At 04:24 PM 04/19/2000 -0700, Ami Chopine wrote:
>I agree with Steve Clark that conservatism is good in science, but I
>disagree with applying this to the events at Baylor. If there were results
>to research which were published and they disagreed with it, then would be
>the time for conservatism to shine through. But attacking a foundation set
>up to encourage research and exploration into ID or any "novel paradigm"
>will stifle abilities to make breakthroughs in science. We should be
>conservative as to what is accepted, but not what is explored.
For better or for worse, I see the events at Baylor as a manifestation of
conservative science. One way to set a higher hurdle to novel ideas is to
hinder their exploration. And even this can be useful, appropriate and
necessary in maintaining the conservatism of science. In another arena, I
have lately been exploring and writing on alternative
medicine. Interestingly, alternative practitioners make the same complaint
that ID and creation adherants make--that it is hard to get mainstream
acceptance of their ideas. In fact, alt med practioners complain that they
are unable to do the requisite research becuase of lack of institutional
support (sound familiar?). But then, I say that it is a good thing that
the support of medical science is not given to ear candling, homeopathy,
etc. Similarly, I don't have a problem with the scientific collective
being conservative by withholding support from some ID and creationist
paradigms. Who wants to legitimize geocentric studies or YEC geology?
Thus being conservative on what is explored can be very appropriate.
Having said that, if I was at Baylor, I would support the Polyani Institute.
Steve
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Human Oncology and
Member, UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine
600 Highland Ave, K4/432
Madison, WI 53792
Office: (608) 263-9137
FAX: (608) 263-4226
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 11:53:58 EDT