Is Neutrality in the fields of Natural Science Possible?

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So that is the question, in the title, that I am posing for discussion. Why or why not? Does it matter? Why or why not? I have a position, may or may not reveal it, depends on how this goes, or if it even does. The great news about this topic is, you need not be a Scientist or Scientifically inclined or extremely informed to answer.

 

[majj27]

Neutrality in what way? Towards a certain topic? Politically?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Neutrality in what way? Towards a certain topic? Politically?

Neutral in their profession of choice, towards any topic pertaining to their specific field.

 

[sfs]

I don't know what it means to be neutral in a profession.

 

[majj27]

Neutral in their profession of choice, towards any topic pertaining to their specific field.

If you mean approaching a topic of research with absolutely no preconceived notions about it whatsoever? I doubt there's a human being on the planet who could do that. We all have at least SOME notion in our head on how reality works, even if it is vague and unformed.

The trick is to make certain that any personal biases do not effect the work being done. That's why repetition, review, and scrupulous data collection and recording are essential in any scientific field.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I don't know what it means to be neutral in a profession.

Maybe I can help, it means to set aside assumptions, presuppositions. Because I am not a Scientist, or in a position of first hand knowledge or experience, it is difficult to say whether it means setting aside a person's whole worldview or lens through which phenomenons are interpreted. Is this possible? Does the naturalist Scientist approach his research of the natural, laying aside his worldview of naturalism open to the possibility of supernaturalism, or does his profession by definition limit the scope of his observations?

 

[majj27]

Does the naturalist Scientist approach his research of the natural, laying aside his worldview of naturalism open to the possibility of supernaturalism, or does his profession by definition limit the scope of his observations?

That's kind of a catch-22, in my eyes. If you're studying natural phenomenon, by definition you aren't looking at anything supernatural.

It's hard to put into words, so let me try an example. Let's say you are a scientist studying rain (I know we've figured out how your run of the mill rain works, but bear with me for a bit). How do you approach it? You want to know what it is, so what next? Well, first you try to figure out what it is, so you collect some and compare it to other liquids. By comparison and testing, you find out it's just water.

If you had to include the supernatural explanations, now you need to test it for supernatural properties. How would you do that? How can you test it against, so, the breath of a Rain Dragon, or the tears of angels?

Okay, so it's water. But how did it fall from the sky? Well, it only rains when it's cloudy (or when clouds are present), so it looks like they're related. But how can you test to see if Rain Spirits are sitting atop the clouds with buckets? Do you look for a Weather God? Which one? Do they all have some sort of test for them? Does it come from holes in the Firmament? Then where are they? How do you find them? Is there a way to build a Firmament-Hole Detector?

In short, I don't think we have any good way of detecting or measuring supernatural influence. If we could, it wouldn't be supernatural anymore. So as an explanatory choice, it seems to be less than useful in the field of the natural sciences, akin to throwing one's hands up and saying, "Heck if *I* know..."

 

[Radagast]

Does the naturalist Scientist approach his research of the natural, laying aside his worldview of naturalism open to the possibility of supernaturalism, or does his profession by definition limit the scope of his observations?

What do you mean by "the possibility of supernaturalism"?

Let's say I'm studying radioactivity involving beta decay (this includes C-14 to N-14). Such research may involve measurements with Geiger counters and a bunch of other expensive equipment. How might "supernaturalism" alter the way I do my research?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That's kind of a catch-22, in my eyes. If you're studying natural phenomenon, by definition you aren't looking at anything supernatural.

If I may interject at this point. I'm glad you caught on to an idea I decided to run. Scientists use the "Scientific Method" as a means of acquiring knowledge. However there are assumptions behind the Scientific Method, quite a few actually. If Scientists conclude from the natural (which I would argue they cannot) that the supernatural does not or cannot exist, such that theories exclude any hint of the supernatural (which most do), the theories have no means of Scientific explanatory power (rather the contrary) as to how or why the future will be like the past. Now if the future may not be like the past, how is the supernatural excluded? The naturalistic theories, have no explanatory power for why the future can be like the past, predication, or predictability through means of the Scientific Method. Sorry I just felt a bit inspired to think more on that note.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

What do you mean by "the possibility of supernaturalism"?

Let's say I'm studying radioactivity involving beta decay (this includes C-14 to N-14). Such research may involve measurements with Geiger counters and a bunch of other expensive equipment. How might "supernaturalism" alter the way I do my research?

This is a good point, one that is often not conceded by non-Christians, where Christians who are Scientists are concerned. What I mean by "the possibility of supernaturalism" might best be explained by someone from the "Intelligent Design" movement.

Am I to conclude from your answer, that you believe it is possible to be neutral in the fields of natural Science?

 

[Radagast]

This is a good point, one that is often not conceded by non-Christians, where Christians who are Scientists are concerned. What I mean by "the possibility of supernaturalism" might best be explained by someone from the "Intelligent Design" movement.

I couldn't understand this at all.

And "Intelligent Design" applies only to one particular subfield of biology. I can't see that it has any relevance to physics or chemistry.

 

[Radagast]

If Scientists conclude from the natural (which I would argue they cannot) that the supernatural does not or cannot exist

Such a conclusion is outside science (it would fall within philosophy). Science has nothing to say about the supernatural.

You appear to be suggesting that the possibility of the supernatural makes science impossible. As a Christian and a scientist I disagree 100%.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I couldn't understand this at all.

Sorry :/

And "Intelligent Design" applies only to one particular subfield of biology. I can't see that it has any relevance to physics or chemistry.

Guess I could be wrong, but I am inclined to think there is design in all of the Sciences, with God being the Creator of the universe and all. Whether directly or indirectly, whether implicit or explicit.

