Of Baramins and Baloney 6

Mark,
My personal concern, and the reason I began the blog in the first place, is not to pit one piece of evidence against another in order to “prove” any position (Many times just the same evidence viewed from different perspectives.), but to take off the social blinders that prevent science from exploring all possibilities that the evidence suggests. What happened to me and what happened to my friend Bill do not advance science. Science and the scientific method had nothing to do with our treatment, and as a result, advancement of science is the loser. Science has been taken captive by one world-view (secular materialism), which prevents all opposing views from presenting evidence toward alternative views. This is as wrong as prevention of the exploration of evolution was in the days of the Scopes Trial. It’s like a fiefdom being taken over by another and all members of the former regime being hunted down and executed. That’s not what is supposed to happen in modern society, and it’s not what is supposed to happen in science. I don’t know if there is a solution for co-existence of world-views, but like racism, the solution has to begin with recognition that it happens and that it is a problem. Some will say it doesn’t happen so we won’t have to face that it is a problem. I’m saying it happens, and I’m saying it’s a problem.
Don Mc

[Don]
Okay. I simply don’t agree that it is a general problem that scientists have “social blinders that prevent science from exploring all possibilities that the evidence suggests.”  As I noted before, scientists are competitive; they will go anywhere that evidence suggests. As I noted before, there is no new evidence pointing toward a teleological explanation for the origin or diversity of life on the planet. In addition, the current teleological explanations (ID and creationism) both posit something which is scientifically untestable at this time, a supernatural entity. So there are some problems with the thesis that scientists are being hindered by social blinders. The greater hindrances are lack of evidence and a scientifically untestable mechanism. Social blinders or not, it is impossible to follow evidence which does not exist, and it is impossible to get objective scientific evidence for a supernatural phenomenon.

The anecdotes about you and your friend Bill do not provide much evidence for your thesis. What new evidence was being suppressed in these situations? Old evidence from creationist literature in the form of “quick-deposit” geology, which has been shown to be incompatible with too many other observations and stratigraphies? Calling for the inclusion of long-defunct hypotheses is not science. Here’s why.

Science is not journalism; there is no need to “balance” a scientific explanation with a bogus one.

Science is not a democracy, so the comparison to what is supposed to happen in a “modern society” based on equal treatment of all persons is not analogous to equal treatment of all ideas.

Science is not a world-view, so your call for “co-existence” of opposing world views is simply a false analogy.

Methodological naturalism, which is the heart of the scientific method, is not the same as philosophical naturalism, which is a world view. Your conflation of the method with the philosophy is appallingly common, but also appallingly wrong.

Look, I understand that feelings can get hurt, and it sounds like you and your friend were treated roughly, based on your account. That is unfortunate. But it does not bespeak a greater problem with “blinders”. In order to get traction, you have to provide objective evidence for your notions, and be prepared to keep hammering away at the opposition with new data and fundamentally sound logic. In the absence of that you will get very little respect from the science community, and sometimes that lack of respect may seem a tad rude or socially inept. But the basis for the lack of respect, no matter how it is delivered, is still the same. New objective evidence and testable hypotheses are required to get that respect. Show us the evidence. Give us the tools to test supernatural explanations. If you can do that, and you still suffer disrespect, you will have a valid complaint. Until then, your complaints simply show your misunderstanding of science and the scientific method.
Mark

This entry was posted on December 7, 2008 at 10:58 pm and is filed under Science and faith. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.