You and I are positivists. Yes, its true. You doubt me! Consider this: we have been raised in an age where objective fact and the scientific method rule on high.
In the past, I have found myself taking subjective data and re-orienting it in a way that makes it objective because... well, I am a product of a positivistic age. My assumption was that making the subjective objective would add validity to my theories. While this may help support theoretical issues it does not guarantee truth. What I have discovered is that objective and subjective are two sides of the same coin. Each is equally valid.
But, we are now entering a post-positivist age. There is no longer debate; positivism has won, for now. Modern philosophy empowered science and its methodology in such a way that it is now the undisputed king. We default to the assumption that objective fact equates to absolute truth. But, that just is not true. But, the issue is worse than a positivist dominance as positivism has now matured into a postivistic Bulverism.
What do I mean by Bulverism? C.S. Lewis created this term to describe 20th century thought that began with a false assumption. Lewis stated that Bulverism was the action of addressing an opinion as wrong immediately then pursuing all future thought toward describing why it was wrong without ever discussing whether the opinion was right or wrong. Lewis created a fictitious person to name this after in order to make the point even clearer. Add a Bulveristic ethos to post-positivism and you have our current state... post-positivistic bulverism.
Science rules through objective fact, and anything subjective is immediately dismissed without a thought. All future discussion is spent ridiculing anyone who believes in such nonsense as subjective fact. Sound familiar? Yet, this age of post-positivistic bulverism presents an opportunity as science has advanced beyond its protective covering. There is much in the scientific field that is now subjective and backed by assumptions and speculations with little to no objective factual support.
Listen to any discussion about evolution or about black holes and you will find lots of assumptions and speculation but little objective factual information. Google the topic "black holes," and you will find an article by the folks at NASA telling you there is convincing evidence that black holes exist, but then the next article that pops up is one on Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton, a theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her paper offers proof that it is mathematically impossible for black holes to ever form. Read the article HERE.
So, which is it? Do black holes exist, or is it impossible for them to exist? Now, just because Dr. Mersini-Houghton has math on her side does not necessarily mean she is right. The folks at NASA have observed, through the Hubble telescope, evidence that strongly suggests there is a black hole in the middle of the milky way. They have seen, with their own eyes, this truth. Then, there is Dr. Mersini-Houghton; her research suggests that what is being seen through the Hubble is not a black hole at all. How can something that is an impossibility be observed? Here is a fine example of a positivistic paradox: two viable alternatives rooted in two of positivism's most trusted allies: empiricism and quantitative analysis, yet they are at odds with each other.
Which do you believe? Qualitative facts do not lie, or do they? Numbers are only as good as the person using them, and observation is only as good as the observer and the instrument used to observe. But, we have known for quite sometime that evolution and black holes are fact; the debate for both is over, or is it? Both are theories at best, according to the scientific method. Yet, we live in the age of post-positivistic bulverism which takes scientific theories, like these, and makes them true because all discussions on both subjects are no longer regarding their authenticity, but instead, they are only about the foolishness of not believing them.
Many reject Christianity on the same grounds yet there is more proof in support of Christianity than in support of both evolution and black holes. Be wary for any debate on science's most protected theories will start with an attack on you and the foolishness of not believing in such theories, but be patient, courteous and respectful and steer the conversation back to the issue, demand factual information and watch what happens. Remember, you live in the age of Post-Positivistic Bulverism. Happy debating!
No comments:
Post a Comment