I was intrigued by a recent Stumble I made that introduced a mathematical formula that was totally beyond my comprehension. You can check it out at
Eulers Identity
Now this got me thinking...because this is a mathematical formula I'm quite happy to accept that if the people that 'know' can prove it to be true, then I'll go along with that, as I certainly can't argue either way. Does this mean that I am expressing 'faith' in science?
However, when it comes to the 'truth' of anything that happens between people (social truth) then I am reluctant to accept claims without evidence and understanding, otherwise I leave myself open to being gullible. Not only that, even if I lack expertise (will the creationists in the room, please stand, please stand up) concerning a complex explanation that I don't understand, I feel can disagree with it, simply because I have the ability to express and opinion.
This is where the fluffy weakness of post-modernism lies. In allowing the 'equi-validity' of any views that are expressed, they allow space for claims that 'science' is simply another of any number of 'expressed explanations' for how things are in the world. The reality is, some explanations are better than others, and science is one of them.
Carbon dating is not a 'point of view' it gives a time period(between parameters). Now I don't understand the details of the physics behind the process, but I'm more prepared to believe that opinion than the random pap of someone who trusts to guesswork.
Maybe 'life-events' correspond to a 'formula' that we haven't the skill to understand at the moment, and that's why the outcome of events often seem 'strange but true'
Interesting Thoughts!
ReplyDeleteEven with Science, though, I have found that "all" or "most scientists say that..." often turns out to be unreliable. Sometimes there are debates within the scientific field yet "politics" and "worldview wars" make groups with agendas want to claim science as their own.
For example, there are those that question Carbon Dating. ansersingenesis.org, essortment.com.
Interesting Thoughts!
ReplyDeleteEven with Science, though, I have found that "all" or "most scientists say that..." often turns out to be unreliable. Sometimes there are debates within the scientific field yet "politics" and "worldview wars" make groups with agendas want to claim science as their own.
For example, there are those that question Carbon Dating. ansersingenesis.org, essortment.com.
Many things are up for debate!
:-)
ThirstyJon
freedomthirst.com
Interesting point. I think that 'science' is falling into a trap if it believes that only it has access to the 'truth'. It's own development (check out Bill Bryson) shows this. Both Popper and Kuhn in their different ways show how scientific truth is provisional and even socially constructed. neverthless I'm with the scientists on being wary of Dogam and complete reliance on the meta-physical
ReplyDelete