[WikiEN-l] Re: SPOV threatens NPOV

Thu Dec 15 05:54:07 UTC 2005

When Newton originally presented his theory of gravity it was seriously
attacked by his contemporaries as being comprised of "occult forces" rather
than being a truly mechanistic physics (like Cartesian physics). Now we all
know how that worked out in the end -- not only did Newton triumph, but even
what science was ended up being redefined in the process. And it has been
redefined many times since then, in different ways and different fields --
each time something initially incompatible becomes the accepted norm, it
changes not only the evidence, but the entire standard of what counts as
evidence and even what counts as argumentation. This is a well-documented
phenomena, and even the most positivistic of philosophers acknowledge this
to some degree.

FF

On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> sockmonk at gmail.com wrote:
> > I agree of course that science and religion are not "at each other's
> > throats". However, there is one place where I think the SPOV is seen
> most
> > clearly as a POV. This is when any account of a miracle, or other
> > supernatural event, is presumed to be false, impossible, or to
> necessarily
> > have a purely scientific explanation. The 'laws of science' are
> undoubtedly
> > useful, and have produced lots of great things. Of course, people made
> some
> > progress even when the leading 'scientists' of the day thought
> everything
> > was made of just four elements. But to presume that everything
> supernatural
> > is bunk, is imposing a scientific point of view in a way that many
> people
> > think goes too far.
>
> An example of a 'supernatural phenomenon' which is not 'bunk' would be
> welcome. :)
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>