tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (01/10/84)
#N:uiucuxc:3900042:000:7785
uiucuxc!tynor Jan 9 19:31:00 1984
-
Dr. Kofahl's arguments for a redefinition of science in order
to eliminate bias toward particular philosophies is itself biased
and self-contradictory. He states that the correct definition of
science should be philosophically neutral and not require that
the scientist hold any particular belief system. He then turns
around and lists five philosophical assumptions basic to science:
> 2. The assumptions basic to science
> a. I am real.
> b. The external world is real.
> c. My natural senses give me a reasonably reliable
> perception of the external world.
> d. The natural world is lawful and reproducible and
> therefore worthy systematic investigation.
> e. The laws of logic are valid.
Notice that these assumptions are *not* philosophically neutral.
For example, a solipsist would disagree with assumptions b and c,
since he believes that only he is real and that the external world
is merely an illusion. Zen Buddists would not agree with assumption
e in certain circumstances, since he believes that certain truths
are irrational. Therefore, Dr. Kofahl has established a philosophy
of science which allows his own religious/philosophical beliefs,
but precludes others.
Obviously, it is ridiculous to assume that science can be
philosophically neutral. There is, after all, a philosophy of
of science , scientists have worked under it for centuries.
Dr. Kofahl's five basic assumptions are indeed accepted by the
standard philosophy of science. That is why a scientist, at
least while doing science, cannot allow solopsist or Zen Buddist
beliefs to influence his scientific work.
To use Dr. Kofahl's terminology, science accepts the
philosophical view of materialistic monism. Some may question the
necessity of this assumption. But Dr. Kofahl states that the
purpose of science is to "learn more about the natural world."
If we explain away natural phenomena to supernatural causes, we
have learned virtually nothing about the natural world, merely
that it relies on the supernatural. Since, by defintion, our
senses cannot perceive the supernatural, and since even Dr. Kofahl
includes as one of his basic assumptions of science that " My
natural senses give me a reasonably reliable perception of the
external world," we are unwarranted in introducing supernatural
explanations.
Though the philosophy of science agrees with Kofahl's five
basic assumptions, his "logical corollaries" in no way follow from
them. In fact, many are contradictory to the basic philosophy of
science:
> a. The scientist is not required to hold to or reject any
> particular religious-philosophical belief system.
Not true, by Dr. Kofahl's admission, the scientist must accept
at least his five basic philosophical assumptions of science.
> b. The scientist is required to submit his methodology,
> data and conclusions to critical review by his peers.
> Provided he does this, criticism of his work by his
> peers on the basis of any reference whatsoever to his
> personal belief system or lack of one is ruled out.
True, peer review is essential to the scientific method. Proper
critisism of a scientific theory must not question the religious or
philosophical motivations of its proponent, only the adherance of
the theory itself to the philosophy of science.
> c. The peer review system may not have any element of
> philosophical bias.
It must have a philosophical bias: that of the philosophy of science.
> d. Thus scientists (and also teachers, students and all
> scholars are to be judged on the basis of their
> performance, not at all on the basis of a willingness
> to surrender their minds to somebody else's belief
> system.
As we said in part b., the religious/philosophical motivations
of scientists are not at issue here, only the validity of the proposed
theory.
> e. There is no requirement that all scientists must
> under the same set of paradigms.
False, they must at least accept the paradigm of the scientific
method and its position in the philosophy of science.
> f. There is no restriction on the sources of ideas and
> hypotheses in science. Other scientists should have no
> concern about the source of ideas which gave rise to one
> man's hypothesis, if it deals with the reproducible
> empirical world and if it is open to test by critic or
> doubter.
We agree.
> g. There is no requirement that the scientist assume:
> 1) That there is no teleology in the natural world.
True, science does not attempt to deal with purpose.
> g. There is no requirement that the scientist assume:
> 2) That no divine intervention has ever occurred in the
> natural world.
> 3) That every observable datum can be totally explained
> in terms only of material cause and effect.
False, as explained above, science cannot allow supernatural
explanations in a scientific theory.
> g. There is no requirement that the scientist assume:
> 4) That no divine revelation provides valid information
> about the natural world and that no hypothesis
> derived from data may be may rightly be entertained
> by a scientist.
Again, science does not care about the *source* of theories, merely
their content.
> g. There is no requirement that the scientist assume:
> 5) That God does not exist and only the material world
> is real, or at least that the scientist must
> function accordingly in his laboratory, thus
> submitting to the proposition that his personal
> faith has no relevance in his scientific endeavor.
We would restate this as: There is no requirement that the
scientist must assume that God does not exist and that only the
material world is real, but his theories must not contain unobservable
supernatural events. Scientific theories cannot be supported by faith.
> h. A scientist may adopt or reject any of the above assumptions, as
> he wishes, but that is a matter of his own personal faith, not of
> science.
This is quite humorous. If by "the above assumptions" Dr. Kofahl
means his five basic assumptions of science, science is without
substance, anything goes. We could reject all five. This is hardly
desirable.
If, instead, Kofahl is refering to his "logical corollaries",
we have a blatant logical contradiction. Dr Kofahl includes in his
basic assumptions that "the laws of logic are valid," and calls
a. through h."logical corollaries" to these assumptions. Therefore,
he is saying: It is logical to reject logical conclusions, logically
derived.
We agree that it is a valid goal to alter the erroneous public
perception of science as being anti-god and anti-religious, but
maintain that this can and should be accomplished by informing
the public that the philosophy of science recognizes that the
existence, or non-existence of God is outside the realm of science.
Steve Tynor
Ray Mooney
- ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor
tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (01/14/84)
#R:uiucuxc:3900042:uiucuxc:3900043:000:798 uiucuxc!tynor Jan 13 12:48:00 1984 By the way... Kofahl got his PhD in Chemistry at CalTech(!) It's hard to believe it, but it's true. His big contribution to the creationist cause was an article that he wrote in which he tried to show why a certain beetle's defense mechanism (it squirts out a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and quinone which explodes (as I recall)) could not possibly have evolved naturally. His arguments are refuted in a recent issue of Evolution/Creation. It now appears that the creationists have realized that their theories do not fit into the realm of science. So they want to redefine science in such a way that they will. It seems to me that they're trying to ride on the shirtails of the public's perception of the integrity of science. A sloppy way of proving your point, if you ask me... steve