Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Take research, for example. The problem with research reports is that the data can be manipulated and presented in such a way to reflect the bias of those responsible for it. One can essentially have their answer before the question is even asked. "Knowledge" can be engineered by scientists out of the materials of what philosophers would call "truth." What, then, can we do to fill this void between "knowledge" and "truth"? What, then, can we do to undermine or circumvent the authoritative powers that not only create this knowledge but also apply it in great factors throughout society?
The problem with this thread is that it encourages people to fall into the easy trap of blindly criticizing "religious truth" as dangerous while doing so out of the more so affecting "scientific truth" that surrounds us in practice. We have removed much of the Church from our governments and schools, but we have done so at the cost of further empowering the power/knowledge problem.
|
This reminds me of a discussion in the Atheism's sudden rise thread, where "faith" in the models was required to accept them. You are talking about dirty science. We all know the clique, "ends justifying the means," however here I say dirty science, "the ends must justify the spending." Yes science can be biased, because (aside from unscrupulous reasons) we are not ready to know the next step. The model may require new means of measurement, or new basic models to begin with. The real essence of the universe is there, we haven't the minds to understand it fully, yet. In science when you, viz your model, are proven "wrong," it usually means that the model breaks down as things get larger, smaller, faster, colder, etc. It wasn't precisely wrong, just not correct in all cases. This doesn't mean that the model can no longer be used.
The reason "religious truths" often are criticized, from my observations, is because many "truths" are not open to interpretation, there is no room for observation. When religion makes the headlines it is because some shit has hit the fan. This occurs when people strictly adhere to beliefs, instead of taking from their books the good that is to be taught.
Quote:
|
I haven't read Heidegger. I haven't read Husserl.
|
Nor have I.
I agree with roach, that science is no means of justifying or renouncing religious beliefs.