Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

I think everyone is missing my point. I am NOT post-modern in my
thinking, and in fact rail against relativism in discussions with others
regularly. I believe in absolute truths, the value of science both
historical and non-historical, and see science as not just complementary
but also supportive of theology. But science, just like theology, does
not provide 100% proof of absolute truths. It provides evidence,
sometimes apparent indisputable evidence, that still must be accepted on
faith or belief. The fact we have free will to reason and accept or
reject the evidence does not belong to scientists, lawyers, theologians,
politicians or anyone other than the individual. Just because there is
a best way to explain an outcome, i.e., the rabbit and the fox example,
clearly doesn't make it an absolute truth. I just cannot always reject
other possible realistic outcomes just because there is some better
reason, or because that's all the information I have. To me that's
overly simplistic. But that doesn't make me a relativist. Individuals
make determinations of what are absolute truths based on what we learn
(evidence) through our five senses, at a given time and place in
history, and then apply reason to accept or reject them. This is our
design and what we are expected to do when we accept Christ. Otherwise
there would be no need for faith. I admit my legal training and
experience could easily lead me down a post-modern path, and I can see
how you may have interpreted my comments that way, but it's not the
case. You view information from the perspective of a scientist and I
from that of a lawyer, and yet we both believe in absolute truths. I
think the difference may be in how we process the evidence that
ultimately leads us to those truths. One thing I've learned from many
years of school, multiple degrees/certifications and human experience is
that the more I know, the more I realize the less I know, but that the
more I also believe in absolute truths.

Michael Roberts wrote:

> To me this is frightfully post-modern and relativises everything.
>
> One of dawkins' sensible comments is "show me a postmodernist at
> 30000ft" i.e. about to be pushed out of a plane. All know the results
> of g even if one cannot give a number to it. g is truth!
>
> Too much can be made of objective and subjective and today science is
> far more aware that the observer has some bearing on the results but
> that does not make everything subjective.
>
> As for proof in the eyes of the beholder, this is where rigour in
> science comes in as much for historical science as anything else.
> Personal belief can prevent any seeing as in the case of global
> warming deniers, who have to run against the whole consensus of science.
>
> Finally geology is as much a hard science as anything like physics and
> chemistry. There is hard evidence to deal with as when with some
> groups (including Harvard students) we look at the Bellstone in
> Shrewsbury. This is a rounded boulder 3ft across which has been left.
> Darwin mentioned as inexplicable in 1820s. It was realised that the
> rock type indicated it came from Scotland and its original locatioon
> could be worked out. That is hard evidence, and histroical science
> seeks to explain things like that. As Keith points out these methods
> have rigour .
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Bennett" <304law@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Non-controversial science
>
>
>> Thanks Michael. I am only trying to parse the subjective from the
>> objective. There are sincere beliefs from intelligent folks that are
>> reasonable and supportable who are diametrically opposed. Some argue
>> persuasively that nicotine is not harmful or that global warning is
>> not real, or a host of other things. I'm not picking on the age of
>> the earth or any other particular "fact" of historical science to say
>> it can't be "proven". I only say that proof is in the eyes of the
>> beholder. If I see a car and say it is red and you see the same car
>> and say it is orange, whose to say my fact is right and yours is
>> wrong or vica-versa? Your fact may have far more support and be
>> generally accepted, but the acceptance of the 'fact' as fact is up to
>> the individual hearing about it and not by the person telling it. Bruce
>>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

-- 
Bruce W. Bennett
Bennett Law Offices, LLC
P.O. Box 968
Grayson, GA 30017
tele.  (770) 978-7603
FAX    (770) 978-7628
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.