explaining your reality?

No. It is the nature of science and the only perspective I find worth
pursuing. "Reality" is again too colored a word to use. Science does not
ignore things that it can not currently test. It looks for means to
understand enough to test them properly. Science only ignores those things
which are not part not its physical universe, and which can not be
understood through its methodology. Metaphysics is not something that is
merely currently incapable of being scientifically studied, it is so by
definition, and will never be studyable by science.

You are absolutely right, Tim, that thought, emotion, and the human mind
are all part of science and eminently testable and understandable. The
central factor there is that all the tests and analyses tell someone of
belief/faith exactly what they do not want to hear, thus the tests and
analyses are dismissed as flawed science.

from Tim: I would lump the ethics in with the quandary about splitting the
physical world versus emotional/spiritual world for me. I don't see how
one's learning based on science can't influence one's ethics. I could no
doubt find examples of how any metaphysical basis for reality has been
misused to make poor ethical decisions, but I would argue that however
one views reality has a very strong influence on their ethics, whether
that person is aware of it or not (and maybe I should say that I'm
speaking of philosophical ethics as far as simply one's code of
behavior). People who believe in science use it to define reality for
themselves (at least, natural/physical reality). A large part of ethics
is involved with human interaction with the natural world, so  your
natural (scientific) understanding of that reality with influence those
ethical decisions (even if you split natural reality from
emotional/spiritual/intellectual reality). I almost feel like I'm
talking in circles, but does what I'm driving at make sense (even if you
don't buy it)?

It is indeed a circular discussion, but one that can be broken. Ethics do
indeed influence one's scientific outlook and vice versa. Any individual's
subjective reality is closely associated with their level of interaction
with the natural world and their personal emotional/intellectual state. No
one of us is truly capable of making the split we are discussing between
science and metaphysics in real life. The very thoughts that generate our
perspectives are themselves subjectively generated. However, that has no
bearing on the pure nature of the two areas of thought, nor on the validity
of the information created and presented. Subjectively biased or not, a
repeatable scientific test provides information which adds to the body of
knowledge. When the perspective changes for whatever reason, the tests can
be run again to confirm/deny the original conclusions. Although it is
theoretically impossible to test  all perspectives, science will continue
to try, because it is the nature of science to maintain inquiry under all
circumstances. Science understands this phenomenon and embraces it as part
of the natural world in which it functions. That is essentially what we
have been talking about concerning the ID phenomenon.

from Tim:And your assertion that science can only answer "why" questions to
a
certain degree is interesting to me. Is there perhaps no "deeper" answer
to why we're here than to simply continue living (pass on our genes, as
you say)? What's wrong with that, other than perhaps a bruise to our
collective ego? I guess I'm wondering if science isn't capable of
providing as deep an answer as is possible, but we're not exactly eager
to accept it?

Indeed, that may be the deepest answer that people are able to grasp in
terms of "why" from science. There is certainly nothing wrong with a
simplistic answer to the why questions, which is the reason I find
religions so fascinating. Science on the other hand is not interested in
the simplistic answers that satisfy our basic needs, nor is it concerned
with the acceptance of society of its findings. I look at it like this:
People can believe what they want and even ignore scientific understanding
if they choose, preferring a stable and quiet existence. Science on the
other hand does not have the luxury of ignoring anything within its
purview, and must always strive to test and learn or it ceases to be.

To respond to Nina's last comment(of a moment ago)...I too see no reason
why religious outlook and scientific inquiry can not get along. It is a
matter of finding the intellectual middle ground. The problem arises when
anyone begins to believe that science is actually supporting or proving the
religious belief(or vice versa), rather than merely coexisting. Whether or
not one chooses to integrate the two into their personal philosophy, they
remain distinct.

Excellent discussion. I hope everyone made it through the weekend with
their fingers and eyesight intact.

Mark Janzen
Registrar/Collections Manager
Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
Martin H. Bush Outdoor Sculpture Collection
Wichita State University
(316)978-5850

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).