NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

Quite right. There is a very significant difference, and I'm in no way suggesting that scientists don't work with tangible evidence. But scientists do have a kind of faith: faith in the validity of whatever interpretive paradigm dominates their field. They have faith that their way of interpreting the evidence they collect during observations is the correct way, as opposed to some obsolete interpretive paradigm or some as-yet unformulated paradigm. The seventeenth-century and eighteenth-century scientists who believed in phlogiston had faith that their experiments with combustible materials proved the existence of a new element that flammable objects contained and non-flammable objects did not. Of course, this paradigm was eventually discredited and science corrected itself. But how many contemporary paradigms that most scientists would never question would end up on the phlogiston pile if circumstance permitted further scrutiny? And how many scientists have been treated as heretics--ostracized, persecuted--because they had faith in an interpretive paradigm that wasn't in favor at the time?

It's faith in an interpretive paradigm that determines whether an observational anomaly gets thrown out as equipment malfunction or included as usable data. It's faith in an interpretive paradigm that keeps some important data from ever entering into the conversation because it simply can't be true.

In any case, the point I was trying to make was structural and political: a small group of privileged knowers enjoys access to knowledge that a large group of ignorant laymen could never attain access. Small group reveals truth to large group. Large group must accept as a matter of faith the truth of what they're told. That structure applies to both religion and science. It's not meant to say that the two resemble each other in every way. Just that one way.

Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is good for this stuff, as is the final episode of James Burke's classic TV series Connections.

<blockquote data-quote="stephen dedalus" data-source="post: 107881" data-attributes="member: 3414">Quite right.&nbsp; There is a very significant difference, and I&#039;m in no way suggesting that scientists don&#039;t work with tangible evidence.&nbsp; But scientists do have a kind of faith: faith in the validity of whatever interpretive paradigm dominates their field.&nbsp; They have faith that their way of interpreting the evidence they collect during observations is the correct way, as opposed to some obsolete interpretive paradigm or some as-yet unformulated paradigm.&nbsp; The seventeenth-century and eighteenth-century scientists who believed in phlogiston had faith that their experiments with combustible materials proved the existence of a new element that flammable objects contained and non-flammable objects did not.&nbsp; Of course, this paradigm was eventually discredited and science corrected itself.&nbsp; But how many contemporary paradigms that most scientists would never question would end up on the phlogiston pile if circumstance permitted further scrutiny?&nbsp; And how many scientists have been treated as heretics--ostracized, persecuted--because they had faith in an interpretive paradigm that wasn&#039;t in favor at the time?It&#039;s faith in an interpretive paradigm that determines whether an observational anomaly gets thrown out as equipment malfunction or included as usable data.&nbsp; It&#039;s faith in an interpretive paradigm that keeps some important data from ever entering into the conversation because it simply can&#039;t be true.&nbsp; In any case, the point I was trying to make was structural and political: a small group of privileged knowers enjoys access to knowledge that a large group of ignorant laymen could never attain access.&nbsp; Small group reveals truth to large group.&nbsp; Large group must accept as a matter of faith the truth of what they&#039;re told.&nbsp; That structure applies to both religion and science.&nbsp; It&#039;s not meant to say that the two resemble each other in every way.&nbsp; Just that one way.Thomas Kuhn&#039;s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is good for this stuff, as is the final episode of James Burke&#039;s classic TV series Connections.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="stephen dedalus, post: 107881, member: 3414"] Quite right. There is a very significant difference, and I'm in no way suggesting that scientists don't work with tangible evidence. But scientists do have a kind of faith: faith in the validity of whatever interpretive paradigm dominates their field. They have faith that their way of interpreting the evidence they collect during observations is the correct way, as opposed to some obsolete interpretive paradigm or some as-yet unformulated paradigm. The seventeenth-century and eighteenth-century scientists who believed in phlogiston had faith that their experiments with combustible materials proved the existence of a new element that flammable objects contained and non-flammable objects did not. Of course, this paradigm was eventually discredited and science corrected itself. But how many contemporary paradigms that most scientists would never question would end up on the phlogiston pile if circumstance permitted further scrutiny? And how many scientists have been treated as heretics--ostracized, persecuted--because they had faith in an interpretive paradigm that wasn't in favor at the time? It's faith in an interpretive paradigm that determines whether an observational anomaly gets thrown out as equipment malfunction or included as usable data. It's faith in an interpretive paradigm that keeps some important data from ever entering into the conversation because it simply can't be true. In any case, the point I was trying to make was structural and political: a small group of privileged knowers enjoys access to knowledge that a large group of ignorant laymen could never attain access. Small group reveals truth to large group. Large group must accept as a matter of faith the truth of what they're told. That structure applies to both religion and science. It's not meant to say that the two resemble each other in every way. Just that one way. Thomas Kuhn's [I]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions[/I] is good for this stuff, as is the final episode of James Burke's classic TV series [I]Connections[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification