Fwd: Big Bang?

[jbor at bigpond.com]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: jbor at bigpond.com
> Date: 7 October 2005 12:31:12 PM
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: Big Bang?

> On 06/10/2005 Rcfchess at aol.com wrote:

> At the risk of being accused of taking a  "wishy-washy" 
> middle-of-the-road
> position, I don't think we have to be totally  polarized here...for 
> one (for
> instance), I believe in both evolution (since,  scientifically, 
> there's ample
> evidence) and spirituality (but not creationism).  I don't subscribe 
> to any
> organized religion, however, and I suppose if pressed  I'd say that, 
> yes, I think
> creationism per se is just plain stupid (as well as  downright 
> hypocritical,
> which I posted earlier). However, that doesn't mean that  evolution is 
> a proven
> fact or that science is godlike in its  "omniscience"/infallibility, 
> just as
> it doesn't mean that religion itself is  necessarily stupid. Science, 
> in fact,
> is supposed to be open to questioning at  all times; but not randomly 
> or
> because one chooses to automatically accept a  supposed truth dictated 
> from an
> arbitrary source (i.e., religion). The two are,  therefore, not 
> necessarily
> mutually exclusive; it's just that, I think, we  need to define terms 
> more clearly,
> to see where one stops and the other begins,  as well as where they 
> can share
> common ground.

Well put and agreed on many if not most points, though I wonder a 
little about the suggestion that "Science" is only open to questioning 
by certain questioners, and not unexpectedly. Seems a bit anal [on 
"Science's" part].

If we can set personal belief, non-belief or ambivalence (another 
possibility, I agree) to one side for a moment, I guess the main point 
is that the binary opposition which Mal and co. initially constructed, 
privileging "Science" over "Religion" as if they were a mutually 
exclusive pairing, is fallacious. Neither the, e.g., Catholic Church, 
nor Charles Darwin himself, would countenance, let alone conform to, 
that extent of polarisation. Nor, generally-speaking, would either one 
or the other institution even announce an opposition of any kind. So, 
the abrupt responses here to any question about scientific methodology 
-- e.g., resorting to ad hominem, constructing a false opposition of 
"Science" to "Religion" to deflect the inquiry, to thereby avoid 
further investigation -- seem born of some sort of knee-jerk defence 
stimulus. As if there were something to hide.

I have reservations about the notion of a "falsifiable hypothesis", 
which seems to me like rhetorical sleight of hand. (What is the "truth" 
or "fact" status or quotient of an "hypothesis"? Are there degrees? 
Probability coeefficients? Is an "hypothesis" ever actually 
falsifiable? -- mostly it seems it's succeeded by a similarly 
well-funded "scientific" derivation. Are there precedent unresolved and 
constant variables (or slothrops even) which logically prevent the 
hypothesis from ever being disproven?-- if so, it isn't, 
technically-speaking, "falsifiable". Is it, in linguistic terms also, a 
closed system which defines and perpetuates itself?)

Questioning and making observations such as these (utilising the 
example of the "Big Bang" theory) should in no way encamp one with 
"Creationists" any more than with Holocaust-deniers. Or lizards (which 
are, as far as I know, almost unanimously atheist).

I didn't much enjoy Science class when I was a student, by the way, 
though managed passing grades.

best