At 2:20 PM -0700 3/10/00, Jeff Ricker wrote:
>Michael J. Kane wrote:
>
>> My question is: If we allow for alternative ways of knowing
>> (AWK) into our psychology curricula, then why not allow
>> religious (mainstream or otherwise) views on human and
>> universal origins to enter biology and physical science
>> curricula?
>>
>> Why is it okay to allow mystical perspectives into psychology
>> but not into the "harder" sciences?
First of all, there is no such thing as 'hard' or 'soft' science.
One either uses scientific methods or one doesn't.
>Because many people believe that, although a natural-science approach is
>excellent for understanding the physical world, it is very limited when
>we apply it to research on humans. They believe that other approaches
>involving a transcendent realm (i.e., the supernatural) are necessary
>for understanding human nature. It seems self-evident to them that we
>must consider something other than physical processes if we wish to
>understand the most fundamental aspects of the human mind and human
>experiences.
'Selfevident' 'belief' is of course the business of religion.
Ultimately they are proposing that we search for the soul using the methods
of religion.
>What we call science, they are arguing, must be expanded:
>it must include methods and techniques that allow us to study this
>transcendent realm. The natural sciences (including physics, chemistry,
>and biology) do not need to incorporate such methods and techniques
>because they focus on the physical.
Again, if something is not physical it does not exist in the sense that
science defines existence.
One cannot incorporate religious methods into science; one can only turn
science into religion. Once you allow the camel's nose of unsupported
belief into the tent, you no longer have science. There is no way you can
separate the attributions of naive assertion from predictions based on
controlled scientific method once you apply them to the same phenomena. A
miracle can always be invoked.
>I don't agree with these people but I understand that they are starting
>with a different set of assumptions than I; and, thus, they feel they
>must include methods that seem unnecessary and unscientific to me.
Right!
And those are the basic assumptions that differentiate religion from science.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
