Re: The Problem with Atheism
Reply #692 –
Hey, jseaton!
I recently re-read this:We cannot neglect the training of men who will employ the weapons of the Technological war in actual combat; however, in the Technological War the pressing need is for strategy and strategic thought.
It is tempting to allow the scientist to dominate the field of strategic analysis and the management of the Technological War. He is the chief weapon in the war, and without him nothing could be accomplished. However, to give the scientist control of the process is an error of grave consequence.
The qualities that make a good scientist are not those that produce a good engineer, let alone a strategic analyst.
The scientist understands technology; indeed, he creates technology. However, he is often a specialist who is quite helpless outside of his own field. In general, he must be a specialist to make a reputation as a scientist, and without that reputation he will never achieve a position of management.There is a major difference in mental attitude between a scientist and a strategist. The scientist must deal with facts and scientific laws. By contrast, the strategist must deal with futures which cannot possibly be factual because the events have not occurred.The scientist deals with repetitive events and laws of nature; the strategist is virtually always confronted by a unique situation in which the opponent will try to do the unexpected. The strategist must always make decisions based on inadequate data; scientists must not jump to conclusions. The strategist's primary skill is to be able to reason like the opponent and stay ahead of him, while the primary skill of the scientist is to produce and package knowledge.
Just as men can be divided into athletes and non-athletes, they can be divided into scientists and
non-scientists.
But if a man is an athlete, he is not necessarily a good athlete; if he is a good one, he may only be good at baseball or boxing. Scientists, too, have very pronounced qualitative differences. There are broad distinctions between creative scientists, scientists who work best assistants and experimenters, and scientific administrators. Many a scientific reputation rests upon one particular discovery. Other reputations are derived from a long series of creative contributions. When we are talking about scientists it is quite important to keep these distinctions in mind.
But this is not the end of the story. The history of science is replete with examples of scientists who were grievously wrong. Scientists have believed firmly in weird theories and have instituted veritable inquisitions against nonbelievers. Scientists often refuse to accept evidence, and they sometimes go to rather comical lengths to defend their own theories.
There is no such thing as a fully rational scientist. There are only men who have scientific training, and this scientific training has not eliminated their emotions, hopes, and other human features as indeed it should not. The trouble is, however, that scientists are often inclined to transfer to themselves as individuals the objectivity of the scientific approach and to consider themselves to be far more objective than they are.
They tend to identify their brain with a computer and become emotional if the security of an established theory is threatened.
[emphasis added, and the paragraphing is my doing…]
(the [ftp=ftp://cpc1-seac23-2-0-cust35.7-2.cable.virginm.net/shares/USB_Storage/Media/Books/Non-Medical/Jerry%20Pournelle/Jerry%20Pournelle%20-%20The%20Strategy%20of%20Technology.pdf]source[/ftp] seems to be unavailable, now… Let me know if you'd want to read it.)
Your view of science seems to reject the mere fact that scientists are men… How do you counter this obvious deficiency in your arguments for "scientism" and atheism?
Topic: The Problem with Atheism (Read 205338 times)
