Good question Janet :), and you are right about the physicists, well
some anyway.
We are studying an area of human action where the practitioners believe
such things as "If I pray/make a sacrifice/work a ritual for my sick
father he will get better". If a practitioner who holds such a belief
finds that their prayer/sacrifice/ritual doesn't result in the desired
outcome their apprehension is not likely to be "Why did I waste my time?
I should have listened to those scientists who said it would never
work". It is more likely that they will consider that the god they
prayed to didn't find them worthy, the sacrifice was not as virginal as
advertised, or they ritual wasn't performed correctly. IMHO if one
wishes to study a (sub)culture or area of activity it is, at the very
least, rude to adopt the position that one's own is somehow better,
faster, stronger or more 'real'. By adopting such an approach one is
also whole orders of magnitude less likely to get to a place where one
might be able to consider the subject on their own terms. Either because
the objects of one's study notices one taking the piss out of them and
don't provide access, or because belief really does affect reality and
the aura of scepticism one is generating is negating the effect one is
investigating. In the latter case, a Dawkins is never going to find the
thing he says doesn't exist. Science does not have a monopoly on truth.
If we are really interested in seeking to understand brave new worlds
(or old worlds) the least we can do is to take the
believers/practitioners/adherents we study seriously. They just might be
onto something...
Regards,
Morgan Leigh
PhD Candidate
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
University of Queensland
religionbazaar.blogspot.com
janet ifimust wrote:
>
>
> Wry grin - in my experience, at least, biologists will be very
> uncomfortable with such assertions, physicists will want to play with
> the idea (and anything else to hand), turn it inside out and see how it
> fits things in a new topology.... :}
>
> However, to bring us back to where we started or something... how does
> this relate to the study of magic, and to the practitioners thereof?
>
> --
> Dr. Janet Goodall
> Research Fellow
> Institute of Education
> University of Warwick
> http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wie/aboutus/
>
>
>
> 2008/12/19 Morgan Leigh <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
>
>
> While I agree with you that many people are vocal when others criticise
> their religious convictions, I feel scientists are no different. I
> postulate that the beliefs of observers change the universe. But try
> saying to a scientist that they might like to consider that one's
> beliefs will actually change physical phenomena and they'll call you a
> looney.
>
> Regards,
>
> Morgan Leigh
> PhD Candidate
> School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
> University of Queensland
> religionbazaar.blogspot.com <http://religionbazaar.blogspot.com>
>
--
|