Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

William Edward Woody (
Fri, 09 Aug 1996 15:23:09 -0700

In article <4ud38k$>, (Bryant) wrote:
> Gale, the difference of science and pseudoscience/new age/etc. is not
> that scientists never royally fuck up. It is that science, unlike faith
> systems, has a self-correcting mechanism. Your example is a nice case in
> point; scientists found the errors of the Utah team.

There is another difference.

The philosophy of science (unlike some scientists) understands that
there are some questions for which science not (and should not)

For example, reducing one's internal spiritual development to some
scientifically provable set of equations is probably not the way
to go, as the NAZIs would tell you. And while some aspects of
Social Darwinism may be rooted in very good science, it often gets
applied (at least from what I have seen) to metaphysical or spiritual
subjects where Logical Positivism has no business being.

Evolutionary theory does not try to give a underlying reason or
pass moral judgement on the process of evolution; it simply describes
the mechanism. Who is to say that there isn't a God loading the dice?
That question is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and thus should
be left to faith systems to answer.

And who isn't to say that there isn't a God who planted the evidence
in order to test our faith? While I do not accept this answer, the
scientific paradigm rejects this answer not because it's not possible,
but because if this were true, then it would be impossible to explain
*anything* using science.

> Creationists, and Gale, resort to picking out the gaffes made by
> scientists to try and discredit science. Since science is not a
> monolithic belief system, but a method for approximating the world
> which is uniquely open to tossing out bad ideas in the face of new evidence,
> Gale and the Creationists will never convince the critically thoughtful of
> their case.

The funny thing is, many scientists and many creationists share one
thing in common: they both do not understand the underlying philosophy
of science well enough, and wind up abusing the scientific paradigm.

For example, I have seen scientists deny the existance of God or the
validity of any spiritual pursuit, because it couldn't be quantified
in scientific experimentation.

And while I'm the first to nail the hide of any creationist to the
wall who misuses the scientific paradigm, I'm also going to lynch
any scientist who does the same. And perhaps harder--after all,
shouldn't scientist be the *first* to understand the underlying
philosophies, assumptions, and axioms which make up the scientific

- Bill

William Edward Woody | e-mail:
In Phase Consulting | WWW:
1545 Ard Eevin Ave | Fax: (818) 502-1467
Glendale, CA 91202 | ICBM: N:34.15' W:118.25'