Re: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

Are you a social-humanitarian thinker, Michael?

Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote: Is this horseplay?
    ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: Alexanian, Moorad ; George Murphy ; Merv ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:26 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science
  

  “Causes have to be natural to qualify as science, that’s all.” – Dick Fischer
   
  “Does this mean that anthropology, philology, economics, sociology, culturology, history and psychology (among others) do not qualify as ‘science’ in your estimation? They all study non-natural things.” – G. Arago
   
  “Natural as opposed to supernatural.” – Dick Fischer
   
  “Yada, yada.” – J. Seinfeld
   
  What gives some people such confidence that all that is not ‘supernatural’ must therefore be ‘natural’?
   
  The argument is simply that you can’t reduce everything to ‘natural’ so easily (i.e. and expect it to hold across the board) as your ancient argument seems to do. Doing so not only biases peoples’ definition of ‘nature,’ but also unnecessarily compromises their definition of ‘science’ based on false premises (science = the study of what is natural, nature = that which science alone can study). There are sciences (cf. scientific methods) of many things that are not ‘natural’ as the term ‘natural’ is known to (believed in by) ‘natural scientists.’ To admit this is to take a step away from naturalism toward a more holistic view.
   
  “Natural forces do not have purpose, direction, etc. of their own.” – David Campbell
   
  But human beings do have purpose and direction of their own. Does that make human beings ‘not-natural’? No. Does it make us ‘more-than-just-natural’? A more realistic scenario.
   
  What this is really about is people’s claims to what counts as socially important knowledge – natural scientists believing that their knowledge is the most important knowledge, authenticated by being ‘Science’ in the Enlightenment sense of the term. But now we are in a post-Enlightenment phase, and there’s the rub. Of course, for those natural scientists that are also theists, such a view about what is the most important knowledge can be personally balanced so that science is never elevated above theology. Nevertheless, in their professional context as scientists, the fields of art, culture, music, sports and other such non-scientific things are presumed as less important.
   
  Dave W.’s definition of ‘natural’ as including “all of mankind's activities and characteristics,” simply doesn’t square with the evidence gathered by non-naturalist social scientists. It is blatant over-stretching (which is likely why Dave balked with an ‘almost’ qualifier). To the charge of stamp collecting and proto- or immature science I won’t dignify an answer. There are many ‘natural sciences’ that are younger than ‘social sciences,’ and that are putting out speculative and unpredictable theories, which still gain the trust of their naturalist colleagues as ‘in-club.’ Trump card of Science over theology thrives on such views. Such a perspective is so far out-dated, so far missing the boat, so out of touch with what’s happened since philosophy and sociology of science have made theoretical and research progress; it seems difficult to find pathways toward discussion with one who isn’t in tune with the pulse of the age. I appreciate Dave W.’s views very much, but in
 this case, nature = all things human, just doesn’t wash.
   
  Go read some philosophy or sociology of science and then come back and repeat the infantile mantra about how sacred science is and how it can only study natural causes. It may get your girdles all twisted-up, but this is exactly how intelligent design theory’s attempted introduction of ‘intelligent causes’ is threatening the comfort zone of natural scientists who want to live as naturalists in their labs, as theists in their homes and churches, never the twain shall meet. I+d as a potential contribution to science recognizes ‘intelligent agency,’ something that cannot be denied in human-social sciences, but which doesn’t make much sense in natural sciences where a natural/supernatural dichotomy is promoted and ‘intervention’ is a naughty word.
   
  Lest those recovering positivists (read: anti-scientism natural scientists) out there might allow that reflexive understanding (preferably aided by theology and study of Scripture) is more important to human life and the place of meaning, purpose and value than any natural science ever could be!
   
  Huh/Eh, what did he just say?!
   
  G.A.
   
   
  p.s. ‘Creation science’ is no more ‘supernatural science’ than I am George M.’s distant cousin! Better to call it ‘science of Creation’ and slam it for trying to scientize the Creation than to bring down (or up) the supernatural into science. Isn’t it true that ‘creation scientists’ are trying to say not how God did it, but when, where and through/with what natural processes? There certainly can be a science of creativity and of how people create, by studying those things using scientific methods.

       
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 14 02:43:28 2007