Subject: Re: Can I borrow the Science series? & Two Nonoverlapping Magisteria

From: "Arthur Jackson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:52:32 -0800

Hi David,

I pressed the wrong button so sent the below prematurely. I had meant to 
respond to the point you raise about "two Nonoverlapping Magisteria."

As I have said may times in many places I think this is erroneous thinking. 
There is only one magisteria. Values can actually be studied using 
scientific procedures, and tools. It all relates to coming to the problem 
with the proper theoretical base. My take is that you actually do that in 
your below hypothesis.

No current religion other than a properly focused humanism would provide you 
a base to do what you are suggesting. You would be forced -- as I have 
been -- to look to evolutionary psychology and related scientific sources to 
proceed as you propose. Once you enter that domain you are talking about a 
science-based religion and have left the "two Magisteria" model.

Scientific processes can definitely test outcomes against proposed theory 
regarding values and use the data to improve the theory and guide the 
process. No other process can guide you in doing any more than giving 
speeches and organizing the gullible. (It seems to me:-)

 Right now the first six sessions is on loan to Sue Fera, but I have talked
 to her and will get them back tomorrow. I'll bring the rest of the series
 tonight to Hilton's.

 Arthur
> ============================================
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David C. Harris" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Arthur Jackson" <[email-masked]>; "Arthur Jackson" 
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 11:19 AM
> Subject: Can I borrow the Science series?
>
>
>> Arthur,
>>
>> Is the Science Wars series borrow-able?  I'd like to borrow it from you 
>> at Hilton's house Thursday evening, if that's possible.  I want to 
>> critique my own understanding, which I wrote today in an email (see 
>> below).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>   - David
>>
>> .......................................................................
>>
>> I was trained at Berkeley and the U of Oregon in biochemistry and now 
>> work doing the Web and outreach computing for the Darwin Day project.
>>
>> My own view of the roles of science and religion is close to that of 
>> Stephen J. Gould.  To make a decision rationally using decision analysis 
>> (e.g. http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/opre640a/partIX.htm), you need to 
>> know the probabilities of the possible outcomes, and you multiply those 
>> by the valuation (e.g. in dollars) of each outcome to get the expected 
>> value from each choice.  You normally select the choice with the highest 
>> expected value.
>>
>> Both "what will happen" and "what value do the outcomes have" must be 
>> answered.  Science tells what will happen, religion(s) advocate values 
>> for various outcomes.  No religious value will tell what happens.  No 
>> scientific experiment will test values of outcomes.  Gould called it the 
>> 2 "Nonoverlapping Magisteria".  I tentatively argue that the two sources 
>> give inherently different information needed for a rational decision. 
>> This viewpoint also suggests the appropriate claims that can be made by 
>> both approaches.  Religion(s) can't legitimately make claims about how 
>> the world works.  Science can't make value assignments, as science.
>>
>>
>