I'll jump in here. Science rules lots of things out--the world really is
demonstrably not flat, and there's no such thing as spontaneous generation.
What we ask of science is that it explain the available phenomena. When a
phenomenon that existing theory can't account for comes along the
theoreticians get to work coming up for an explanation that covers the now
enlarged set of phenomena and maybe even predicts the existence of a few
others.

What's fixed is the basic intellectual methodology. It's not just semantics.

Mark


At 01:21 AM 5/12/2005, you wrote:
>Marcus,
>I don't entirely disagree with you, and I'm not trying to be
>argumentative, I'm just trying to understand, especially your last
>paragraph.  Science has it's laws, granted, but it is also about exploring
>different points of view, and other explanations of phenomena, etc. and
>assimilating those discoveries into its continuing basis of 'laws'. If it
>(science) stopped being about trying to understand things, then it would
>cease to be an 'intelligent' study, I think, even if it rules out the
>theories that it rejects, due to lack of information, or some other
>reason. If the discoveries already made through science were definite and
>incontrovertible, would there be any room for growth? more theories?
>discoveries?  In other words, (and here I agree with you and 'science' as
>a learning and discovery system)  isn't intelligence (like science) really
>the thirst for knowledge, and the ability to assimilate new discoveries
>into an ongoing basic 'law' of science.
>
>So, taking your argument on board, and reapplying it, I was just saying
>that 'definite non-belief' without leaving any possibilities open (like we
>agree that science DOES, if fact do) for any other explanation, seems, to
>me anyway, as illogical as 'true belief' because there doesn't seem to be
>enough information for a DEFINITE conclusion, either way. In other words,
>I don't think that science, by definition, really rules anything out.
>
>So, to ask another question, and in reference to a line in your last
>paragraph, wouldn't your statement make one 'anti-intellectual' if one
>were a 'true believer' in the established 'laws' of science, for instance?
>In your scenario, it would, wouldn't it? Would scientists turn into
>scientific Luddites? Maybe I'm just arguing semantics? Not sure...
>
>Anyway, in the spirit of trying to figure things out, (EVERTHING out), and
>as a fellow explorer,
>All the best, Jeff
>
>IGNERGLASS.COM> wrote:
>Marcus Bales wrote:
> > True believers are anti-intellectuals by definition. If you believe
> > the Bible you cannot question freely or test honestly or conclude
> > truly; instead, you must simply believe.
> >
> > This is not to say that one cannot believe in God, even the Christian
> > God, and still be a scientist; but it means one cannot be a "true
> > believer" -- that is, someone who always chooses whatever the holy
> > writings or the holy people say over the evidence.
>
>On 11 May 2005 at 15:30, Jeffrey Payton wrote:
> > That would mean, then, with regard to your definition, that the
> > reverse would also be true...that one cannot be a 'true non-
> > believer' and be an 'intellectual' (because one would have to
> > 'believe' in 'non-belief'). Right? Have you shot your own
> > 'intellectual' self in the foot?
>
>The notion that "non-belief" is just a species of "belief" is simply
>wrong, in the same way that the notion that "indifference" is simply
>a species of "anger" is wrong. Of course it CAN be, but it isn't
>necessarily so. SOME people use indifference to express anger; SOME
>people embrace non-belief religiously.
>
>"True believers", irrespective of what they believe in, are anti-
>intellectual by definition because the tenets of a true belief reject
>the notion of science implicitly where the rejection is not explicit.
>One cannot enjoy the freedom to explore other points of view or other
>explanations of pheneomena, by declaring up front that one abjures
>those freedoms together with any other point of view or explanation.
>
>Marcus
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.