From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Wed Sep 17 2003 - 20:14:25 EDT
It is clear that Allen and I are talking past each other, and I see no
purpose in taking the time to sort out confusions that will continue to be
perpetuated. I've have read Kuhn's materials and I think I understand them
well enough, though I'm not certain Allen does. And I can make no sense out
of the phrase "post-empiricism science," which is to say, it is nonsense.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "allenroy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised
> > I originally wrote,
> > >>> There are two problems here. 1. The supposed "empirical data"
regarding
> > the age of the earth is not empirical at all, but interpretation of data
based
> > upon a paradigm that expects an old age for the earth. 2. That
"massive"
> > amount of data regarding the age of the earth is only relevant within
the
> > paradigm that interprets the data (and which calls it empirical). It is
> > irrelevant how much interpreted data there is within one paradigm when
that
> > interpretation is irrelevant in another paradigm.
> >
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > Using the word "supposed" and putting empirical data in quotation marks
does
> > not change the reality of the situation. Such data is empirical because
it is
> > drawn from observations, tests, etc. of nature as it is. To say that
> > empirical data is relevant only within the paradigm that interprets it
is
> > nonsense.
>
> I, (Allen) refer again to Del Ratzesch quoted earlier:
>
> "Historically, it was almost universally believed that perception was
neutral,
> in the sense that genuinely honest and careful observation was unaffected
by
> beliefs, presupposition, philosophical preferences, or similar factors.
This
> neutrality guaranteed the objectivity and utter trustworthiness of
empirical
> data, which constituted the secure foundation of science. But that
perceived
> neutrality came under attack in the mid-20th century. Thomas Kuhn, for
example,
> argued that perception itself was an active--not a passive--process,
deeply
> colored by the broader conceptual matrices, or paradigms, to which one had
prior
> allegiances."
>
> "Thus, this view not only destroyed the allegedly rigid, logical structure
of
> science, but also threatened the pure objectivity of its foundation.
> Furthermore, paradigms influenced not only perception, but also theory
> evaluation and acceptance, conceptual resources, normative judgments
within
> science, and a host of other consequential matters. And, according to
Kuhn,
> paradigms were partially defined by, among other things, metaphysical
> commitments and values. Thus, non-empirical, human-suffused perspectives
had
> seeped into the no-longer-inviolable scientific method at all levels, from
> empirical bedrock to theoretical pinnacle."
>
> When I used the phrase "empirical data," I meant to be discussing the
supposed
> neutrality of 'empirical data," The fact is, "empirical data" is not
neutral
> because the observation process is biased according to one's paradigm. In
fact,
> what is often called "empirical data" (implying neutrality and
objectivity) is
> really an paradigm biased interpretation of the data.
>
> >
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > Data is never irrelevant to any paradigm (see the example of Kepler,
below).
>
> Allen:
> I agree. It is the interpretation of the data according to a paradigm
that can
> be irrelevant in another paradigm. It is extremely important to be able
to
> discern data from interpretation. For instance, accurately measured
ratios of
> isotopes is data. The measured half-life of an unstable isotope is data.
> Ancient ages derived from isotope ratios and measured half-lives are
> interpretation.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > Both statements 1 and 2 show a misunderstanding of both "empirical data"
and
> > "paradigm."
>
> Allen:
> Not according to Kuhn.
>
> > Allen wrote
> > >>> The evolutionary paradigm is just as religious and sacred as a
Creationary
> > paradigm. The only difference is that the evolutionary paradigm is
based upon
> > and accepted by blind faith. It is blind because it cannot be confirmed
by
> > anyone who could know.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > The first sentence of the above paragraph is false. So is the second.
And
> > the third makes no sense.
>
> Allen:
> So, they are false on your say so? Evolutionism is religious because it
is
> based on Ontological Naturalism (O.N.) which must be accepted by
faith--blind
> faith. See below.
>
> > Allen wrote:
> > > Your ontological naturalist, when he/she interprets (reads) nature,
actually
> > starts with a philosophical statement which supplies the presuppositions
> > needed to build a paradigm--1) Nature is all there is; 2) because we
are here
> > (and 1), Abiogenesis and Evolution are absolute facts; 3) Deep time is
> > extrapolated as expected. Thus, Evolutionism is not "solely based on
reading
> > nature," but upon presuppositions about nature that nature cannot
supply.
> >
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > The statements in the paragraph are typical of YEC arguments that
confuse the
> > empirical science of biological evolution with a naturalistic philosophy
that
> > claims to be rooted in and necessarily follows from the science.
