Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:18:18 -0800
From: David Geelan <bravus-AT-innocent.com>
Subject: PKF: Science and Democracy, Sects and Hegemony I


G'day Robert and John (and everyone else too!)

I read Robert's long post in response to John's challenging questions
with great interest, but I'll snip much of it in the interest of a
dialogue that doesn't take a year to read! I'll also split it into two
different articles for different topics. 

<snip long and detailed critique of evolution and support of theistic
creation>

> >>It's a bit hard to get a grasp of your viewpoint.<<
> 
> I suppose you mean my viewpoint can't be easily labeled.  As I made clear
> I'm not an ideologue.  It's much easier to grasp the viewpoint of
> somebody with a closed mind than an open one.  So thank you for the
> compliment.

I would suggest that your comments make it clear that you have an
ideological position on the origins of life. I'm not saying that in a
pejorative way - I am myself a recent creationist, as many of the list
members are aware. I think it is dangerously unreflective, though, for
you to label scientists as 'ideologues', and to decry their adherence to
what you (correctly in my view) describe as a 'presumptive faith
position' on evolution, without acknowledging your own presumptive faith
position. 

I prefer to acknowledge my beliefs: my faith in God as creator is a
faith position, and I make no bones about that. You, on the other hand,
have begun marshalling the scientific evidence for creationism. It's
awkward to try to have it both ways: if you wish to buttress your own
argument with science, then surely that right should be extended to your
opponents? And if their position is held by faith, surely it's right to
acknowledge that yours is too?

What Paul Feyerabend reminds us (this list is dedicated to his work and
ideas, after all) reminds us is that the hegemonic power of a monolithic
science establishment is dangerous to cultural diversity and alternate
perspectives. I think we could all agree on that. And I think, in the
instance of origins debates, that the power and hegemony is definitely
on the side of evolutionary perspectives in Western society at the
moment. For these reasons I thin it's important to consider
alternatives. But if we remain within the subset of human knowledge that
is Western science, and just debate mechanisms while using the same kind
of evidence, have we achieved much? Especially given that BOTH the
entrenched positions are faith positions, incommensurable with
scientific measurement?
 
Robert writes:

> This is obviously all about power and hegemony, and outright hypocrisy:
> While the secular humanists or hardcore materialists proclaim democracy
> as their ideal, or what they're putatively trying to protect, at the same
> time they contradictorily want to suppress viewpoints that might conflict
> with theirs.  Such doublespeak is very Orwellian.  If they're not really
> duplicitous Marxists at heart with an ultimate Marxian Socialist agenda,
> they would be as tolerant of dissent and alternative methodologies or
> views as non-rationalists or spiritual believers are of them.   Where's
> the pluralism in a notion of democracy or "free inquiry" that doesn't
> recognize alternative or opposing viewpoints as rational?

The (implicitly US) scientific community are all covert Marxists?
Please, Robert... On the contrary, it is capitalist materialism, not
dialectical materialism, that is (in my opinion) the engine of great
danger in western science. 

The term 'democracy' is an intriguing one for me as an Australian - it
doesn't have the automatic positive values it has for an American. For
them, it often seems, simply describing something as 'democratic' means
that no further value judgement is necessary. For this reason,
'democracy' is appropriated by both the 'government' and the
'opposition' on almost all points, and means 'freedom of speech' or 'the
rule of (official) Reason', eually well, depending on the context and in
whose mouth it finds itself. 

Again, PKF has much to say on this - not on democracy, but on 'Reason'
and 'reason' (and it would be valuable for you to read 'Farewell to
Reason' on this point, Robert. No, it's not the official bible on
rationalism, but it's some damn fine thinking on the issue.) Rather than
referring to 'alternative' perspectives like atrology, creation and
magic as 'non-rational', he reclaims the whole idea of 'rationality'
from the narrow, impersonal, positivist straightjacket into which it has
been squeezed in recent (western) history, to cover a much fuller and
broader spectrum of human ways of knowing and being. He refers to 'big R
Reason' as 'the official position' or the ruling hegemony, and asks that
we define our 'small r reason' in more life-affirming ways.
 
<snip furthe long discussion of democracy and 'scientific social
control'>

John's questions were admirable in that they were challenging without
being confrontational. I've tried to write in similar ways, and to turn
all this back around to discussion of Paul Feyerabend's work (something
noticeably lacking from the very welcome increase in activity over the
past few days). I hope others will take the opportunity to become
involved in the discussion, even if you don't have time to sit down and
write a long message!

Regards,

David


___________________________________________________
David R Geelan, Science & Maths Ed Centre,Curtin Uni of Tech
GPO U1987, Perth 6001, ph +619 351 3594, fax +619 351 2503.
Home page: http://alpha7.curtin.edu.au/~pgeelandr/bravus.htm
"the boundaries of reality are in fact movable" - Jurgen Habermas
**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu