At 8:48 AM -0600 2/22/01, Jim Guinee wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:53:55 -0600
>> From: Paul Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> At 11:57 AM -0600 2/21/01, Jim Guinee wrote:
>> >It seems that "popular" stuff is allowed in the door, but as soon as
>> >someone brings up an issue that is non-psych and most people don't
>> >like/agree with (e.g., religion), the internet cops scream bloody murder.
>>
>> Jim--
>> You're setting up a straw man.
>> I haven't seen any postings on this list objecting to religion.
>> It's the conflation of religion and science that some of us (including
>> those with relgious inclinations) find objectionable.
>>
>At the risk of rehashing an old issue, I'm not sure I see the problem with
>"conflating" science and religion. (BTW, what is the precise meaning of this
>word? I couldn't find it in the dictionary)
con*flate (kún-flEt2) v. tr. con*flat*ed con*flat*ing con*flates 1. To
bring together; meld or fuse: "They ingeniously conflated other characters
and incidents to provide an opéra-comique setting" Andrew Porter 2. To
combine (two variant texts, for example) into one whole.
[ Latin cÅnflEre cÅnflEt- com- com- flEre to blow; See bhlT- in
Indo-European Roots.]
>As far as the straw man, I'm not yet willing to concede my man is made
>entirely of that material...
>
>For example, I remember posting a news bit on the shroud of Turin (sp?) as
>an example of collecting data and was immediately questioned about using it
>as a means to promote (as opposed to analyze) religion.
The scientific facts regarding the antiquity of the Shroud are separate
from rhetorical attempts to use them to promote or question religion. The
age of a particular artifact hardly affects the validity of a religious
belief ('tho it might affect the credibility of a particular believer;-).
* 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 *
