Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Is science a religion?

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Michael wrote:
> 
>> Religion involves *mystical* belief.
>>
> Exactly why all of science, not just the quacks, is a religion. All the 
> posits of science, like any religion, rests on recursive faith in 
> itself. Logic is the right way to evaluate the world because that's 
> science. Science is the right way to evaluate the world because that 
> relies on logic. It's full of just as many conceptual loops as any other 
> religion. We make fun of religious groups for their tendency to back up 
> why their religion is right by looking to their religion but that is 
> exactly what science does. It's all mystical. It's all faith. I happen 
> to think my religion, science, is better than others but that again is 
> based merely on faith in my own religion.

I think that this exchange really illustrates Polanyi's points rather well. 
Mike Miller definitely believes in science, to a point where it seems to be so 
self evident to him that it frankly does not require explanation.  (Sorry to put 
words in Mikes mouth - I know I am probably overstating his case, but I think 
that I have the right direction.)

In his essay, Polanyi says that he also believes in science, but argues that 
scientists should realise that their belief is not self evident, that is does 
require explaning, and ultimately, that scientists need to recognise that their 
beliefs really are beliefs.  In his essay, he doesn't just look at the behavior 
of "quacks" but also looks at the behavior of successful scientists.  And indeed 
the best science (and mathematics for that matter) seems to result not from a 
careful process, but from following strong hunches.

I heard a speaker about him the other day, and they said that Polanyi was a 
Hungarian chemist, who first worked in Germany, and then moved to England as a 
result of persecution in Germany.  After the second world war, he noticed a 
strong socialist movement to tell scientists what they should be discovering. 
(This was a much stronger movement in Europe than in the USA.)  He felt that 
this would essentially kill science, and looked to western philosophy to justify 
current scientific practices, but came up empty.  As a result he wrote his book 
"Personal Knowledge" in which he attempted to describe how science and discovery 
really takes place.

Christians such as Lesslie Newbigin, and Esther Meek (the latter is the speaker 
I heard last week - she is from St Louis) have realised that his view of 
estimology (the study of how we know) seems to work much better with religion 
than does the more traditional western philosophies.

I only know a little about Polanyi's ideas.  It first it seems quite contrary to 
current western thinking, but after a while it comes across to me as extremely 
profound.  Certainly as a philosophy to live by, it seems better than most 
anything else I have tried.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion