Elephant’s Wings

PZ Myers has produced a parable; an updating of the ancient saga of the Blind Men and the Elephant. The gist of every version of this tale is that several blind explorers each encounter one point on an elephant, and decide from that point what the whole must be. PZ presents a version with an intractable dissenting opinion among those considered as experts. After their consternation at their initial dissimilar conclusions about the true nature of an elephant,

The first three, being of a scientifical bent, quickly collaborated and changed places, and confirmed each other's observations; they agreed that each had been correct in the results of their investigations, except that there wasn't a hint of feathers anywhere about, but clearly their interpretations required correction and more data. So they explored further, reporting to each other what they were finding, in order to establish a more complete picture of the obstacle in the path.

"Feathers?" you ask. The fourth had suggested that it simply must have iridescent, transcendent wings. So as the others checked their evidence, he:

yawns and stretches in the shade of a tree. "It has wings, large wings, that it may ascend into the heavens and inspire humanity. There could be no purpose to such an animal without an ability to loft a metaphor and give us something to which we might aspire."

The disagreements between those who explore and those who are sure, escalate. A worthy short read.

Continue ReadingElephant’s Wings

What is special about science?

Science isn't about a particular batch of results. Science is special because of the way in which it gets those results. The following is from a well-written essay in the NYT entitled, "Elevating Science, Elevating Democracy":

Science is not a monument of received Truth but something that people do to look for truth.

That endeavor, which has transformed the world in the last few centuries, does indeed teach values. Those values, among others, are honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, openness, accountability and tolerance and indeed hunger for opposing points of view.

Continue ReadingWhat is special about science?

How pseudo-science beats science

How does pseudo-science "beat" science?  I'm still thinking this through, but here is where I am at the moment.  Here are three steps often employed by pseudo-scientists: Step I: Claim that honest work done by careful scientists is not credible without having any appreciation of the intense and meticulous work…

Continue ReadingHow pseudo-science beats science

Proposed change to DI comment policy re: scientific method and evolution

Topic:  Proposed change to comment policy concerning ill-informed comments regarding A) the scientific method and B) evolution by natural selection. At DI, we’ve had a wide-open comment policy.  Until recently, I have rarely rejected comments.  The ones I have rejected consisted mostly of preaching (see the current comment policy).  I’ve…

Continue ReadingProposed change to DI comment policy re: scientific method and evolution

Why Choose Naturalist Explanations Over Biblical Creation?

Discussions in the comment sections of many posts on this site chaotically tend toward the strange attractor of one generally off-topic issue: Why does Creation/Evolution seem correct to you? It is usually a discussion between Creationists who believe that the scientific conclusions are based on faith, and Naturalists who believe that the Scientific Method is best tool ever invented to extract sense from chaos.

Kepler's UniverseIn the beginning, Natural Philosophers (now called Scientists) in the West all believed in the Bible. Bishop Ussher gave the final word on the age of the universe according to the Bible in the early 1600’s, and the Church had all the answers. But then the idea emerged that one can actually test Aristotelian conclusions (purely rational and based on “what everybody knows”) with observations. Copernicus demonstrated with careful observation and applied math around 1600 that only the moon itself orbited the Earth, and all the other planets circled the Sun. The church accepted this, as a philosophical observation, irrelevant to the place of Man in the Universe. Then Galileo made a gadfly of himself by publishing popular books mocking the Pope for publicly continuing in the preaching of Geocentrism when it was clear, with the aid of a telescope, that not only did the planets orbit the sun, but that some of those planets had moons of their own. Many moons, placed where Man couldn’t even see them without modern technology.

Well, it just snowballed from there. Newton, a devout Christian, developed math in …

Share

Continue ReadingWhy Choose Naturalist Explanations Over Biblical Creation?