ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

My personal feeling is that we need to make "leaps of faith" in order 
to function in the world -- but that it is incumbent upon us to 
recognize that we HAVE made leaps of faith in order to so do.  This, I 
think, allows us the flexibility to bend with new information -- while 
also providing us with structure we need to remain sane, moral and 
culturally connected.

But to see logic and objective thinking as really real...  well...

My mom used to use logic every day to get people to do what she wanted. 
  "The logical thing to do," she'd say, "is for you to come to us with 
the kids.  That way, you get a break, and we get to see the kids."  In 
fact, that would require four people to reorganize their schedule, pack 
up for an entire weekend, and drive 3-4 hours so that grandma could see 
the kids.  It took me YEARS and YEARS to realize that she wasn't just 
presenting logical thinking: she was twisting logic so that it would 
work to her advantage.

Good old mom.


-----Original Message-----
From: William Katzman <[log in to unmask]>
To: 'Lisa Jo Rudy' <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: ISEN-ASTC-L (E-mail) <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:18:44 -0500
Subject: Assumptions of science (was religion AND science)

  Very Well written!
Everyone has their "leaps of faith" or "assumptions."  Some are more
self-evident and some are less so.  There is even the hidden assumption
that "logic works."
So...what are the assumptions YOU think you need to start doing 
science?
  Personally I think there are fewer assumptions to DO science, than 
there
are to rely on science as the basis of progressive knowledge.
As for objectivity...in theory I would say pure science (even with its
assumptions) is objective (though relying on one's senses (a source of
subjectivity)) in evaluation of ideas...as is logic...in practice it is
practiced by humans who bring in great deals of subjectivity based 
upon.
  Thus we are reluctant to give up on scientific ideas that really 
should be
discarded...that is why things such as the scanning electron microscope
gave images that were disbelieved as they didn't match with prevailling
theory.


-----Original Message-----
From:   Lisa Jo Rudy [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Friday, March 25, 2005 5:26 PM
Subject:    Re: religion AND science (as opposed to versus)

ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology 
Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related
institutions.
************************************************************************ 

*****

by the way -- so far as I am aware, nowhere in the Bible does it say 
that
the
earth is 6,000 years old.  this number was derived from "begats;" you 
can
click on this hyperlink to see how he did it:
http://www.independencebaptist.org/6,000%20Year%20Old%20Earth/6,000_year 

_old_earth.htm The assumptions are that
(1) all the begats are listed; (2) all of the time periods described are
literally correct as translated into English.

The same is true of the concept of trinity, which is not in the Bible
either
(at least, not in its present form).  There is mention of a holy 
spirit,
but
it's never described as part and parcel of a trinitarian godhead.

Where I'm going with this is to say -- As a reader of a big chunk of the
bible, and an ex-student of religion, I find it to be absolutely 
impossible
to
"literally" read the Bible.

Fact is - -the Bible is self-contradictory on many, many points.  Just
starting with Genesis, one has to confront two separate creation 
stories:
the one in
which Adam and Eve are made of clay ("male and female created He them") 
and
the one in which Eve is made from Adam's rib.  In order to make sense 
of
this,
you have three choices: (1) note that these are two separate creation
myths;
(2) decide that only one of these is true and the other is false; (3) 
come
up
with some strained logic which allows both to be true.

I think that, most of the time, folks who quote the Bible as literal 
truth
are not as familiar as they might be with the actual book itself.

Back to science, though, I agree with those who say that there are a 
lot of
assumptions made in order to even START doing science -- and that those
assumptions are not "truth" -- they are interpretations of experience.
 Objectivity,
in my opinion, is simply unobtainable; so we do our level best with the
scientific method.

Lisa Jo Rudy, Writer/Consultant
625 Chelten Hills Drive
Elkins Park, PA 19027
http://www.lisarudy.com/
215-635-9735

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at
http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]


   

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]