Science, ho!

Recently, I've been part of a number of discussions about scientific objectivity applied to the question of religious faith. In one of the forums science was repeatedly ridiculed for claiming to have a "monopoly" on truth. Objective analysis was the particular target of many comments. Here are some quotes on this issue for you all to ponder...

Why am I an atheist? The short answer is that I cannot accept any of the alternatives. I simply don't find them believable. As for the accusation of intellectual pride, surely the boot is on the other foot. Atheists don't claim to know anything with certainty—it's the believers who know it all.

- Barbara Smoker

I would, like any other scientist, willingly change my mind if the evidence led me to do so. So I care about what's true, I care about evidence, I care about evidence as the reason for knowing what is true. It is true that I come across rather passionate sometimes—and that's because I am passionate about the truth. … I do get very impatient with humbug, with cant, with fakery, with charlatans.

- Richard Dawkins

Read the Bible, then as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature, you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor, in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature, does not weigh against them. But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong, as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature, in the case he relates.

- Thomas Jefferson

"Are you sure this is a sci-fi convention? It's full of nerds!"

Thus spoke Homer. The relevance of that quote has to do with my new academic subject: science-fiction. I'm not giving up on Satanism, quite the opposite actually, it's going to become my main side-project. In the next few months I'll be preparing a number of different research papers derived from my thesis work. Some will be presented at conferences others submitted to journals.

While we're on the topic of Satanism there's something I'd like to point out; Anton LaVey has more than one book. If anyone is going to write something about him at least read his five major texts (Satanic Bible, Satanic Rituals, Satanic Witch, Devil's Notebook and Satan Speaks). You can learn a lot more about the man and his philosophy by looking at more than just the Satanic Bible.

Another note for prospective scholars and students: listing the Complete Idiots Guide to (random subject) or (random subject) For Dummies does not look good. This isn't a value judgment on the information these texts may contain, they are very good starting points when you don't know much about a certain topic. But when it comes time to write your essay you might consider what readers (or examiners) will think. You want to show you've done a good job on research and that won't happen if all you use is an introductory level book as a reference.

The same is usually said in regards to the use of encyclopedias and such. Yes, its easy to look up the Australian Dictionary of Biography and peruse a simple outline of Edmund Barton's life but that's something anyone can do. Being a scholar isn't always about convenience, it can be hard work finding those obscure sources and getting information beyond the basic details. At the end of it all you'll be happy that you put in that extra effort and acquired a solid understanding of the subject. It's no good claiming to have done extensive research if the proof isn't there.

Beware also of pseudo-histories and biased sources. Not everything you'll find will contain factual data. This is where you need to exercise a little source criticism; look for agendas, look for subjectivity, and try to find other reliable sources that corroborate its evidence. Sometimes books claiming to be historical records are at odds with other accounts. Again, look to see who's proven they've done their research and who is lacking in that area (or who has ulterior motives).