Posted: Jun 18, 2014 12:04 pm
True. Scientific endeavour is essentially a social concern, but it is so often cast -- in these types of discussions at least -- as merely the self-interested concern of scientists. Sheldrake is a fine example of the self-interested scientist, and interestingly his scientific credentials, or lack thereof, are often dragged up and examined both in favour of and against polarised positions.
A great many of those with a creationist, ideaological bent operate in the foothills of the Sherlock Holmes fallacy, thinking that if they can eliminate some nominated scientific hypothesis or theory then the whole of science fails and, therefore, what remains is their nominated alternative. The whole thing is so often a monstrously involved extemporisation on the theme of the false dichotomy, and to a great extent the alternative, non-scientific 'explanations' are built on fallacies - all the way down.
Engaging in this kind of thing seems to avoid the nitty-gritty of the creationist argument, by my lights at least, which is, why is it important to the creationist that their explanation be met with credulity and thus granted some epistemological weight or force? It is the personal investment in the idea being true and correct which drives the creationist argument, and this is invariably something drummed into them by some body or person to whom they have given authority.
Creationism, as with many ideologies, is an exercise in intellectual out-sourcing; an exercise in acceptance, and ultimately, in unchallenged, obsequious obedience.
A great many of those with a creationist, ideaological bent operate in the foothills of the Sherlock Holmes fallacy, thinking that if they can eliminate some nominated scientific hypothesis or theory then the whole of science fails and, therefore, what remains is their nominated alternative. The whole thing is so often a monstrously involved extemporisation on the theme of the false dichotomy, and to a great extent the alternative, non-scientific 'explanations' are built on fallacies - all the way down.
Engaging in this kind of thing seems to avoid the nitty-gritty of the creationist argument, by my lights at least, which is, why is it important to the creationist that their explanation be met with credulity and thus granted some epistemological weight or force? It is the personal investment in the idea being true and correct which drives the creationist argument, and this is invariably something drummed into them by some body or person to whom they have given authority.
Creationism, as with many ideologies, is an exercise in intellectual out-sourcing; an exercise in acceptance, and ultimately, in unchallenged, obsequious obedience.