|Sent on:||Sunday, December 2, 2012 4:48 PM|
I am puzzled by this statement of yours:
" "He also believes that morality is not absolute, this gives credence to religion."
How, exactly does Coel give credence to religion by arguing that morality is not absolute? You must have a very different understanding of religion from that of myself and everyone else I know. At the very least, the three large monotheistic religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism - claim moral absolutes.
I did not deny the definition of dogma that you offered. As I said before, I reject your contention that this definition and therefore the term dogma applies to science. Again, the system of science is not dogmatic. You have not provided a convincing argument that science is dogmatic. The definition you provided is not evidence that science is dogmatic. Science, to repeat once again, is not a collection of "established opinions." The underlying, foundational tenets of science are not a set of "established opinions." It is true that these tenets were discovered and developed by a body of experts, who may be described as a body of authorities. But these tenets upon which the scientific enterprise is built are not opinions. Since dogma is founded upon opinions and science is not, science is not based on a dogma. As I said before, the conclusions derived by science through its examination of empirically-derived evidence, and tenets upon which the entire enterprise rests, are provisional truths, based on evidence, observation and testing. The standard of evidence required for these conclusions is significantly higher than the standard required for an "established opinion." In fact, as I have said before, an opinion, established or not, does not require evidence whereas evidence is an indispensable component of science and scientific conclusions.
From: Mark R. Orel <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Sunday, December 2,[masked]:18 AM
Subject: Re: [humanism-174] Excellent and Informative Description of Science
Thank you for the link. This is the first I've seen
the word 'scientism'.
You can see my response below.
So is everything science?No it isn’t. Science entails an obligation to do the best you can. It is acceptable to draw conclusions from limited data if you have nothing more; and you can do without rigorous controlled experiments if they are impractical. But to be scientific you should be continually seeking to do better, testing your conclusions, and checking for biase
If you have an emotional commitment to a desired answer, then that in itself isn’t unscientific, but it is a warning flag that you are highly prone to a biased assessment and so to a false conclusion. If you think that holding to the desired answer is more important than the evidence for that answer then you’re being unscientific. (Following is a personal comment from me, Randy. I also think you are being dogmatic and are infected by dogma if the statement above describes you.) If your emotional commitment to a faith (perhaps a religious faith) is clouding your judgement over the evidence for that faith then you’re being unscientific. And if you point airily at “other ways of knowing” as an excuse to pretend that you don’t need to provide evidence then you are being unscientific.
I agree, and Randy you are holding to a desired answer that you
find more important than the evidence for that answer when you
deny the definition of a word, like dogma. You want it to mean
something that it does not. The system that is science is dogmatic.
As far as definitions go, Coel's blog is simply defining science as
knowledge. Which I can agree to as the word comes from the
Latin scientia, which means knowledge. His definition also
applies to philosophy, as philosophy comes from the Greek,
philosophia, which translates to love of wisdom. He paints
science with a broad brush which I have no problem with, it
will make for an interesting philosophical discussion.
I especially like the fact that he doesn't seem to believe that there
is an absolute truth. That all reality is empirical. He also believes
that morality is not absolute, this gives credence to religion. (This
comes for the remakes that follow the article, in which Coel clarifies
his reasoning in discussion.)
This email message originally included an attachment.