Comments on: Making judgments about hypotheses http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/making-judgments-between-hypotheses/ A humanist's musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:09:13 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: neilgodfrey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/making-judgments-between-hypotheses/#comment-4747 neilgodfrey Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:13:27 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/making-judgments-between-hypotheses/#comment-4747 I'm glad the Marcion posts are of interest to a few others. He's one of my favourite studies. But as for the "frames of refernce thing" you'll have to explain to me how that fits with my contrast between science and fundamentalism. I’m glad the Marcion posts are of interest to a few others. He’s one of my favourite studies.

But as for the “frames of refernce thing” you’ll have to explain to me how that fits with my contrast between science and fundamentalism.

]]> By: epiphanist http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/making-judgments-between-hypotheses/#comment-4746 epiphanist Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:07:01 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/making-judgments-between-hypotheses/#comment-4746 A mystifying moment! LOL. It's a frames of reference thing. I should have mentioned that I am greatly enjoying Marcion's story. A mystifying moment! LOL. It’s a frames of reference thing. I should have mentioned that I am greatly enjoying Marcion’s story.

]]> By: neilgodfrey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/making-judgments-between-hypotheses/#comment-4688 neilgodfrey Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:24:02 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/making-judgments-between-hypotheses/#comment-4688 Scientific enquiry and reason are methods by which hypotheses are tested. They often lead to counter-intuitive conclusions; and by all their conclusions are tentative pending further enquiries in the light of more evidence and refinement of methods. This is the antithesis of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the assertion of dogma -- that is, a religious belief system without proof. Evidence is sought to justify the belief, but is not really essential to the belief. Contradictory evidence is rationalized away or set aside. Fundamentalist teachings can never fundamentally change. To say science and fundamentalism are subject to the "same error" mystifies me. As for social relativity, aircraft and skyscrapers depend on the absoluteness of the laws and facts that underpin everyday reality. Rain makes me wet and falling from a height hurts me no matter what culture or social forces I belong to. Scientific enquiry and reason are methods by which hypotheses are tested. They often lead to counter-intuitive conclusions; and by all their conclusions are tentative pending further enquiries in the light of more evidence and refinement of methods.

This is the antithesis of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the assertion of dogma — that is, a religious belief system without proof. Evidence is sought to justify the belief, but is not really essential to the belief. Contradictory evidence is rationalized away or set aside. Fundamentalist teachings can never fundamentally change.

To say science and fundamentalism are subject to the “same error” mystifies me.

As for social relativity, aircraft and skyscrapers depend on the absoluteness of the laws and facts that underpin everyday reality. Rain makes me wet and falling from a height hurts me no matter what culture or social forces I belong to.

]]> By: epiphanist http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/making-judgments-between-hypotheses/#comment-4681 epiphanist Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:50:17 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/making-judgments-between-hypotheses/#comment-4681 "there are those who see all knowledge claims as relative and the product of social forces and cultural perceptions" Really, the sensible point of view, but Lewis-Williams only pays it lip service. Science (and reason) are self serving when they define within their own terms of reference. This is the same error as in the arguments of the fundamentalists. The saving grace for science in this context would be the "heuristic potential", if it is able to be recognised within the cultural perception. For example, climate change is forcing established scientific cultures in the energy industry into different cultural perception and exposing the narrow insular thinking of the experts. “there are those who see all knowledge claims as relative and the product of social forces and cultural perceptions” Really, the sensible point of view, but Lewis-Williams only pays it lip service. Science (and reason) are self serving when they define within their own terms of reference. This is the same error as in the arguments of the fundamentalists. The saving grace for science in this context would be the “heuristic potential”, if it is able to be recognised within the cultural perception. For example, climate change is forcing established scientific cultures in the energy industry into different cultural perception and exposing the narrow insular thinking of the experts.

]]>