Why Akathleptos?

Why Akathleptos? Because it means Uncontainable. God is infinite. Hence, the whole universe cannot contain Him. The term also refers to the incomprehensibility of God. No man can know everything about God. We can know Him personally but not exhaustively, not even in Heaven.

Why Patmos? Because the church is increasingly marginalized and exiled from the culture.

Why Pen-Names? So the focus is on the words and not who wrote them. We prefer to let what we say stand on its own merit. There is precedent in church history for this - i.e., the elusive identity of Ambrosiaster who wrote in the 4th century A.D.

“Truth is so obscured nowadays, and lies so well established, that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it." Blaise Pascal



Wednesday, October 18, 2017

The Myth Of Scientific Objectivity


There's an essay here entitled "The Myth Of Scientific Objectivity" by a software engineer that argues science has never been truly objective but is always hostage to the  "political, moral, and religious views" of the scientist. The author thoughtfully reflects on the truth that in a fallen world, science can never be truly objective. His conclusion? "Scientists would do well to start with a frank acknowledgment that they do not really know the deeper sources of their own dearly held scientific truths."

My friends who work in scientific fields were aghast when they saw that the organizers of a planned “March for Science” had tweeted that “colonization, racism, immigration, native rights, sexism, ableism, queer-, trans-, intersex-phobia, & econ justice are scientific issues [black power emoji][rainbow emoji].” Who can blame them for their horror? The impartial search for truth is having enough problems these days, what with the discovery that many prominent scientific results, over a broad swath of fields, are non-replicable and likely false. 

.... What makes them wary, however, is the even more illiberal desire to inject the views and interests of progressive social causes into the methodology of science itself (hypothesis formation, experiment, analysis) and perhaps even into its conclusions. 

...  In fact, the purported objectivity of scientific inquiry is a damaging myth, and the illiberal instincts of the Marchers for Science represent a corrective, though not a cure. Science has been ideologically captured since its birth, and “value-laden inquiry” is not a recent deviation but is rather fundamental to its successful practice. The successful conquest of the institutions of science by overtly politicized forces would change little on the ground, but it would help to update society’s perceptions so that they match the underlying reality. We should welcome the March for Science as it sets out to destroy the academy’s undeserved reputation for neutrality and to reveal science for what it has always been.

.... This is why those most invested in science as a way of knowing the world react with such horror to the proposal that values, even the progressive values they overwhelmingly share, should inform the scientific method. 

.... The political, moral, and religious views of a scientist really do affect the results that he gets. 

.... Another way in which our metaphysical beliefs construct the body of evidence that is available for theory to address lies in the ways we classify and categorize the world. 

.... The point, rather, is just that science is not unique, and that it can never be self-justifying. Questions like “which science?” and “why this science?” are often useful ones.

..... science is made up of fallible institutions and fallible individuals. Yet the mechanisms of peer review, grant-making and funding, access to laboratory resources, and so on make it all too easy for a dedicated cabal to deliberately (or even accidentally) freeze out research that does not conform to their vision of the world.


*******

Amen.  Organized science has often proved and continues to prove to be the biggest adversary to impartial discussion and consideration of any data that does not conform to the accepted worldview — an alien concept to many people due to the way science, particularly in the mainstream, has been mythologized as a totally dispassionate and objective enterprise that only cares for so-called "truth" (though the anthropogenic “global warming” scandal no doubt helped undermine that myth!)

The scientist is just as motivated by emotion as the next person, whether it be greed, fear, malice, love, pride, or ambition. Degrees and Ph.D.s don’t suddenly transform someone into a person that is utterly impartial and free of emotional or intellectual prejudice, or immune to other forms of corruption (in this fallen world) for that matter.

Most important is the worldview held by the scientist. A materialist (or naturalist) worldview (which many hold) will inevitably drive his conclusions.

The term “skeptic” comes from the Greek skepsis, which means examination and doubt, and not knee-jerk denial. Somewhere then, organized skepticism and enthusiastic debunkers went wrong. Somewhere along the way, some people began to unconsciously mistake closed-minded cynicism and arrogance for skepticism—and the one thing the best known “skeptics” never seem to doubt, of course, is their own set of ontological or existential assumptions.

One reason so many people make it through life with a fairly closed mind to “paranormal” information in particular is that they never have an experience that forces a catastrophic psychological upheaval upon them, leaving them to reassess everything they have ever assumed to be true - such as an encounter with Christ. Being born again (John 3:3) shatters one's worldview and revolutionizes their grasp of reality. At that point we have access to the ultimate source of truth.

No comments:

Post a Comment