> Some people see everyone as advocates of something. Others, particularly
> those of us in the physical sciences, see ourselves as more or less objective
> seekers of the truth. In so doing, we are always in the process of trying to
> convince ourselves. In so doing, we may openly criticize the theories that
> appear the strongest to us.
>
> The Advocates see this as an admission of weakness. On the contrary, it is
> really evidence of ruthless searching for truth, aversion to dogma, willingness
> to change one's mind in the face of evidence, etc. All those attitudes are
> alive and well in the scientific enterprise, as anyone who works in them can
> testify (of course there are exceptions).
>
> There are advocating professions (lawyers, marketers, politicians,
> promoters), and there are objective professions (judges, reporters, librarians,
> scientists). Both get paid by their sponsors for doing good work; both are
> valid and respectable. But they are trained to think differently.
>
> Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
> 73367.1236@compuserve.com arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil
> (301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)
> Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084
>
I agree that the average scientist tries to strive toward objectivity and
honesty, as do a lot of other people in other occupations. However, I
believe that some of the most vocal, like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins
and George Gaylord Simpson when he was alive had a not so objectively
scientific agenda. Anyone who has read their writings and seen the
Cosmos series cannot help but pick up their philosophical stance and
atheism, and they do try to use science as an atheistic apologetic.
Sagan and Dawkins are just as dogmatic and unyielding in the face of
evidence as the ICR people are. As a matter, of fact, if one believes
that one has very good reasons and evidence for a stance, then it
stands to reason that one should hold strongly to that stance, but I do
not see that scientists have any monopoly on openmindedness. We do
need to dispel the myth that science and scientists are
monolithically atheistic and against religion and Christianity; however,
we also need to dispel the myth that science is some body of knowledge
that is separate from the subjectivity and foibles of the people who do
science. The same can be said of judges, reporters, and librarians.
There is a judge who is being investigated right now for bias against
women in Maryland, some reporters seem to be biased against political
conservatives and evangelical Christians, and from what I hear from
Christians in libraries or involved in library science, the atmosphere is
in general hostile towards them. The people running libraries scream about
censorship when it comes to pornography, but then turn around and censor
books that they don't want in their library such as creationist books and
books criticising their policies.
One just cannot paint professions and various disciplines of study with a
broad brush.
Jeff