Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Science as Religion (other objections to Wingate's article)
Message-ID: <223@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Oct-84 18:27:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.223
Posted: Thu Oct 25 18:27:18 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 09:17:45 EDT
References: <369@umcp-cs.UUCP> <209@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 45

I neglected to mention some rather serious objections I had to Wingate's
article in my rebuttal.  Not to his points directly, but rather to the
way he said certain things.

> Scientism appears to claim that only its methods produce valid knowledge.

I'm getting sick of having my ideas labelled with newly invented or re-used
"-isms".  The last time it happened someone else sought to arbitrarily
distinguish between "rationality" (which he thought was "OK") and
"rationalism", and I've been pegged with the label ever since (so much so
that I've come to have to use it myself when I call myself a "rationalist").
Hopefully I won't be falling into this trap again.  It's partially my own
fault---it's sometimes either to offer a buzzword than to have to re-explain
one's stance.  Although I try to avoid this, I've used the term often as
an adjective to describe some of my tenets.  I'd rather deal with issues than
offer adjectives as fodder for those who proclaim "you rational, my ass!"

> you can't prove the religion of science that Rich Rosen espouses either

> I would like to examine this religion of science which Rich Rosen and 
> others advocate.

> "those on Rich's side of the question always seem eager to
> throw out reports of miracles.

I have explained several times that using and understanding scientific
method has nothing to do with a religion.  Use of scientific method implies
a discipline involving careful objective examination of evidence in studying
the universe.  It has nothing to do with a religion or form of worship.  No
one prays to the scientific method.  People use it because it gets the best
objective results.  It gets the best objective results because it takes
into account the dnagers in accepting potentially faulty data as actual
evidence.  Other people FAIL to use it (in the course of what they claim is
objective study).  Why?  Perhaps because they'd rather obtain some other
set of results that the method would have shown to be faulty.  Can anyone
think of any other reason?

By the way, why the emphasis on "Rich's side of the question" and "Rich's
religion of science"?  Are you simply trying to give counterarguments to
religious belief a bad name by associating them with me? :-?  It won't work.
Not as long as there are others like Mike Huybensz who speak rather
elqouently on the subject.
-- 
"Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty *knife*!"
						Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr