At 07:28 PM 12/12/97, Lloyd Eby wrote:
>This is the second part of my response:
>
>On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Glenn Morton wrote:
>> With this lack of non-naturalistic science, what exactly are you advocating?
>> If we can't provide an alternative are we merely to say that we shouldn't do
>> science?
>
>Good question. I'm not sure that I'm advocating anything. I'm observing
>that we do not have any model or paradigm or method for dealing with any
>non-naturalistic or extra-naturalistic science. I certainly think that we
>should do science, but I'm expressing skepticism about whether we can have
>any genuine science that's not naturalistic.
I think lots of people would agree with you on this. Science can only
address material questions. ONe can not say that science disproves God or
the supernatural. One can say that science disproves particular theological
interpretations which have material consequences (i.e. a geocentric earth, a
young earth etc)
>
>> > From one point of view that demand is reasonable -- having
>> >no alternative theory but nevertheless denying the evolutionary
>> >stance or paradigm would seem to leave the biological sciences
>> >without any way of going ahead. From another point of view,
>> >however, that demand for an alternative need not be met by the
>> >anti-evolutionist. One can know or be convinced that an
>> >explanation or theory is false or inadequate without needing to
>> >propose an alternative.
>
>
>> This is not really workable. It gives the appearance of stubbornness. it
>> appears like saying to others, "I won't accept any data you present in favor
>> of your view, and I won't present any alternative to your ideas, but you are
>> wrong!"
>>
>> Could you get away with this in front of your boss? I doubt it. If you
>> workplace would not accept such a standard why should anyone else?
>
>
>I don't see it that way. What is wrong with saying "I 'm convinced that
>your theory is wrong (for reasons x,y, or z) but I don't have any better
>proposal right now?" It's not the same as saying "I won't accept any data
>you present in favor of your view."
>
Well, maybe I projected my work experience onto your work. The guys and
ladies I supervise are supposed to come up with maps of the structure of the
earth utilizing all the data. If someone says to a co-worker, "I 'm
convinced that
>your theory is wrong (for reasons x,y, or z) but I don't have any better
>proposal right now?" he or she is not doing their job. Their job is
precisely to come up with explanations of the geologic history of the region
they are mapping.Without alternatives they don't have a right to critize the
maps of others.
>Theory-testing and theory-rejection can be separated, both logically and
>practically, from theory-proposal.
The job of a scientist IS theory proposal. The scientist has to explain data
not merely sit back, feet on desk and proclaim that all theories brought
forth are wrong. Anyone who did that in the oil industry would be fired.
>> (For example, I can know that it is false
>> >that John murdered Mary without knowing who did, in fact, kill
>> >Mary or even without having any good theory about how Mary died.)
>> >So, the burden is not necessarily on the anti-evolutionist to
>> >propose another theory, but one can understand why evolutionists
>> >frequently become exasperated with anti-evolutionists. It is
>> >difficult for any science to admit that it is stymied in its
>> >present theoretical base and its research program, and that it
>> >does not yet know how to get beyond that impasse. (I mean this to
>> >be both a psychological and a logical-methodological
>> >observation.)
>>
>> This is an argument for solipsism. I can't know anything and the burden is
>> not upon me to present any explanation at all.
>
>
>How so? I fail to see how it's an argument for solipsism. It is a claim
>that the proffered view or theory is mistaken, without proposing an
>alternative. What's wrong with that? How can that be called solipsistic?
Solipsism is the belief that we can't know anything so maybe solipsism is
the wrong word. You are saying at least that we don't have any
responsibility for the advancement of knowledge which implies that we can
sit back, feet on desk and be lazy about explaining the world. We have no
responsibility to advocate a position or explain anything. I don't know
what that should be called but it doesn't look profitable.
The power of the evolutionary paradigm is that it does explain far more
facts than does the position of anti-evolutionists. People like Phillip
Johnson don't provide a reason for why the data is as it is. Without that,
one is left to think that there is no explanation which maybe does get close
to solipsism.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm