There's a very interesting article that was posted on Salon.com today entitled:
"Archaeology from the dark side" (those of you without salon.com subscriptions will have to sit through an ad to read it, but its worthwhile). The thesis is that there's an interesting alliance that has formed between Creationists on one side and New-age spiritualists (e.g. Atlantis/Von Daniken believers) on the other, who, despite their obvious disagreements in purpose and goals, have both made, as one quote in the article says:
"If you examine the methodologies of pseudoarchaeology and creationism -- the way they construct their arguments -- you'll find that they're almost identical. These are essentially not intellectual arguments; they are political arguments. It looks like science, but it's not. They blame science and evolution for any number of social ills, and they regard undermining and destroying science as a primary goal." -- Garrett Fagan, Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies at Penn State
Although the reference here to Creationism is specific to arguments concerning Evolution, I decided to post this to philosophy to start a discussion concerning the effect that such arguments (and I encourage you to read the linked article) have on science as it is understood and taught in our society today.
The initial argument that I will throw out here is that the vast majority of the arguments promoting both Biblical accounts as well as Atlantean and Chariots-of-the-Gods beliefs are based mostly upon:
- Attacking scientific explanations by finding seeming inconsistencies that seem "obvious" from a lay-person's viewpoint (e.g. arguments found in many current threads regarding the "problems" with Special Relativity), that do not withstand scientific scrutiny, and
- Proposing "backwards hypotheses" that are circular in their form and turn science on its head.
This two-pronged approach first attacks the accepted wisdom, and thus makes every scientific conclusion suspect, and then posits conclusions about alternative theories that while they have no evidentiary support, appeal to wants and desires, while manipulatively cloaking themselves in a scientific veneer that is in almost every case, not in the least bit scientific.
It is the second notion that would seem to be the most concerning for an economy that is supposed to be maintaining its leadership in the world by its scientific prowess that large numbers of students entering college are being brought up--again both on the right *and* the left--with theories that teach them that "science" is anything you want to argue it to be. That is, that there is no agreed upon "scientific method" and any argument put forth by anyone must be presented as equally valid if it is supported by enough of the population. Insistence upon conformance to the provably useful scientific method are attacked as "dogma" rather than on the merits of the method, and any arguments offered to show that non-falsifiable hypotheses are false are derided as be in unwilling to accept alternative theories. I opine that this trend will result in the US continuing to fall behind the rest of the world in development of scientific advances and technology.
Discuss.
Cheers,
Buffy