Although
> > this fact has been pointed out repeatedly to YECs they simply refuse to
> > acknowledge that there is a difference.
>
> Allen:
> I know full well the difference. You are the one who is confused. In
fact, you
> have it all backwards. O.N. does not come from science, evolutionary
science
> comes from O.N.
> First: It is impossible to do science unless it is done within a
philosophical
> paradigm. Science requires certain philosophical presuppositions before
it can
> begin the observational process.
> Second: Because the paradigm comes first, it biases the observational
process
> (per Kuhn).
> Third: Abiogenesis and Evolution must be true in Ontological Naturalism.
> Fourth: Necessarily biased "empirical data" (actually, "interpreted data")
> supports the concept of biological evolution.
>
> This process happens even when those involved are not aware of the
philosophical
> foundation in which they are working, and while thinking they are
empirically
> neutral.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > They are the strange bedfellows of adherents of such a naturalistic
belief
> > system; in fact the two seem to need one another and thrive on each
others
> > embrace of this false notion. As I once said to a former colleague,
"These
> > creationists sure love their atheists!"
>
> Allen:
> As was pointed out above, your are the one who has embraced a false
notion, i.e.
> that "empirical" science is somehow independent of any philosophical
foundation
> and that a philosophical foundation follows from empirical science. Go
back a
> read what Del Ratzesch has said. I quote Del Ratzesch because he is a
professor
> of philosophy at Calvin College which is home to many on this list and
which
> hosts this email list.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > What both reject is any notion that the empirical science
> > of evolution and the empirical evidence of an earth 4.6 billion years
old
> > may be consonant with a Christian theology of creation when biblical
> > creation is rightly understood as theology and not science.
>
> Allen:
> What YECs and, perhaps, some O.Ns. recognize is that there is no such
thing as
> neutral empirical science. They know that all science is done within a
> paradigm. And when one accepts "empirical" data as interpreted within a
> paradigm, one implicitly accepts the interpretive paradigm also.
>
> YECs (and others) recognize that a creationary theology automatically
leads to a
> creationary philosophy and paradigm which supplies the necessary
presuppositions
> within which science can be done.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > Thus, an evolutionary old earth creationist like myself does not accept
any of
> > the content of the above paragraph as an accurate statement of the
facts.
>
> Allen:
> See, your paradigm determines what you accept a facts and fallacy.
>
> > Allen Wrote:
> > > A Creationary paradigm is based upon a revealed history and is
accepted by
> > faith in the truthfulness of God. His word, though written by flawed
humans
> > and using finite human language, tells us what we need to know. A
Creationary
> > paradigm also starts with a philosophical statement which supplies the
> > presuppositions needed to build a paradigm--1) In the beginning God
created
> > the universe; 2) God created by fiat the biosphere on this planet; 3)
There
> > has been only some 6000+/- years since the creation of the biosphere; 4)
A
> > global cataclysm involving the complete lithosphere reworked the entire
> > surface of the globe some 4000 years ago.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > The so-called "Creationary paradigm" is not based on revealed history
but on
> > a particular interpretation of the meaning of the biblical text by those
who
> > confuse interpretation with inspiration and collapse the two.
>
> Allen:
> #1. The Bible is revealed history, irregardless of our interpretation or
> understanding of the texts.
> #2. It is the same Holy Spirit who inspired the writers who will teach us
all
> truth -- i.e. interpret what is needed to be known. We are not left to
each one
> having their own interpretation if we are willing to follow the leading of
the
> Holy Spirit. We can know what the Holy Spirit meant when he inspired the
> writers when we let him teach us what he meant.
> #3. Thus inspiration and interpretation have their fulfillment in one
person,
> the Holy Spirit.
>
> The Creationary paradigm is based on revealed history as it is commonly
> recognized and understood. Interpretations which, in some way or another,
try
> to change or modify the typical understanding, do so because O.N. is used
as the
> paradigm in which the Bible must be understood.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote:
> > What they take on faith is not the inspired text but their
interpretation of
> > it. While both an evolutionary creationist and a YEC agree on statement
1),
> > the former would reject statements 2) - 4) for two reasons. First
he/she
> > would disagree with the interpretations of the biblical texts that lead
to
> > those statements, and proffer a better interpretation. Second, he/she
> > recognizes that the empirical data from the earth itself testifys that
> > statements 2) - 4) cannot stand either as valid scientific statements or
as
> > valid interpretations of the text.
>
> Allen:
> See. You have done exactly what I said is done. You proffer a "better
> interpretation" recognizing that empirical data (actually "interpreted
data"
> from within a non-biblical paradigm) defines how one interpreted the
Biblical
> text.
