Good detective work, Russ. I rather think that we scientists have fallen down on the job of embracing and promoting doubt, at least with regards to religion's place in politics and science. May I remind you: our Republican Vice Presidential candidate is a *Creationist* who believes that the earth was created (by God, of course) 6,000 years ago.
Where has the outcry of outrage from the scientific community been? Nary a whimper that I've heard. Are all of our flaunted scientists afraid to take a stand against the "Christian Right"? --Doug On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Russ Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I looked up the Feynman > reference<http://alexpetrov.com/memes/sci/value.html>and extracted the > following paragraphs in praise of doubt. They don't have > much to do with modeling, but they make a good point for both science--and > especially politics. > > We scientists … take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be > unsure — that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether > everyone realizes that this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born of a > struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep > and strong struggle. Permit us to question — to doubt, that's all — not to > be sure. And I think it is important that we do not forget the importance of > this struggle. … > > This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the > philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. > The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to the idea > that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried > out, tossed out, more new ideas brought in; a trial and error system. This > method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to > be a successful venture at the end of the 18th century. Even then it was > clear to socially minded people that the openness of the possibilities was > an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress > into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved > before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar. … > > It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and > great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress > that is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this > freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, > and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations. > > -- Russ > > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Douglas Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> >> [...] Or does it answer the question "Why think?" >>> >>> -- Russ Abbott >> >> >> Which sort of brings us back on point to one of the other threads that >> has been volleyed back and forth on this list since last Friday... >> >> Why think, when there is dogma to save you the bother? >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts, RTI International >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-670-8195 - Cell >> > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
