Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
18 Aug 1996 23:44:26 -0600
In article <smryanDwCtMG.HAo@netcom.com>, @#$%!?! <smryan@netcom.com> wrote:
>: > So what you are effectively saying is that the scientific methods of
>: >observing the universe better approximate the reality of the universe accor
>: >to the scientific method of determining that reality.
>
>: Nope. I'm saying that hypothesis testing allows the creation of models
>: which are more predictive than non-hypothesis testing derived models.
>
>More predictive in what they choose to predict. Will your models predict
>how many reincarnations it will take me to get to Nirvana? Perhaps I
>regard that as far more important then something so transient as human
>life and material comfort.
Perhaps. In which case, science cannot help you out.
There's a relatively narrow scope of questions which the scientific method
can be applied to. Moral questions, and a question about how many times a
spook (in its varying incarnations) is to be glued to the surface of Earth by
gravity, are not within this scope.
The nature of the gravity confining the spook, of course, *can* be
dealt with scientifically, to some extent.
>ps. Christianity itself did not concern itself with the physical nature
>of the world or evolution or astronomy or any of that stuff you enjoy
>knocking it about, outside of the first few chapters.
Folks beholden to those first few chapters have mounted one of the major
assaults on the teaching of science, in the public schools of the U.S.
Don't underestimate the importance of Biblical literalism in the current
political climate. (Strange, huh: the religious right assaults science in
the public schools, and the postmodern left assaults it in the academy.
Rather a wonder anybody takes a biology class, eh?)
However, many (most) Christians are not, as you point out in your post,
creationists.
Bryant
|