Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Wed, 10 May 1995 00:41:30 GMT
These questions were e-mailed:
>You seem to believe that because science has a sometimes
>horrifying way of disrupting "primitive" societies (and in this
>regard, I agree completely with you), that such destruction was
>necessarily the *motivation* of scientists.
Oh now, you're falling into a trap of your own making here.
Are you to tell me that your science is so poorly done it is unable to
predict outcomes? Predictability, of all assets, touted as THE great
asset of science.
That scientists predicting an outcome so harmful to humankind would
not be able to avoid it?
> Do you *really*
>believe that Western science is merely a cultural artifact
>created to attack religion and mythology, and that it serves no
>other purpose and has no validity?
No. Please do attend to the thread of argument. It is merely fact
that the _discourse_ of Western science is a cultural artifact. That
so many "scientists" so choose to attack religion and mythology, to
my mind at least, makes them not scientists but little better than
Mediaeval witch-hunters and inquisitors.
On the other hand, as we have observed frequently enough, there are
many scientists of high standing indeed who are also of substantial
religious persuasion.
>Scientists believe that they can understand the physical
>universe by observation and reason. Excuse me, but isn't that
>what anthropologists do when they study other societies?
Certainly, and that has never been in dispute at this end.
Our discussion, on the other hand, is concerned with this apparently
polarised dichotomy between "science" and "religion". The accusation
brought to us by third parties is that such "scientists" are doing
no more than practice "scientism", and we had been asked to comment.
Thank you for your interest. Since your questions are important I
will be posting them back to the thread. Since you appear such a nice
bloke I'll quote them as anonymous.
|