Jim Stark wrote:
<< I concur. This is valid justification of science as
a method or its actual research work and the formation
of models. However, the books that scientists write are
not research reports that confine interpretations to
model limitations. Those books do embrace their personal
worldviews. They do not fairly separate scientific fact
from authoritative fact based on a presumed set of model
limitations. This is what students see more so than the
technical reports. The worldviews get presented to them
as science.>>
As a working scientist, and one who aspires to write
technical books someday, I through in my two yen....
No matter what I do, I will have underlining assumptions
that will seep into my writing. It seems rather unreasonable
to expect me to write a first chapter of disclaimers about
by fundamental world view, etc. Even if I did, could I
really be sure that I even understand clearly my own
world view? Philosophers who study my writing are
probably more qualified than myself to make those
assertions. It is very very difficult for a writer to be
his/her own editor, and I suspect it would be even more
difficult for a thinker to critique his/her own thinking.
<<
Dave's question:
> How does one's research change by including religious
> assumptions?
Jim's reply:
This depends on the research project. See my note to
SteamDoc yesterday. I believe that free will can be
included in many research projects by just admitting
possible causes beyond the system. It would allow a
more realistic interpretation. We need to include the
concept of agency in scientific models. The scientist
is the designing agent for the model.
>>
Yes, working in the field of biology, I do accept
evolution (or in some parlance: evilution) as a working
hypothesis. I accept it because it works (compared to
other ideas currently available). The place where faith
comes in for me is that I still believe that God was
involved. However, that is just it, "faith". If I begin
to import my "faith" into my science, then I am corrupting
observation evidence (i.e., something that I can lay on
the table and your folk and my folk can examine it) with
my one speculations.
In this respect, atheists who import their views into their
work are committing a violation of this rule, but let it
not be from my pen that I change the fundamental mandate of
science (laying the articles on the table) into another
political rally.
I also object to your requiring "agency" into the matter.
Agency is a a higher level operation than the process of
evolution. Unlike the ultra reductionist views of Dawkins
& co, evolution must ultimately work via chaos, which is
right in the hands of holistic processes, and consequently,
not so easily simplified for fascile triumphalism. However,
the boundary conditions are at the foundation of the world
(read universe) and not very amenable to testing.
I think I would rather aspire to the more humble task
of simply writing what we understand about molecular
biology, and what the current views are to the best that
I can understand them, and let the students decide for
themselves what sort of "faith" they want to put on it.
Yes, God interacting with nature does imply "agency",
but only if there is real proof of "design". So far,
this is my "faith", and faith is not a "proof".
<<
Dave wrote:
> But there is a vast gulf between the models and
> the worldviews.
Jim replied:
Indeed there is! This is an educational problem.
Authors need to make their worldviews more visible
to the reader so that they will be unable use
science to push their pet worldviews.
.... I did not like it when the instructors
or professors manipulated science to promote their
personal worldviews. Gullible students will absorb
that distortion as scientific fact. You got
put down if you raised the wrong questions.
>>
OK, consider though. Yes, *I* believe in God, but
suppose that a student in my class believes in Buddha.
That student will complain that I am inserting my "God"
into their world view of "Buddha". Likewise, if the
student does not believe in God, is it any better for
me to pound the God thing into their brain, or flunk them
if the say they don't believe? You've got to be fair,
and Christians (as teachers) have an even heavier weight
on them, because unlike their atheist buddies, they *are*
held accountable to God for the way they teach this
generation. God does not approve repaying evil with evil,
and harm with harm --- at least, not the last time I
cracked open my bible. Think about it.
In grace we do proceed.
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 18 2000 - 20:03:03 EDT