Comments on: I am a Militant Atheist — Reply II

By: J. H. Satterfield

J. H. Satterfield — Thu, 26 May 2011 08:25:53 +0000

OOPS! I misquoted the title of Thomas Kuhn’s book, it is THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS! The passage referred to in my previous post is “I object strongly to the accusation that scientists “hold fast to their fundamental convictions” as believers do. On the contrary, the entire endeavor of science starts with unshackling yourself from your presuppositions,” and the point of my comment is, you can’t unshackle yourself from your presuppositions, and scientists are no better avoiding this than anyone else. I am reminded of an old NEW YORKER cartoon in which a patinet sourly snaps at his psychiatrist, “I know very what my unconscious assumptions are!”

By: J. H. Satterfield

J. H. Satterfield — Thu, 26 May 2011 08:16:52 +0000

<> Which paralles universe are you talking about here? It certainly isn’t this one! I suggest you read Thomas Kuhn’s THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS. Kuhn concluded that in fact the theories scientists choose to explain a given set of conditions are subjective choices. In fact, EGOS become tied up in theories! It has also been said that the only way a new idea in science gains precedence is not because all the scientists who hold to the old idea are converted, but because they die. Niels Borh (are real honest to goodness scientist) put it very succintly when he said “Science progresses one funeral at a time.” If someone could disprove the Atomic Theory or the Theory of Evolution, they would be studiously ignored by other scientists, ridiculed in the academic media, marginalized, and lose all their grant money. They would die forgotten and discredited, with no academic position or crediblity, simply because if the the mainstream admitted that the challenger was right, such an admission would ruin a great number of reputations and make a lot of people look foolish. (Richard Dawkins, for example). Your faith in the boundless objectivity and goodness of science is not only unfounded, it is naive.

By: Whitney

Whitney — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:37:27 +0000

This kind of civil and reasonable discourse is the best way to give the world a better understanding of Atheism. Keep the discussion going!