> From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:04:01 EDT
> To: stark2301@voyager.net, asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Atheistic portrayal of science in popular culture.
>
> Wayne wrote:
>>>
>> No matter what I do, I will have underlining
>> assumptions that will seep into my writing.
>> It seems rather unreasonable to expect me
>> to write a first chapter of disclaimers about
>> by fundamental world view, etc.
> Jim replies:
> I think a disclaimer chapter would be unsatisfactory
> to both the writer and reader. Just add clarifying
> sentences as the topic comes up. Separate fact
> from personal interpretations. i.e. separate scientific
> fact from authoritative fact. Identify the source of
> the authoritative fact. You would not have to provide
> your full worldview --just the relevant beliefs or
> values.
>>>
>
> It would depend on what you actually mean here.
> Like a sermon on "forgiveness", it never sticks,
> but Strunk and White write, in "Elements of style"
>
> "1. Place yourself in the background.
>
> Write in a way that draws he reader's attention
> to the sense and substance of the writing, rather than to
> the mood and temper of the author. If the writing is
> solid and good, the mood and temper of the writer will
> eventually be revealed, and not at the expense of the
> work. Therefore, the first piece of advice is this: to
> achieve style, begin by affecting none --- that is, place
> yourself in the background. ......
Apparently, since my meaning was not clear the sense and substance of what I
said was inadequate. When we respond to comments in these forums, we do not
focus on this need. We often only give hints of relevant material. My
concern is how we treat what we claim as facts. I suggest four definitions
along a continuum of facts from presumed facts to tested facts.
A scientific fact would be a belief with a high degree of coherence with
many internal non-contradictory relationships based on a limited truth and
promoted by the experimenting scientists or their field of study ‹ i.e., a
designated worldview.
We shift scientific facts into tested facts when they represent those
scientific facts that have successfully passed designated observational
tests.
Scientists use many untestable facts that should be reported as
authoritative facts. With the use of authoritative facts, the means of
accepting them as fact would be based on confidence in second hand
information from a presumed authority such as an authoritative story.
At the other end of our continuum of facts would be the untestable presumed
facts, such as the many assumptions and premises at the foundations of our
models. These assumptions could be identified as religious facts for the
specific believer. They could be facts of faith.
When the student chooses to believe a "fact", a useful continuum would help
guide his or her choices and assign a rough degree of belief.
> Jim:
>> Evolution can be expanded to embrace several levels
>> of agency.
>> For research work much of science requires a
>> deterministic model which would have to treat
>> agency and free will as programs. Why deny their
>> existence?
>
>> At a higher level of evolution free will
>> ruptures that determinacy. Social actions do
>> involve non-deterministic free will. Yet,
>> social scientists still treat that free will
>> as a program. Such research work seems to be
>> very misleading to the public. However, Once
>> free will is acted upon, an intention becomes
>> a cause "after the fact". A deterministic model
>> after any action could still be used.
>> The role of agency would take on a new aspect
>> at the quantum level of atoms and particles.
>> It might show how the part can be a window to
>> the whole.
>
> Nobody denies the existence of free will completely,
> not even Dennett. Most people accept some degree
> of determinism.
I would like to believe this, but too much of what they put in books
seems one-sided with insufficient comments about true free will that is not
just a program.
>Beyond that, I'm sorry, but you've completely lost me.
>Wayne
I can understand this when I was so brief about a possibly new concept
related to freedom. I am organizing a science of intentionality that accepts
the existence of a non-deterministic free will. I see this free will as a
spiritual force that directs our choices based on the available beliefs and
values that we individually accept as part of our personal worldview. Our
intentions are values that direct our choices. The rationality of our
choices varies with the coherence of our worldviews and the emotional
loading we attach to individual experiences. Intentions then become causes
"after the fact" of making a decision using that free will. Scientists
naturally treat cause and effect as a deterministic relationship.
The use of that free will is always done by a decision agent. Humans are
social decision agents who are not the rational creatures that many
scientists presume, especially social scientists and some neuroscientists.
It is the old nature nurture argument, where genes and environment are
presumed to be the only relevant sources for causes. The source of those
causes should include our intentions, through which the spiritual realm has
influence.
How free will enters the brain is very speculative. Some writers are
exploring the quantum level for explanations.
Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 13:23:54 EDT