Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Scientism, religion, and evidence
Message-ID: <499@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Nov-84 15:04:14 EST
Article-I.D.: wucs.499
Posted: Tue Nov 20 15:04:14 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Nov-84 19:03:38 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 81

>>I'm getting sick of having my ideas labelled with newly invented or re-used
>>"-isms".  [RICH ROSEN]

Then maybe you should stop having ideas that fit the labels so well?
:-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)    I couldn't resist!    :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  

In an article I lost, Rich takes a passing shot at me for my response to
Richard Carnes.  Roughly, what Rich said was "for some unfathomable
reason Paul Torek seems to think that taking an unbiased, nonjudgemental
view of creationists' motives constitutes `scientism'."  Well, Mr. Rosen,
there you go again.  Naturally you would describe Carnes's advocated
approach as "unbiased"; I would describe it as something else entirely.

I'd like to show the net just what Carnes said and why I reacted the way I
did:    
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
>    It follows that scientists should not be surprised or indignant when
> their scientifically cogent arguments fail to convince the creationists
> 	... [Scientists], of all
> people, have the least reason to take a judgmental attitude toward human
> behavior, since science is based on the belief that all phenomena in the
> natural world can be rationally explained, including human behavior.
> ... What I am saying is that we need to try to achieve a genuinely
> *scientific* understanding of the creationist movement.  Such an
> understanding would eschew the use of judgmental, moralistic terms ...

Translation:  creationists cannot be held responsible for their behavior.
No humans can be held responsible for their behavior, "since" [love that
logic] it can be rationally explained.  Rationally, behavior cannot be
evaluated, only explained.

That, I still maintain, is "scientism" at its worst.  There are more things
in science and nature than are dreamt of in that philosophy.

From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
>In article <471@wucs.UUCP> esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes:
>>Before anyone can give a list of hypothetical counter-evidences, she must
>>have a definition of "God" or "rising from the grave".  
>
> Well, why not start with the gospel accounts, ...

I am afraid I understated my own case.  I think that as long as the 
definitions are specific enough, it will be clear what would count as 
evidence for or against!  I don't want to stick my neck out too far, so
I won't attempt to evaluate the evidence for or against the resurrection.
As to what evidence would be needed, and some general guidelines I think
should be used in evaluation, see below.

>Yes, but in this case, there is no experiment in the first place.  All we
>have is eyewitness testimony, and we have no real way to evaluate its
>reliability.

I think it is possible to evaluate its reliability.  We need to ask how 
truthful were the people of that time, how reliable their conditions of 
observation were, how reliable their memories, how reliable the translation 
and transcription processes were.  These can be estimated by comparing with
situations that we know something about.  For example, we know that there
are many conditions of observation which are unreliable (look at some of
the "paranormal" research critiqued in Martin Gardner's book *Science:
Good, Bad and Bogus*; or some of the tests by psychologists of people's
accuracy in witnessing ordinary events -- not very encouraging).

> Unfortunately, this common sense has to dictate that nature is uniform in
> order to be able to allow us to apply our past observations to present and
> future behavior.  WIth this assumption, you cannot objectively evaluate
> a claim that the natural order of the universe has been temporarily 
> violated.  The problem remains the same.

Now wait a second.  What's the difference between saying "the natural order
has been temporarily violated" and ascribing an unusual event to a new
force or particle?  Anyway, the latter hypothesis should be tested, if
possible, by checking other implications of the hypothesis (if any).  We
must weigh the losses of each alternative explanation.  The temptation to 
proliferation of hypotheses of new forces should be resisted precisely to 
the extent that it would cripple our ability to understand the world.  If
we say "it didn't happen" in the face of a lot of evidence, we may be raising
our standards of evidence too high, which would also cripple our ability to
understand the world.

				--Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Please send any mail directly to this address, not the senders.  Thanks.