Greg says, if I read him aright, that to accept the idea that science is what scientists do, no more no less, is to collapse into relativism, leave no space for the idea that science might be wrong, and treat scientists has high priests who cannot be questioned. None of these propositions hold water.
To say that we go relativistic about what's true merely because we accept what current (but predictably changing) science says is true is to confuse truth with provisional acceptance. We believe what current science says because what it is to have adeqaute raesonm to accept an empirical proposition is for it to be scientifically supported. If our best sciencxe says there are races, then it is rational to believe that and irrational to reject it. But that doesn't mean that if science changes, and in the future teaches that there no races, that there used to be but aren't any afterwards. To put it another way, at each point we accept what science says as true, but we also accept that it might be wrong, and so we keep investigating.
For the same reason, there is a lot of space for criticism of scientific theories. In fact, the social practice view makes sense of this, because the practice of science is pretty much the propunding, testing, and criticism of scientific theories.
The idea that we accept what science says about its subject matter as true does not make scientists into priests whose views cannot be questioned. Their competence is limited to their subject matters. If a physicist starts pronouncing on politics, he's just a citizen. On their subject matters, they are the experpts. Do you really think that you have anything useful to say about whether superstring theory correctly describes the fundamental nature of matter? And if so, one what basis?
Greg says (lots of snips):
>
>Scott and Justin, please reread both your emails below.
>
>
the point of view is essentially relativist . . . .
>Please also consider if you were using this same definition in the 1930's
>or earlier you would have to conclude that racial differences were a proven
>fact and that races formed a hierachy to biological perfection. . . .
>
we soon have the contradiction that when consensus says one thing but
discovery may well say another - we would be in the position of having to go
with consensus, either as lay people or as scientists
. . .
the general theme that science is what scientists do and they then really do
become the high priests in very much the same way as the
>
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com