Comments on: Inherit an Ill Wind, and Other Musings About Science http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/06/19/inherit-an-ill-wind-and-other-musings-about-science/ A Journal of Jewish Thought and Opinion Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:37:35 +0000 hourly 1 By: Micha http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/06/19/inherit-an-ill-wind-and-other-musings-about-science/comment-page-1/#comment-7986 Micha Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:21:49 +0000 http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/06/19/inherit-an-ill-wind-and-other-musings-about-science/#comment-7986 I think you're misrepresenting R' Hirsch's position by only giving half of it. He also requires knowing what it is the Torah requires we take literally, and what not. At the end of the day, Rav Hirsch had no problem embracing the idea of an old universe. He didn't simply insist on the literal read of Genesis 1 and dismiss the science because of weeknesses in methodology. (Something I felt many would conclude from the partial coverage.) I think you’re misrepresenting R’ Hirsch’s position by only giving half of it. He also requires knowing what it is the Torah requires we take literally, and what not. At the end of the day, Rav Hirsch had no problem embracing the idea of an old universe. He didn’t simply insist on the literal read of Genesis 1 and dismiss the science because of weeknesses in methodology. (Something I felt many would conclude from the partial coverage.)

]]> By: Max Shenker http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/06/19/inherit-an-ill-wind-and-other-musings-about-science/comment-page-1/#comment-7585 Max Shenker Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:40:37 +0000 http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/06/19/inherit-an-ill-wind-and-other-musings-about-science/#comment-7585 It is interesting that in the same historical period during which Darwinism has been accepted by Biology, Physics has undergone several revolutions of thought. We have seen radical changes in understanding based on Einstein, then on Quantum Mechanics, and current work on String Theory. (In this context I am not sure I understand the Steven Weinberg quote.) Why has Biology been so resistant to change? I think that Sisson offers an excellent explanation of this problem in the section "Burden of Proof," "To abandon an accepted theory without adopting an acceptable alternative is something scientists deeply resist, because it means moving from a position of claimed knowledge to a position of admitted ignorance." Regarding the issue of bias in the sciences that Sisson also addresses, I recall a book I read in college by Stephen Jay Gould called The Mismeasure of Man. Gould analytically demonstrates the flawed science born out of the bias of proponents of Eugenics and Craniometry. In his conclusion to that book Gould unabashedly dismisses such notions as Creationism, but he never acknowledges that he might also be subject to the power of his bias. It is interesting that in the same historical period during which Darwinism has been accepted by Biology, Physics has undergone several revolutions of thought. We have seen radical changes in understanding based on Einstein, then on Quantum Mechanics, and current work on String Theory. (In this context I am not sure I understand the Steven Weinberg quote.) Why has Biology been so resistant to change? I think that Sisson offers an excellent explanation of this problem in the section “Burden of Proof,” “To abandon an accepted theory without adopting an acceptable alternative is something scientists deeply resist, because it means moving from a position of claimed knowledge to a position of admitted ignorance.”

Regarding the issue of bias in the sciences that Sisson also addresses, I recall a book I read in college by Stephen Jay Gould called The Mismeasure of Man. Gould analytically demonstrates the flawed science born out of the bias of proponents of Eugenics and Craniometry. In his conclusion to that book Gould unabashedly dismisses such notions as Creationism, but he never acknowledges that he might also be subject to the power of his bias.

]]> By: Aaron http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/06/19/inherit-an-ill-wind-and-other-musings-about-science/comment-page-1/#comment-7581 Aaron Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:51:47 +0000 http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/06/19/inherit-an-ill-wind-and-other-musings-about-science/#comment-7581 Thanks for the link to that memo. It was fascinating. Thanks for the link to that memo. It was fascinating.

]]> By: ja http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/06/19/inherit-an-ill-wind-and-other-musings-about-science/comment-page-1/#comment-7555 ja Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:36:17 +0000 http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/06/19/inherit-an-ill-wind-and-other-musings-about-science/#comment-7555 I agree that the field is overdue for a Kuhnian paradigm shift. I think the paper is weakened by the introduction of eugenics to clinch the case. eugenics presents moral problems, more than scientific ones. I agree that the field is overdue for a Kuhnian paradigm shift.
I think the paper is weakened by the introduction of eugenics to clinch the case. eugenics presents moral problems, more than scientific ones.

]]>