 

[Radagast]

Guess I could be wrong, but I am inclined to think there is design in all of the Sciences, with God being the Creator of the universe and all.

True, but that has nothing to do with the "Intelligent Design" movement, which is specific to the "origins" segment of biology.

Science attempts to discover the order within God's creation. To do that, it assumes that an order exists.

Perhaps you should learn something about science and its Christian foundations before you talk about this stuff -- because your posts are not helping the Kingdom of God at all. Start with this book, perhaps:

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Such a conclusion is outside science (it would fall within philosophy). Science has nothing to say about the supernatural.

It was part of a line of thought, with the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God in mind. Like most statements, there is a context. I am with Sproul when he say's that Philosophy is the handmaiden of Science. The two are inseparable, the application of logic is assumed in application of the Scientific Method.

You appear to be suggesting that the possibility of the supernatural makes science impossible. As a Christian and a scientist I disagree 100%.

I am sorry if I gave that appearance, not my intention, I mean just the opposite. The supernatural makes natural Science possible. Anyway, any thoughts on the OP?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

True, but that has nothing to do with the "Intelligent Design" movement, which is specific to the "origins" segment of biology.

I have a bookshelf with several books by various Intelligent Design authors, and to say it is specific to the origins segment of biology is not entirely correct.

Science attempts to discover the order within God's creation. To do that, it assumes that an order exists.

You mean Science from the Christian perspective...

Perhaps you should learn something about science and its Christian foundations before you talk about this stuff -- because your posts are not helping the Kingdom of God at all.

Perhaps you would like to explain, because it seems I have offended, but I unaware of the offense. I sense for lack of another word, good will in my direction.

I still have hope that someone might address the OP (rather than my character and lack of intelligence).

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If you mean approaching a topic of research with absolutely no preconceived notions about it whatsoever? I doubt there's a human being on the planet who could do that. We all have at least SOME notion in our head on how reality works, even if it is vague and unformed.

Thank you for answering, and I agree at this point.

The trick is to make certain that any personal biases do not effect the work being done.

Of this I am uncertain, on one hand I agree, on the other there is the nature of man to contend with. Romans Chapter 2 also comes to mind.

That's why repetition, review, and scrupulous data collection and recording are essential in any scientific field.

Reviews (though not necessarily) are subject to the same problem (as history of Science shows), other than that though I couldn't agree more.

 

[Job 33:6]

Neutral in their profession of choice, towards any topic pertaining to their specific field.

Maybe I can help, it means to set aside assumptions, presuppositions. Because I am not a Scientist, or in a position of first hand knowledge or experience, it is difficult to say whether it means setting aside a person's whole worldview or lens through which phenomenons are interpreted. Is this possible? Does the naturalist Scientist approach his research of the natural, laying aside his worldview of naturalism open to the possibility of supernaturalism, or does his profession by definition limit the scope of his observations?

Usually, I would say, scientists, or just people in general, enter dilemmas under the worldview of a natural state.

For example, if I am at the grocery store, and another shopper walks into the bathroom, I assume the person is still in the bathroom and wasnt a ghost, or didnt just disappear in thin air (supernatural occurrences).

And so, with science I would say it typically works the same way. When performing research, typically you are solving a question or a problem or dilemma. And so, in general, we enter that research, with assumptions that the solution is something that is a normal understandable and natural solution (the person is probably in the bathroom).

Then, typically we work in teams, so another scientist might say well, maybe the person fell into the toilet and is no longer in the bathroom. Then we test our proposals by simply knocking on the bathroom door. The person inside responds by saying "hold on a minute im using the toilet", and so, we establish that it is feasible to believe that a person is in the bathroom on the toilet.

Science works this same way.

The discussion of if the person truly did fall into the toilet and disappear, or if the person was actually a ghost and disappeared (supernatural solutions), really only enters the equation after the natural solution has been tested, and has failed (knocking on the door or perhaps opening the door and looking inside). And really only after natural or regular every day solutions have been exhausted and have all failed.

 

[Job 33:6]

If Scientists conclude from the natural that the supernatural does not or cannot exist, such that theories exclude any hint of the supernatural, the theories have no means of Scientific explanatory power (rather the contrary) as to how or why the future will be like the past.

To put that into context with the person in the bathroom, nobody up front proposes that the person absolutely could not have been a ghost, or absolutely could not have fallen into the toilet (supernatural occurances). Rather, common sense directs people to propose that the person is in fact in the bathroom and is just using the toilet. So, it isnt that the supernatural is excluded, it is just that the natural is confirmatory, and in testing it, it yields solution. At least in most every day, regular sciences.

 

[Hethatreadethit]

So that is the question, in the title, that I am posing for discussion. Why or why not? Does it matter? Why or why not? I have a position, may or may not reveal it, depends on how this goes, or if it even does. The great news about this topic is, you need not be a Scientist or Scientifically inclined or extremely informed to answer.

Have not done much here for a couple weeks and it looks like they did away with the controversial blogs, so I will put some thoughts here. It seems that perfect neutrality in a unperfect world is just a theory in a world that is limited in knowledge. In Philosophy the rational thought process must base its' decisions on being perfectly objective as opposed to subjective.

Science, its' biggest limitation is the lack of knowledge, for which it is designed to pursue. As far as being neutral, it is a degree of how well the human senses are trained to make the proper judgments of evidential matters or things that we confront.

It is like prejudice, my mother use to say that she thought all people were prejudice to a certain degree.
Without perfect knowledge, humans tend to make decisions based on emotions and flawed by the ignorance in themselves.

In a perfect world, there is no neutrality, there is only one decision made, the correct one. True judgment is unbiased because of the love and understanding of THE FORCE that governs life.

Science in it's perfection is led by the principles that govern perfection, and those who follow those principles are sincerely objective and favor the cause of perfection.