Me:
>Let's run the numbers‰¥Ï‰¥Ï
>I didn't realize they were spending
>millions on travel. Perhaps you can document this.
Richard:
>This is all irrelevant, since (as far as I know) the Polanyi Center has not
>even proposed a laboratory research programme.
The analysis was not irrelevant. It was claimed that the
travel budget could be better used to support research.
Since it is not, it was then suggested that this was because
ID theorists know such research would fail/be a waste of
time.
>And, in any case, who do you think should provide these funds? And do you
>think that similar funds should be provided for every group that wants to
>conduct research?
I don't know. I am not making a prescriptive point; I am
merely being descriptive. On the one hand, I surely don't
want to give ID special treatment and hand it research funds
just because it is ID. On the other hand, ID is simply not
going to be able to access the primary source of scientific
funding simply because it is ID (and thus violates the
game rules of science). Do you really believe the reactions
of Baylor's faculty is particular to Baylor? Are they the only
ones who equate it with creationism so as to not give it the
time of day? Are they the only ones worrried about reputation
and the political dimension of this issue?
When research funding becomes tightly tied to the assumptions
used to generate the research, how does one access that funding
if they don't share those assumptions? I don't have any answers.
And I'm not saying how something ought to be. I'm just pointing
out the problem.
>I'm sure that astrologers, Atlantis proponents,
>flat-earthers, etc, would all be quick to come up with research programmes
>if that sort of money was offered! It would be grossly unfair to stifle
>*their* research, wouldn't it?
Why must we posture? Yes, I realize that the critics of ID think
anyone who proposes ID is either intellectually, psychologically,
or morally troubled. Thus, it is easy for them to equate Dembski with
an Atlantis proponent. But I thought you agreed there were grounds
for suspecting ID. What naturally follows a suspicion is an investigation,
unless one is unwilling. If an astrologer could convince me that there is
good reason to suspect our behavior is determined by the stars/planets, and
could come up with ways to either strengthen or weaken that suspicion,
I would have no trouble providing research funding for that person.
We humans tend to have great trouble giving a serious and open-minded
hearing to ideas that are both contrary and quite foreign to the way we
believe. But keep in mind that there are several scientific assumptions/
claims that may seem so different from astrology only because we have
become conditioned to see them differently. For example, consider the
following claims:
-Life arose from non-life by purely non-teleological mechanisms
-Life once existed in a form far more simpler and less sophisticated
than the bacterial state.
-At one time, life did not require DNA or proteins
-Random mutations and natural selection were the primary mechanisms
for the evolutionary origin of every biological feature seen on this planet.
-X (X being any biological feature that arose a very long time ago) was formed
by random mutations and natural selection.
While all of these claims are widely held in the scientific community, all
of them also have very little/no evidential basis. That is, contrary to
Steve's
claim about the conservative nature of science, there are many claims embraced
not reluctantly, but as a function of the game rules of science. Yet we come
to think that the belief in a non-teleological origin of life/biological
feature
is inherently more supported than something like astrology not because
we can point to gobs of evidence in one case (and not the other), but because
the same zeitgeist that is trying to censor the Polanyi Center from academia
is
the one that taught us how to view the world.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 15:15:39 EDT