Richard writes:
>So, if Gordon achieves his aims, it will not be "business as usual" as far
>as the sciences are concerned. No wonder people are worried about the
>activities of the Polyani Center!
But let's keep our perspective in focus. This two-man show, up against
millions who disagree funded by billions, is hardly a cause for concern.
Is the non-ID case so weak that it depends on *political power* to remove
any trace of competition? That's the very perception the faculty at Baylor
are creating and if they keep it up, they will play right into the hands of
people like Johnson.
Don't the faculty at Baylor realize that the way to stop an erroneous
idea is not to silence it? If someone has a plausible idea that promises
X and Y, then give it the chance to deliver. If it fails in an environment
where it is given every opportunity to succeed, that will speak far more
clearly than ensuring it fails by removing any opportunity to succeed.
This seems so basic and rational to me that I am perplexed by those
who see it differently.
Sorry, but as I see it, this irrational fear-mongering is all about a concern
for *reputation*. We really need to explore this in much more depth to see
how such a socio-political dynamic dictates to science.
>Incidentally, I agree with Mike that there are grounds for a "suspicion of
>design". But a suspicion is not enough to form the basis for scientific
>theory.
I agree. A suspicion is grounds only for a continued investigation that,
over time, has the potential of generating a scientific theory. Furthermore,
the only ones likely to conduct that investigation are those who have
the suspicion. Thus, I would not expect my suspicions to dictate how
others do their science. Unfortunate, however, is that science cannot
provide an arena for a serious consideration of that suspicion.
>The problem is that Dembski and his supporters base their theory on
>a suspicion, and then want to make it "the dominant perspective in science"!
I don't think they would agree that their case amounts only to a
suspicion. But keep in mind I speak only for myself. I am not
interested in what is to be "the dominant perspective in science."
I'm simply interested in satisfying the curiosity generated by
my suspicions.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 18 2000 - 10:22:30 EDT