RE: [asa] Non-controversial science

There's nothing wrong with being 'post-modern' when it is simply by birth or by soaking in the atmosphere around oneself that is, for most definitions provided by scholars outside of 'natural' science. We live in a post-modern age. Because of this, it makes sense to deal with post-modernist thought responsibly rather than painting the term 'post-modern' as if it is either 'evil' or something 'they' (those other people somewhere, elsewhere, not here) do in their spare time.

Second, all of the negative responses to 'relativism' do nothing to highlight the positive things that relativity in human-social thought can contribute and has contributed. In fact, I would argue that the preponderance of relativism found in post-modern thought (i.e. the vast majority of people walking around on the street in N.A., outside of the rather isolated scientific laboratories where 'scientific' experiments are done) actually enhances the ability of ASA's mission to be shared with the world. Scientifically-minded Christians deserve to have their voices heard rather than being marginalised publically or disbelieved based on warfare-model thinking. P-M thought opens the dialogue table up so that everyone's voice can be heard, even the voice of ASA (and in S. Fuller's case, this means that intelligent design can and should be discussed in academies - his contribution to science and religion discourse).

Natural scientists, in my experience, protest to the roof against 'post-modern thought' because they perceive it as a threat to the institutions in which they work, study, research, dream, etc. (I've discovered also that they rarely read more than a book or two or a few articles about post-modernity, mainly by folks such as Gross and Levitt, which does little to endear them to the after-modernity reality of the day - they read about post-modernism mainly in order to condemn it). Yet almost everyone entering a scientific profession in the United States today is, by definition of being born in the 70s, 80s or soon 90s, a post-modernist BY BIRTH! So let's shall we reduce the amount of bashing post-modernism on ASA list, otherwise to show how few from the new generation, the up-coming voice of 'science' (and all other things) are participating here.

It is astonishing how many times Moorad has had to repeat his position and how strongly m0st at ASA reject it. It is like taking TIME out of the equation in order to protest that 'science is objective' and nothing else! For all the talk of 'subjective' and 'objective' (not mind/body, not matter/form or form/content) at ASA, some talk about 'space' and 'time' might be helpful. Does anyone agree? It is painfully obvious that Moorad's education east of western Europe affords him an understanding (a valid one in my pov) which defines 'science' differently than most Americans, British and Australians do. The Germanic-Russian tradition has many appreciable qualities for how to view 'science,' though they challenge the common American approach. Why not try to discover them instead of mustering an attack force against it (which is really now a B-sh-ism, 'with us or against us'). Some flexibility to new views would go a long way.

Why not try to learn from it rather than tossing it out, baby with bathwater. E.g. Why not try involving 1) Popper's claim that evolutionism is personified historicism, 2) Windelband's distinction between nomothetic and ideographic. The discussion about historical vs. experimental has happened long ago and the results of this discussion should be known at ASA, rather than mistakes regurgitated, entrenched views maintained, with no new knowledge adding to people's thought.

Just a word of caution Bruce, since most on ASA list are natural scientists, with a few philosophers (e.g. Dave Siemens), even computer programmers/biologists (e.g. Iain in the UK, Dave in Canada), and of course theologians. ASA is about protecting the integrity of 'science' as much as about protecting the integrity of 'religion.' Thus, when you say something that challenges the 'natural' part of science, i. e. when you speak of a spectrum of science or, heaven forbid, suggest that 'science' works with non-natural things as well (i.e. thus destroying the American-made idol of MN vs. PN sophistry), that 'science' is not as monolithic as the modern age pretended it could be, don't expect to get away with it without being deemed 'non-scientific,' as if such a label changes the value of what you've said.

That said, I'd recommed following David O.'s tone here rather than mine - he is more diplomatic and tolerant than I am, plus he lives in the USA, which provides a common language for the list. As a sociologist of science who studies scientists 'doing science' and also the MEANING of science in/to socities, my voice is commonly avoided (see Iain recently going silent when the topic of 'ideology' was raised), perhaps because it hits a bit too close to home and about how 'science' is much more simple and unsacred than 'scientists' often make it out to be. (E.g Lakatos' point that only a small, small number of scientists actually contribute to 'advances in science,' while the others do the grunt work or study the advances made by others.) By commenting on 'science' from the realm of legal studies, jurisprudence, etc. one may feel themself an 'outsider' at ASA, which is uplifting 'science' (meaning natural science), while other areas of knowledge (e.g. art,
 music, politics, culture, economy, sport, etc.) are underemphasized. But that's o.k. too since it is 'the Nature of' (some may call it 'the character of,' since it deals with people) this ASA list to focus its domain of interest. I'd encourage you to apply your non-scientific (said in a positive way) insights to the ASA list and perhaps recruit others who are scholars of a non-naturalistic strain. Nothing wrong with improving the diversity at ASA!

Btw, hope you folks won't take it too personally (meaning negative response) that a sociologist is speaking about people, not about 'scientific facts.' :-)

En route to New York then further East,
Cheers, G.

--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:

> From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Non-controversial science
> To: "Kirk Bertsche" <Bertsche@aol.com>, "Bruce Bennett" <304law@bellsouth.net>
> Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>, "ASA Affiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Received: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 8:00 PM
> Forensic science is a good prototype of a historical science. It uses the findings of experimental sciences but does not necessarily contribute to it. This is not too minimize the importance of historical sciences but to make it clear what we are talking or writing about
>
> Moorad
>
>

Bruce wrote:

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

      __________________________________________________________________
Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 27 15:59:12 2008