From: Michael Roberts (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 05:15:09 EDT
It is impossible to discuss with outlooks like this. What good does it do
to spreading the Gospel of Christ by arguing like this. If you are right
then all physics and chemistry is wrong.
Robert seems to have the same problem!
----- Original Message -----
From: "allenroy" <email@example.com>
To: "Michael Roberts" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised
> Michael Roberts wrote:
> > George stay on the list to provide some sensible comments! And Allen Roy
> > please do not falsely accuse geologists of starting with the assumption
> > old age. If you look at early geologists they began with assumptions of
> > young age and then changed to old age as the evidence pointed that way.
> We need to remember that they were functioning under Baconian science
> imagined the pure, objective dispassionately collection of
> empirical--data. It was almost universally believed that perception was
> neutral, in the sense that genuinely honest and careful observation was
> unaffected by beliefs, presupposition, philosophical preferences, or
> factors. This neutrality guaranteed the objectivity and utter
> of empirical data, which constituted the secure foundation of science.
> comes from the article I posted previously by Del Ratzesch. Did you read
> Or are you just reacting to what I've said?)
> "But Kuhn has argued that perception itself is an active--not a
> passive--process, deeply colored by the broader conceptual matrices, or
> paradigms, to which one had prior allegiances. Furthermore, paradigms
> influenced not only perception, but also theory evaluation and acceptance,
> conceptual resources, normative judgments within science, and a host of
> consequential matters. Paradigms were partially defined by, among other
> metaphysical commitments and values."
> So, even though the geologists of the 18th and 19th centuries thought they
> making neutral empirical observation, they were actually interpreting the
> according to their worldview. So, what you had was atheist geologists
> neutral empirical evidence for an old earth, when in fact they were
> the data within their paradigm . And, religious scientists, being told
> their religious views are not to be used when making empirical
> accepted the "unbiased" and "neutral empirical evidence" of an old earth,
> not realizing that they were accepting data that had been interpreted
> paradigm that they would otherwise have nothing to do with.
> Thus the acceptance of an old earth by the early religious scientists was
> due to a subtle deception built into Baconian science.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 05:11:25 EDT