« doing the Che thing... | Main | My hair's stagflation »
September 24, 2005
Ranting and raving to the Star
Apparantly it's not very hard to get your letter published in a newspaper:
http://venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_4091486,00.html
It's just hard getting it published in its entirety:
Teach
what controversy?
by Randy Xu and
Daniel Berdichevsky
The fact that intelligent design has gained such traction speaks highly of its saavy PR campaign. Unfortunately, it also speaks lowly of our nation's level of education, both in scientific specifics and in philosophical fundamentals. While the state of the former (especially in comparison to other countries) is a perennial subject of newspapers articles and studies, few seem to wonder about the latter: whether Americans know the difference between ontology and telology, or spend time pondering free will and the limits of human knowledge. Such metaphysical questions may seem remote from everyday life, but they help us to understand understanding itself--and to put movements such as intelligent design in their proper perspective.
In this case, the distinction between normative and positive propositions is crucial to understanding why scientists reject intelligent design. By definition, a normative statement cannot be disproved. It is an opinion, belief or value-judgement: "Social Security ought to be privatized." In contrast, a positive statement is falsifiable, meaning it has the potential to be disproved: "The Social Security trust fund will run out by 2007."
Academics work in the world of positive statements, those that can be verified through new discoveries or through the application of existing rules. Ironically, in this system creationism and intelligent design are rejected because they are too flawless. Their individual attacks against evolution (and they can only attack) can be debunked but their basic premise can never be tested nor disproved. An omnipotent or advanced being could not only create everything, but might even nullify all the science we have labored so assiduously to divine.
Compared with faith, science is very limited in its scope and methods. Science can never provide satisfying answers to normative questions such as "What is our purpose in life?" but faith can. Science can only tackle positive questions, with help from pre-existing knowledge. But faith alone can answer many more questions.
A higher power does not belong in science, but not because science trumps religion. Rather it is because science is too small a realm, limited to what can be known by man. Imagine a person who needs tools cured from science to know God. Science fills our need for positive knowledge and can never disprove God's existence whereas religion can give us a normative foundation but can never (and need never) prove God's existence. Since they occupy such different spheres, it is baffling why there is any controversy at all.
Randy Xu (Simi Valley) graduated from Harvard College in 2004 with a B.A. in Science, Technology and Public Policy. A software engineer by training, Randy is undergoing his midlife crisis right now and looking for an excuse to travel through to the Middle East again. He currently is active trying his hardest not to end up in law school, while freelancing as the managing editor for DemiDec Resources, publishing rants and raves on economic theory.
Daniel Berdichevsky (Encino) graduated from Stanford University in 2002 with a B.A. in Science, Technology and Society and an M.A. in History. He earned his Masters in Public Policy in June 2005 from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Daniel founded DemiDec and is also looking for an excuse to travel to the Middle East, though he knows where to look.
Posted by rxu at September 24, 2005 04:19 AM