[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[David Cake]

At 6:36 PM +0100 5/12/07, Mark Smith wrote:
>On 05.12.2007, at 17:54, David Cake wrote:
>
>>>  If someone has faith, they are being unscientific. It doesn't matter
>>>  whether, or not they acknowledge that the basis of their faith is, in
>>>  principle, "doubtable". (You would have to agree that a scientist is
>>>  bound to acknowledge this.)
>>
>>	Well, no.
>>	I might be pretty damn certain that, say, Pride and Prejudice
>>  is the most important novel written in English, or Hamlet is the most
>>  important play. I can even acknowledge that other peoples opinions
>>  may differ, that its ultimately subjective, but dammit, I'm pretty
>>  sure that I am correct anyway. Doesn't make me unscientific - its not
>>  a question on which science can usefully provide an answer.
>
>Come on Dave, you're smarter than that. You *know* that this *is* 
>being unscientific (even though this is entirely different to placing
>blind "faith" in a religion).

	Your idea of what is being 'unscientific' is simply too 
strong - you think its unscientific to have firm beliefs on any 
subject not amenable to scientific analysis. You are free to play 
this particular language game, but its damn silly. Chris is saying 
that many famous and notable scientists are 'non-scientists' by your 
definition - but I think if you regard it as non-scientific to have 
firmly held opinions on any non-scientific subject, I think there 
would be very few human beings who might qualify as scientists at all.
	Having any sort of firmly held ethical code, for example, no 
matter how rational and humanitarian, is clearly, by your definition, 
non-scientific.


>  You have to be open to the possibility 
>that it could be demonstrated to you that you are wrong.

	How can the 'wrongness' of a non-falsifiable hypothesis be 
convincingly demonstrated?
	I mean, I can conceive that I might change my mind about the 
relative importance of Hamlet in english drama, but it seems pretty 
unlikely, and there is certainly no magical test of dramatic value 
that might convince me otherwise.
	Or I might be convinced that a particular shade of blue is 
THE prettiest colour, or that Talisker is the best single malt Scotch.

>  If you accept 
>this, then your "current perspective" is not unscientific per se. 
>(Doesn't make it scientific either, of course, but lets leave that
>alone.) Religious faith has no room for this kind of contingency.

	Someone who holds a strong religious belief can still 
conceive of the possibility that they might be converted to another 
religion, too - they just don't think its going to happen.
	You keep wanting to cast religious faith as a special kind of 
opinion people hold, unlike any other in its epistemological status, 
purely so you can deride those who hold such opinions. Its not going 
to happen, and your argument is constructed backwards.
	Because the truth is that its scientific hypotheses, not 
religion, that have a special epistemological status - but all 
scientists hold many beliefs that are *not* scientific hypotheses, 
because not all hypotheses are falsifiable.
	Cheers
		David