[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
...if it has precious little evidence, then its not a scientific belief. If 
a scientist chooses to believe such an unsupported thing, then he is not 
much of a scientists.

SA replied:
...This whole issue was rampant in all the textbooks, all universities, yet, 
nobody actually questioned it enough to discard it.  Scientists the world 
over just believed Darwin had to be right.  This is faith in Darwin's 
argument, maybe?  A belief in what he said, and a faith that it will 
continue to work this way, maybe.  Yet, I'm not being strong and strict with 
the faith aspect, but the belief was present for no evidence could be found.

dmb says:
What? The reason evolution appears in all the textbooks, is taught at all 
the universities and is believed by scientists the world over is because 
there is an OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE to support it. Problems, questions 
and issues arise within science. Hypotheses are tried and tested. New 
details emerge. View are changed. So what? That's how science works. The 
notion of punctuated equalibrian, to use your example, only enriches the 
theory and does not contradict it. As far as I know, there is no evidence 
that contradicts the theory of evolution. Was Darwin right about everything? 
Of course not. Nobody is. Theories can be refined or rejected, depending on 
the data, the weight of the evidence and the conceptual scheme used to 
explain all that. The beauty of science is that it allows us to improve 
ideas that are pretty darn good in the first place. And when the data 
contradicts what we thought we knew, the scientist does not cling to his old 
view. Not if she's worth her salt as a scientist. And if the scientists I 
know and have read about are any indication, they are all quite excited and 
thrilled about the new evidence, the contradictory data. This is the stuff 
they live for. In science, new data and new theories will make you a rock 
star. This is why Copernicus's name have echoed through the centuries. This 
is a completely different attitude, approximately the opposite of faith.

There seems to be a strange and unspoken assumption in this sort of 
objection. Its not just you, SA. It seems that those who disagree with me in 
these areas share a view that any belief that falls short of absolute 
certainty or indisputable proof must be held on the basis of "faith". Not 
only am I NOT making a case that science is indisputable or absolute, I 
don't even think such things exist. One need not be a philosopher of science 
to understand that theories, hypotheses, evidence, data and even science 
itself are all far less grandiose than that. Do me a favor. Look at a 
dictionary and see what those terms mean. Then look up the word "faith".

_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here.  Get all the scoop. 
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2