>
> > Allen wrote:
> > > Those in the Evolutionary/O.N. camp may promote a massive amount of
> > 'empirical' evidence for a vast age of life on the earth. But, to those
in the
> > Creationary camp, that 'empirical' evidence is irrelevant and seen for
what it
> > really is--interpretation within the O.N. paradigm that expects deep
time.
> > > The paradigm determines the age of life on earth, not the raw data.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > I partly agree and partly disagree. It is true that any empirical
evidence
> > for the ancient age of the earth is irrelevant to YECs because they
simply
> > refuse to accept any evidence that calls their INTERPRETATION of the
Bible
> > into question.
>
> Allen: True
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > I disagree, in that empirical evidence for an ancient earth is not
interpreted
> > within an ontological naturalistic paradigm; it is interpreted within an
> > scientific paradigm.
>
> Ain't no such animal. Other propose methodological naturalism as a
scientific
> paradigm, but Del Ratzesch wrote:
> "There are many who insist on some version of methodological
naturalism--that
> whatever the ultimate metaphysical reality, genuine science as science
must
> (either definitionally or practically) be completely detached from
everything
> other than the purely natural. But rigid cases for such prohibitions are
> increasingly difficult to construct." (as quoted in first post in this
series.)
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > The data determines the age of the earth, not the paradigm. The fact
that the
> > earth is several orders of magnitude older than 6000 yrs (+/- a few)
arose as
> > a RESULT of the empirical data that determined it. It was the data that
> > finally called the BELIEF in a 6000-year-old earth into question.
>
> Allen:
> Sorry, whether you recognize it or not, all data is biased according to
some
> paradigm. Even if you try to ignore the fact that the data is influenced
by the
> paradigm, you still buy into the paradigm when you accept its
interpretation of
> the data. The BELIEF that the earth is old arose from interpreted data
based
> upon certain philosophical assumptions. It was the false belief that
empirical
> data is neutral and objective that caused the Biblical story to be
rejected.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote:
> > In the same way, the conviction that we live in a circular universe,
> > maintained even by Copernicus, was shattered by Kepler's discovery that
> > planets move in elliptical orbits. Kepler kept trying to fit his data
into
> > the circular model, but it wouldn't fit. But he didn't say, "Oh, this
data is
> > irrelevant because it doesn't fit the circular model." Instead, he
tried
> > other models, first an oval, which didn't work, then an ellipse, which
did.
> > YECs do the opposite.
>
> Allen:
> What Kepler discovered was that the empirical data as interpreted within
the
> circular universe paradigm would not work. So he developed another
paradigm
> within which to interpret the data where there was consistency. You are
not
> functioning like Kepler. You don't recognize that the data is interpreted
> within a paradigm. Un like Kepler, you don't even know there is a
paradigm.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote:
> > They invent arguments such as the "moon dust" argument or the "human
remains
> > in older rock strata" argument to justify their particular
interpretation of
> > the Bible to teach a young earth. The most they will do is admit that
certain
> > of their arguments are invalid, such as the above, but they will never,
never,
> > never, give up their interpretation of the Bible that leads them to hold
to
> > the belief in a young earth.
>
> Allen:
> Absolutely! Just as you will probably never recognize that "empirical
data" is
> not neutral but is paradigm interpreted.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > Paradigms are discarded and replaced by new paradigms when the
discoveries of
> > empirical science demonstrate that the old paradigm no longer does the
job.
> > It may take some time for this to happen, but it happens.
>
> Allen:
> Sorry again, but old paradigms are discarded because they cannot interpret
the
> data in a logical, satisfactory way. A new paradigm is invented which can
then
> interpret the data logically and consistently. Its all about
interpretation.
> It has nothing to do with "neutral" empirical science.
>
> > Robert Schneider wrote
> > I do not expect YECs to abandon their young earth position because they
are
> > ideological wedded to it, and any evidence to the contrary, as Allen
said, is
> > irrelevant to them.
>
> Allen:
> Wrong again, we don't reject "evidence to the contrary" we reject
> interpretations of data to the contrary.
>
> Robert Schneider wrote:
> But they will not convince others who have at least some scientific
literacy by
> rejecting well-established scientific evidence, and cloaking their
ideology in a
> jargonized use of such terms as "paradigm."
>
> Allen:
> You appear to be functioning in a scientific world some 50 to 100 years
out of
> date. I suggest you go back and read the article I posted by Del
Ratzesch. So
> far, you have only responded to my statements and have ignored what Dr.
Ratzesch
> (not a YEC by the way) has said.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 17 2003 - 20:18:38 EDT