> I have known scientists who, in the presence of the
> same evidence, will draw different conclusions. One might classify them as
> "advocating" their position. It does come down to the fact that we are not
> always perfect in our conclusions whether seeking the truth as lawyers or as
> scientists (provided the motives are pure). Hence the need for us to
> constantly go the the Lord is prayer to ask for guidance as we go about our
> lives "in the world". Comments?
>
> Vince
> -----------------------------------
I agree. You will recall the ancient parable about the 5 blind men and the
elephant. It is told in different ways, but I find this kind of thing happening
all the time. Last week several 20-year veterans in my field of physics were
asked by the sponsor to discuss the basic definitions of some terms, and their
approaches and conclusions were widely different. The meeting was a fiasco.
The journal of the ASA is called "Perspectives". That is the paradigm that
is appropriate for most of its content. In Bube's terminology (Putting It All
Together), we are describing different kinds of things about the same things.
What I try to do is find ways to unify the different perspectives; not to
see them as opposing, polarized views. If we are talking about professional
specialities, that is often possible. Lawyers and scientists have different
perspectives, but that doesn't mean one is valid and the other is not. They
just use different methods of arriving at the one, common, multidimensional
truth.
Try this: while anchored in your freedom in Him, move over into the
opponent's mind. What part is valid from this perspective? What is based on
ignorance? How can I clear up his or her misconceptions or misperceptions (i.e.
the blind men and the elephant)?
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