<i>From a metaphysical standpoint, science is like any other religion in
that it is how some humans understand their reality. I'd argue it's the
best process humans have devised to date for objectively understanding
our reality, but I'd argue it is still flawed like many of humans'
different metaphysical theories. One of those flaws is a propensity for
dogmatic adherence to preconceived notions and a general disinclination
to consider other ideas. Many of our now celebrated scientists learned
this the hard way in their own times when they became proponents for
ideas radical to their contemporary science.</i>
As others have ably pointed out, science is not comparable to religion (as
Tim is arguing with the idea that "science is like any other religion") in
that it takes as its basic principle the amassing of empirical evidence
and drawing of conclusions from that evidence. Most world religions
stipulate no such demand for evidence, and conclusions are presented to
believers as complete, revealed truths. Science does not rely
on 'preconcieved notions' as much as it does on overwhelming bodies of
accumulated and reproducible data and the conclusions that data points to.
Is science flawed? Certainly - it is a human endeavor, after all. The
questions and projects scientists engage in are socially constructed, part
of broader cultural frameworks. If this interests you, you may want to
explore the work being done in the fascinating field of the history of
science. Some resources to start with:
The History of Science Society:
http://www.hssonline.org/society/about/mf_about.html
Oxford Museum of the History of Science:
http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/
This field yields incredible insights and provokes important questions for
museum researchers, exhibit designers, and program planners. When
presenting scientific ideas, historical context is vital to visitor
understanding. The Holocaust Museum, for instance, presents disturbing
exhibits on how the methods of science were used and abuse to advance
cruel and criminal social goals.
But despite the questions of subjectivity, flawed study design, using
science as a means to an end, etc., the process of creating scientific
knowledge as practiced academically and professionally is fundamentally a
different one than the process of creating arguments in support of
religious philosophy. Those engaged in the pursuit of science cannot
logically engage arguments for intelligent design (as postulated by its
proponets) because the arguments presented are simply not scientific
arguments by any professionally accepted standard. Nor are scientific
theories in any way a religious philosophy. Acceptance of Western science
does not logically exclude a belief in creationism as simply defined; the
two are not opposites. Trouble begins when they are treated as two
competing viewpoints within a field, when in fact they are utterly
different lines of thought.
=========================================================
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).
|