Gregory wrote:
<< I don't disagree with George's theology of the cross (how could a Christian do such a thing?). What I do disagree with is the smuggling in of physicalism and naturalism into one's definition of 'science' and then suggesting that it is somehow a kind of 'universal' expectation for all scientists to adhere to just because it (sometimes) works! Such a position is over-reaching and an attempt to force natural science upon all other spheres (in a Kuyperian sense) of knowledge in the academy which should rather be left free to investigate phenomena as they see fit. In other words, don't try to tie knots around anthropology, sociology, culturology, economics and other social-humanitarian fields (i.e. as if they are merely 'natural,' end of story) just because you presume a kind of 'naturalism' that tentatively holds for your own specialized field(s) of knowledge. Rather leave them free (by openly expressing their freedom) than attempting to passively constrain them with methods !
that do not properly fit. >>
I think you should at least consider that this is a list that contains mostly scientists and engineers. MN summarizes the main experience, background, and well-honed problem-solving skills that have helped us scientists and engineers (again the majority here) to survive or do our job correctly. What is needed for lawyers and sociologists to survive may differ in some ways, but I'm sure MN is useful to both.
At any rate, on this list, it is your job to learn what our functional definitions are, and relate them to your own background, experience and functional definitions. We simply cannot do that for you because we don't know that area all that well. When you understand how we use these functional definitions, then you are in a better position to explain to us how your view is different in a way that we can understand. Is that easy? Certainly not. Science is a big job to learn and no matter how experienced I am, I still discover that there is much I don't understand. I try to understand this, but even with what humanities I do know, I cannot see what you are driving at precisely.
I see that you object to us saying the MN is the way we do science, but I don't really understand what your objection is to using MN for doing the social sciences. The little social science I am aware of is stuff that basically follows these principles, though it certainly cannot be expected to yield the precision that a physics experiment can.
Is it because in sociology, there are many different models for the same thing? Therefore you feel that MN is just one more model? Likewise economics? Yet, as far as I know, almost all of these type of models start from a proposition that is then claimed (at least) to be tested using MN. An economist would cite some sort of evidence for his/her model. A sociologist would offer a controlled study of some kind to identify some tendency in a population. Likewise for anthropology. At least, this is what I would surmise.
Moreover, if I found I had to survive as a lawyer or a sociologist, for some reason, MN is the toolbox I'm sure to bring with me and carry around where ever I went.
There are gaps between brain science (studied using NMR) and ultimately how people function. Yet again, if I had to do functional MRI scans, I would have little choice but to turn to MN to help me. I would then research what sociologists claim and compare it with my observations using functional MRI. I would then try to evaluate their (the sociologist's) models and decide which view (or views) best fit my observations. Of course, I would be limited to saying what can be claimed by MN, but even if something unusual did happen, it is not likely to be something I could reproduce. After all, connection to the supernatural would be something God controls, not me. I'm not sure how you are distinguishing supernatural and supra-natural, but at least from theology, God is the mover here, not us.
<< The idea of 'MN works - end of discussion' is a kind of intolerant bias that damages rather than encourages interdisciplinary dialogue. After Pope Benedict's recent statement challenging Christian unity, what an ecumenical view might hope for (which Lutherans sometimes support) is a salutary approach rather than a hierarchical negative privileging of natural sciences in the name of theological naturalism. >>
We are viewing your statements from the way we do science. It seems we talk past each other a lot of the time. I'm sorry, but you need to cut all of us some slack here. For most of us, MN is what we have had to learn to do our jobs. Perhaps we are talking the same thing, but it is very hard for me to understand what your real objection is at this point.
<< The supposed fact that more social-humanitarian thinkers are agnostics or atheists than natural scientists indicates that the dominance of natural scientific approaches to philosophy and sociology is already overrun and due for change. It is time that natural scientists step outside of their comfortable box of discourse to recognize that this era demands more than they have thus far given. By acknowledging the limits of 'theological naturalism,' adequate space can be provided for non-naturalistic thinkers who are still methodologically inclined.>>
I'm not sure what really drives people away from God. I know that people can use science and skepticism to justify every form of evil and wrongdoing. Science can be used to bamboozle the unwary. So the sociological ramifications of charlatans and hornswagglers that employ science can be horrific. But though science seems to be used to deny God, people have denied God and """(!!)justified(!!)""" it all the way back to Adam and Eve (whatever reading we claim for Gen 1-2). If science or MN is used to do it now, it is no different from it was then (only the names have been changed to cover up the guilty).
By Grace we proceed,
Wayne
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 20 22:27:15 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 20 2007 - 22:27:15 EDT