What I wanted to comment on pertains to Chapter One, which is mostly about Jaki's strict definition of science and why it gives us the best basis to separate what we can state about morality and purpose from what can be learned about that through science.

The authors' opening assumption that we are "beset by scientism" is debatable, perhaps because it may be exaggerated. Are we increasingly secular? Could be, but does that necessarily mean that we expect science to be able to solve all sorts of problems that it has no ability to settle, since the only thing we should expect from science, as far as its progression is concerned, is that it become more able to measure quantities related to particles in motion. Trascanos tags Sam Harris as the foremost proponent of scientism today, and I think it's true that he is. But his example alone doesn't mean we're best by scientism. In particular, it should be recognized that scientism and atheism do not go hand in hand, as she and many others seem to assume. I'm willing to accept Jaki's wall of separation between exact science and reasoned discourse. Science can't resolve with the kind of certainty provided by measurement questions about morality and purpose. Those will remain in the realm of reasoned discourse, with support often drawn from research we label as scientific. But the fact that a "scientist" produced data is nothing decisive in itself where more general questions are the objective.

Jaki claims that God always knew about this separation, so he told us about it in places such as the Gospels, where Jesus says, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s." I can't find anything in that reference other than what most people take it to mean, that there is are separate proper spheres for civic duty and for spiritual duty. Similarly for the reference to gaining the world but losing one's soul. It's a big stretch to say that God, through Jesus, was saying here anything remotely concerning epistemology.

At the end of the chapter comes Jaki's citation of the etymology of "religion" as a binding to God. This, for him, means that not only has he established that science is separate from religion, but that religion has a higher claim and can subordinate science by whatever means it may use. Well, this isn't entirely accurate, because the only true religion has to be specified as Catholic Christianity. So we have two belief statements here that do not derive in any way from the premise that science can only involve measurement of objects in motion: that religion trumps science as a field of knowledge and that the only religion that can make this claim is Catholic Christianity.

The etymology of our word "religion" is irrelevant to any logical argument for its superiority, and I'm surprised that Jaki can't see this.

The book is clearly written so far, which I appreciate. It looks like a piece of advocacy, but that doesn't mean it won't score some points.

DWill wrote:. . . This, for him, means that not only has he established that science is separate from religion, but that religion has a higher claim and can subordinate science by whatever means it may use.

Isn’t the pink elephant in the room?

Whatever the merits of Jaki, this is going to be an irreconcilable point, one that stems from the belief that the Bible is God's inerrant word. Indeed, the assertion that a religious institution has final say on scientific matters seems a throwback to medieval times, a yearning for the good old days of Church authoritarianism. Not even the current Pope (and probably a number of popes before him) believe this. Did Jaki in fact believe this?

Initially it seemed odd to me that the author wanted the atheist perspective because I would have assumed that one's personal religious beliefs should have no bearing on an objective reading of history. But then it now seems obvious this isn’t an objective reading of history, but an apologist slant similar to historic revisionist attempts in Texas.

When you trace the history of natural philosophy back in time, the record clearly indicates its roots are found in theological speculation that ultimately provided fertile grown for scientific growth. That's not an apologetic "slant." It's an accurate assessment.
The typical characterization of religion espousing "Godditit" and stopping there is contrary to history.

EXAMPLE:

The development of physics, particularly moving bodies began as a purely theological question.
The theologian Lombard considered how grace and charity could be increased in a person. Lombard's answer was that grace and charity were gifts of the Holy Spirit that were absolute: an increase in charity arose from an increased participation in absolute charity. Lombard's solution has Platonic and Aristotelian backgrounds.

The Franciscan theologian John Scotus proposed an alternative answer - charity could be added incrementally.
Hence, every quality is augmentable or diminishable (aka “intension and remission of qualities").
Soon thereafter the idea was applied not only to Aristotelian motions of quality but also to motion of place.

After Lombard and Scotus, the “Oxford Calculators” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Calculators) studied local motion and defined uniform velocity and acceleration, along with the concept instantaneous velocity, important in modern dynamics.
The Oxford Calculators also devised the mean speed theorem, which was proven geometrically by Nicole Oresme.
Oresme’s proof was popularized and reappeared as the fundamental axiom of the “new science” of motion in Galileo’s Two New Sciences in the early 1600s.

All this shows how a succession of thought can journey from a 12th century theological consideration, to a fundamental axiom.

I'm of the opinion that faith and reason are two sides of the same coin: faith in a God that created an orderly Cosmos examinable by Man's gift of reason. There was and is no conflict. The conflict is only promoted by the vulgar and perverted twisting of atheism into scientism, which as I've said before ad nauseum, is the direction modern atheism has taken.

By the way;

Why aren't you adding the title of the book in your subject line??
Why some generic subject heading when you're posting discussion points and opinions about a specific book?

Dr. Trasancos was kind enough to let us have a free copy of the book to discuss.
I'd think you'd address the subject line with greater consideration.

Thanks

These threads are all in a sub-forum with the book title. Click to see the context:
http://www.booktalk.org/science-was-bor ... -f223.html

uh yeah. i know
never mind.

ant wrote:By the way;

Why aren't you adding the title of the book in your subject line??
Why some generic subject heading when you're posting discussion points and opinions about a specific book?

Dr. Trasancos was kind enough to let us have a free copy of the book to discuss.
I'd think you'd address the subject line with greater consideration.

Thanks

OK--No disrespect was intended.

i know. i was just wondering.
thank you for your thougts here

DWill wrote:I'm willing to accept Jaki's wall of separation between exact science and reasoned discourse. Science can't resolve with the kind of certainty provided by measurement questions about morality and purpose.

I don't think the separation is all that realistic. It's true in the nuts and bolts of experimentation that the results are quantitative. But a laundry list of experiments doesn't help us much without an overarching model to give us a framework for understanding the results. In some cases, the models are purely mathematical. But in other cases, the models require verbiage to piece together understanding. Much of our understanding of how the world works is through words. It's the translation of math to words where error often occurs, but that doesn't mean we refrain from translation. It also doesn't mean the translation isn't an essential part of science. If we are to discuss results, and to educate the next generation of scientists, we must have accurate wording that describes the results of science.

I'm not saying there isn't a boundary. There is reasoned discourse within science, and reasoned discourse outside of science, and the area between is slightly blurred. Where we draw the line in this grey area varies, with Jaki on one extreme and Harris on the other. My opinion is that the line is closer to Harris' side. For example, neuroscience has steadily inched into the territory that was once philosophy of the mind. Of course, there are countless false conclusions made in this progress, but in refining our understanding through trial and error, many errors are to be expected.

PS - thanks for taking the time to create threads in this forum DWill.