Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Gosh!  I have no idea!
Message-ID: <487@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 17:41:45 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.487
Posted: Mon Apr 22 17:41:45 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 08:16:55 EST
References: <943@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 107
Summary: 

In article <943@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
> >> [DuBois]
> >> Well, from the glee with which some evolutionary writers (J. Huxley, for
> >> example) heralded the "liberation" of science from its religious
> >> framework, one would get the idea that science was at one time done
> >> from within that framework.  And what did that framework have to say
> >> about creation?  It was accepted.
> > [Huybensz]
> > Oh, was it accepted?
> Yes, it was.

Ooops.  Misreading on my part.  Yes, creation was accepted by the framework
of religion.
 
> > Science (as we now think of it) is fairly recent.
> Of course.  Science and theology are defined as mutally exclusive now.
> Not always was it so.

No.  They were not defined so: it was observed that they were so.  Theories
based on theology were evanescent and proliferated like weeds.  Lasting
theories of merit could be pruned of theological excrescences and still
retain all their explanatory and predictive power.

> > I think a pretty fair argument can be made that science was done in spite
> > of that obstructing framework.  Great advances were almost always made by
> > rejecting applicable parts of the framework.  Nor were the Galileos and
> > Darwins the only scientists who rejected the religious framework.
> 
> Of course you can make an argument for it; "Every viewpoint has an
> advocate", as Gould says.  Newton, for example, did very good science,
> but his theological works (Principia Mathematica?) were, I recall
> reading somewhere, utter trash theologically.

I hope you intended a smiley after the Principia: it was one of the foundations
of modern calculus.

That Newton attempted his own theological explanations which others called
trash hardly implies that he accepted the entire religious framework of his
time.  What applicable parts of the religious framework of his time did he
retain in constructing his Laws of Motion?  Or did he simply sidestep it
entirely?

> On the other hand, investigators such as Cuvier and Linnaeus were
> explicitly motivated by their creationist convictions and made
> significant contributions because of, and not in spite of, their
> interpretive framework.  From such we get the foundations of
> paleontology and taxonomy (which, ironically, are now in many
> respects evolutionary disciplines).

I'd like some examples of the above.  Their contributions are independant
of creationism and evolution.  What applicable parts of the religious
framework of their time did their work need to retain? Or did they simply
sidestep it entirely?

(Actually, there is one perverse [but reputable] group calling themselves
pattern cladists who claim evolution is entirely unnecessary to taxonomy:
that they can discern the characters upon which taxonomy is based without
evolutionary assumptions.  Most cladists [including some friends of mine]
think it a crock.)

> I'm not sure that we can say that such investigators gave any "proof
> of" creation; rather, they assumed it, and proceeded from there.
> Sometimes with very good results.

Creation may have been one of their assumptions: but that assumption was
not necessary to their results.

> >> [DuBois]
> >> Your argument also contains within itself the seeds of its own
> >> destruction.  Leaving creationism vague doesn't make it difficult to
> >> challenge.  You demonstrate that, by asserting the vagueness, and
> >> attacking creationism on that ground.  Your refute yourself!
> 
> > [Huybensz]
> > So eager to goad, you leap into erroneous arguments.  Difficult is not
> > impossible.  No self refutation occurred there.  Sheesh.
> 
> "Eager to goad"?  Speak for yourself, Mike.  The argument was that it
> wasn't *difficult*, not that it wasn't impossible.  So eager to tell me
> I'm eager to goad, you don't read what I wrote first...

I'll spell out your syllogism to you.  "Mike says X is difficult."
"Mike does X."  "Therefore it was not difficult, and Mike has contradicted
himself."  But what measure of difficulty have you selected?

> Mike, you once scolded me for lack of charity in argumentation.  I
> think this instance is an example of where you have failed to apply
> your own standard to yourself.

Actually, the substitution of the word impossible into your syllogism
is charitable, because it makes the syllogism true.  (But the basis false.)
The only lack of charity I can spot is my accusation of goading.

> > [Huybensz]
> > I think, Paul, you'd enjoy reading about the Forteans.  They operate in much
> > the same vein as you do.  You can get a start in Martin Gardiner's
> > "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science".
> 
> Fort, from what Gardner says about him, may not have been serious about
> what he wrote.  If you wish to question my sincerity, do me a favor and
> do so explicitly.

Many of them are quite sincere.  It's the style of argument (noncommittal)
that is reminiscent.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh