Neutrality of science?

Gladwin Joseph (josephg@ccmail.orst.edu)
Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:06:15 -0800

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Loren Haarsma: "Science and supernatural explanations (was: working in the flesh?)"
Previous message: David Campbell: "Re: Science: working in the flesh?"
Next in thread: Bill Hamilton: "Re: Neutrality of science?"

If Sience can neither rule in or rule out supernatural
involvement David implies that it is Neutral in its
claims. Is an argument for Intelligent Design then based on
an alternative assumption that Science is not essentially
neutral? That interpretations are necessarily based on one's
underlying assumptions of the universe. I am curious to
know whether Science indeed can be neutral in all
disciplines or is it held in some tension between Neutrality
and Bias? Does it move towards either end depending on the
discipline one is involved in or does one's discipline
provide a particular context for Science? Therefore the
claims in that particular context may vary in their
apparent degree of neutrality or bias. It seems like yet
another paradox in our human epistemological constructs.

Shalom
Gladwin Joseph
josephg@fsl.orst.edu

Next message: Loren Haarsma: "Science and supernatural explanations (was: working in the flesh?)"
Previous message: David Campbell: "Re: Science: working in the flesh?"
Next in thread: Bill Hamilton: "Re: Neutrality of science?"