Everyone has brought up some very interesting points.

Science is one of the many ways to explore the world around us. It provides much more in the way of reason than it does meaning (answering the how but not the why). Religion/faith/belief is equally valid in the sense that it provides another tool for discussion. Our current level of scientific advancement can only take us so far and it is incorrect to assume that present techniques can explain all the mysteries of the universe. Like everything else (including love) it's shaped by the culture from which it comes and is relative to that context. Complete objectivity is near impossible to achieve; however, science comes much closer to this than belief and promotes critical thinking and logic.

The Western legal system is also based on similar principles of impartiality. Judges and juries are asked to evaluate each case and pass a verdict on the basis of the evidence presented in the court: it is not acceptable to condemn someone on the basis of subjective opinion alone. Likewise, academic discourse requires opinions to be bolstered with reliable evidence (hence the use of references to show where your information comes from).

Steven..

> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:51:37 -0800
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Rational Claims in Scientific/Academic Fields
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> nagasiva:
> > > isn't academia as a whole basically in agreement
> > > with the notion that science has the method by
> > > which reality is disclosed to us?
>
> Margaret Gouin:
> > This 'notion' is a metaphysical position.
> > Not a proven fact.
>
> mostly i was asking a *sociological* question, however, and am
> not sure that there exists a universal standard for proof. that
> is, my question was about the general consensus amongst those
> who have standing (especially amongst those who support any
> kind of study of *magic*) in academia.
>
> > To insist that you will not believe something unless
> > provided with irrefutable scientific evidence....
>
> I'm not aware that anyone is doing that, and so i
> generally agree with your conclusions about it.
>
> > ...this is a metaphysical position.
>
> I see your point and find it to be very interesting. what i
> understand is being asked in general is not metaphysical
> but instead pragmatic: what data and theory based on this
> data generally allows those who study any specific phenomena
> to make accurate and useful predictions so as to be able
> to reliably effect changes based on it, from utility.
>
> metaphysical positions strike me as ultimately unresolvable,
> and this is what you are very helpfully pointing out. that
> said, there are some physical conclusions reached from these
> metaphysical positions that we may winnow based on the
> principle of what is called 'The Razor of Occam', and some
> of these eliminate more imaginative and less substantiated
> metaphysical speculation, it seems to me.
>
> > ...to insist that because one belongs to the community
> > of believers in science one's belief is somehow superior
> > or better than the beliefs of others,
>
> 'superior or better': yes, i think this is the general
> supposition, and this supposition is based on its
> reliance on testing hypotheses, critical reflection on
> the data resulting from this testing, and peer review
> of this data and resultant critical reflection.
>
> however, i don't think that it can be left floating
> in the air in a generalization of that magnitude
> ('superior or better') without a referent to help
> us understand its relation to interest. that is, i
> think it may usually be described by rationalists
> as 'superior or better for predictive activities',
> and that this is one of the most important criteria
> for evaluation of these kinds of theories (along
> with the aforementioned Occamn's simplification).
>
> > requires--according to the logic of one's own
> > position--irrefutable scientific evidence.
>
> I am not sure that anyone believes in this kind of
> evidence. I have never heard it argued as being
> real by reliable scientists or academics. they're
> always amenable to revision of their theories
> where the data demonstrates its necessity. :)
>
> > Thanks for the debate.
>
> isn't it grand? I think this is especially
> important where it intersects the realm of magic
> and what may be supported about magic's utility
> or effectiveness. metaphysics only really goes
> so far to serve us in any helpful capacity.
> it does theoretical service as it extends to
> ostensibly explain the appearance as we may
> encounter and thereafter test it.
>
> anthropology and physics therefore go hand in
> hand for the academic study of magic insofar as
> the behaviours of humans (anthropology) may or
> may not produce the type of results expected
> (physics), and both of these disciplines may at
> times generate hypotheses outside of their
> fields to match conceptions of those who use
> magic or the phenomena encountered as a
> result of it.
>
> after that, it becomes a matter of faith that
> we cannot predictably subject to testing, and
> is therefore completely unnecessary to the
> scientist except as a means of satisfying
> the mind in what are called 'mysteries'.
>
> I hope to splay amongst the various poles of
> the debate/discussion and avoid any critical
> or crude evaluations, respectfully addressing
> all of those who particilpate in the discussion. (:
>
> nagasiva yronwode ([log in to unmask]), Director
> YIPPIE*! -- http://www.yronwode.org/
> -----------------------------------------------------
> *Yronwode Institution for the Preservation
> and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
> -----------------------------------------------------

---

Sell your car for just $40 at CarPoint.com.au It's simple!