Getting lucky is not good science

[unixronin]

In the interview in the January 2009 issue of Discover Magazine, Stanford's Professor Robert Proctor (who teaches the history of science) submits creationists' rejection of the Piltdown hoax as an example of good science coming from a strong, although incorrect, ideology.  I submit that he is flatly wrong in, at the least, his choice of example.

Yes, creationists rejected the Piltdown skull as a fraud.  They also rejected, and continue to reject, every other piece of data and scientific theory that contradicts their dogma that the Universe was created in seven days by divine fiat six thousand and twelve years ago.  The mere fact that in the Piltdown case, they happened by sheer luck to be right that it was a fraud, doesn't make their rejection good science; in fact, it doesn't make it any kind of science at all, because their denial was based on dogma, not on scientific method.  Their judgement on the Piltdown skull was made not for scientific, or even non-scientific reasons, but for actively anti-scientific reasons.  It contradicted their dogma, and their dogma was by their definition unquestionably right, therefore the Piltdown skull was automatically and necessarily a fraud.  It was not the "missing link" because, to them, no missing link could possibly exist.

Being right by sheer blind chance, one time in a hundred, for totally the wrong reasons, can't be good science — because it isn't science in the first place.

Comments

Re: Minor Quibble

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

In Episcopalianism, dogma must be supported by Scripture, by tradition, and by reason. If any piece of dogma fails on any of these three, it is considered suspect and not required belief of followers.

How astoundingly ... reasonable.

Re: Minor Quibble

[micheinnz.livejournal.com]

That's why there are so many Anglicans who don't believe in God.

Re: Minor Quibble

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

There's a fairly strong theological argument that says exactly this. The overwhelming majority of Christians say "God exists." Now, separate all things into two sets: those that exist and those that don't. Not only does God get placed into a set larger than God is, but the set God is placed into is the smaller of the two sets. This is clearly contradictory: if God exists procol his, God cannot be pigeonholed so neatly.

The great 20th century theologian Paul Tillich went so far as to say that no truly faithful Christian could ever assert the existence of God: that to assert God's existence was a slander to God's majesty. In Tillich's view, the proper Christian creed is not "God exists," but simply "God?"; the replacing of a declarative statement to our fellow man with a personal invitation to our Creator for a conversation.

I can't say as how I agree with Tillich wholeheartedly, but I do think that theologically speaking he raises some excellent points.

Re: Minor Quibble

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That is, indeed, a thought-provoking point.

I'm minded to quote Jethro Tull:
I don't believe you, you've got the whole damn thing all wrong
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...