Changes

'''Postmodern science''' is the one governed by the principle: "''anything goes''" {{#tag:ref|cf.''"When an [[explanation in science|explanation]] is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it [[experimental science|experimentally]], much less use it as a catalyst for [[scientific discovery]]."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology|author=Philip Skell|publisher=The Scientist (quoted by the Center for Science and Culture)|volume=19(16):10|date=29 August 2005|accessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2816}}</ref>|group=note}} (native also to [[moral relativism]]) as aftereffect of the [[Postmodernism|postmodern]] concept that it is not possible to learn the objective true [[knowledge]] about reality and world. In consequence of landing at conclusion that science is not really knowledge at all,{{#tag:ref|Merriam-Webster dictionary, declared Encyclopædia Britannica Company, states entry ''science'' among synonyms for ''knowledge''.<ref>{{cite web |title=[entry in dcitionary]knowledge, noun|publisher=Merriam-Webster dictionary|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge|accessdate=July 13, 2014}}</ref>|group=note}} postmodern scientists speak in terms of [[chaos theory]], the unpredictability of science, indeterminacy, or uncertainty. Similarly to [[Gnostic]] manuscripts, postmodern science texts are often marked with vagueness, word-spinning and tedium.   

'''Postmodern science''' is the one governed by the principle: "''anything goes''" {{#tag:ref|cf.''"When an [[explanation in science|explanation]] is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it [[experimental science|experimentally]], much less use it as a catalyst for [[scientific discovery]]."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology|author=Philip Skell|publisher=The Scientist (quoted by the Center for Science and Culture)|volume=19(16):10|date=29 August 2005|accessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2816}}</ref>|group=note}} (native also to [[moral relativism]]) as aftereffect of the [[Postmodernism|postmodern]] concept that it is not possible to learn the objective true [[knowledge]] about reality and world. In consequence of landing at conclusion that science is not really knowledge at all,{{#tag:ref|Merriam-Webster dictionary, declared Encyclopædia Britannica Company, states entry ''science'' among synonyms for ''knowledge''.<ref>{{cite web |title=[entry in dcitionary]knowledge, noun|publisher=Merriam-Webster dictionary|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge|accessdate=July 13, 2014}}</ref>|group=note}} postmodern scientists speak in terms of [[chaos theory]], the unpredictability of science, indeterminacy, or uncertainty. Similarly to [[Gnostic]] manuscripts, postmodern science texts are often marked with vagueness, word-spinning and tedium.   

Paul Feyerabend, former philosophy professor at the [[UC Berkeley|University of California (Berkeley)]] explains how in the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. Feyerabend further maintains that scientific data promoted by scientist in support of a theory are anything but neutral because every scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven flimsy assumptions{{#tag:ref|cf.''The assumption is now known to be only a very rough approximation to the truth. ...The assumption will serve as a reasonable working hypothesis until it leads to contradictions. ... The second principle is a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals strongly to our sense of proportion. ... ''<ref name="Observational Approach">{{cite web

Paul Feyerabend, former philosophy professor at the [[UC Berkeley|University of California (Berkeley)]] explains how in the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. Feyerabend further maintains that scientific data promoted by scientist in support of a theory are anything but neutral because every scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven flimsy assumptions{{#tag:ref|cf.''The assumption is now known to be only a very rough approximation to the truth. ...The assumption will serve as a reasonable working hypothesis until it leads to contradictions. ... The second principle is a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals strongly to our sense of proportion. ... ''<ref name="Observational Approach">{{cite web

|title=The Observational Approach to Cosmology

|title=The Observational Approach to Cosmology

== History ==  

== History ==  

Postmodern doubts about the objectivity and neutrality of science arose in the mid-1900s from Michael Polanyi’s ''Personal Knowledge'' and Thomas Kuhn’s ''The Structure of Scientific Revolution''. Kuhn points out that science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist. Kuhn further asserts that scientific [[theory|theories]] are often not discarded due to being proven wrong, but rather older theories tend to die out along with their proponents.{{#tag:ref|cf.

Postmodern doubts about the objectivity and neutrality of science arose in the mid-1900s from Michael Polanyi’s ''Personal Knowledge'' and Thomas Kuhn’s ''The Structure of Scientific Revolution''. Kuhn points out that science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist. Kuhn further asserts that scientific [[theory|theories]] are often not discarded due to being proven wrong, but rather older theories tend to die out along with their proponents.{{#tag:ref|cf.

*"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning." [[Max Planck]], The Philosophy of Physics<ref>{{cite book|title=The philosophy of physics|author=Max Planck|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company, inc.|year=1936|pages=97|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=7y4zUbPQCe_64QS80IDwAQ&id=WpTvAAAAMAAJ&dq=Max+Planck%2C+The+Philosophy+of+Physics&q=converting#search_anchor}}</ref>

*"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning." [[Max Planck]], The Philosophy of Physics<ref>{{cite book|title=The philosophy of physics|author=Max Planck|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company, inc.|year=1936|pages=97|url=https://books.google.com/books?ei=7y4zUbPQCe_64QS80IDwAQ&id=WpTvAAAAMAAJ&dq=Max+Planck%2C+The+Philosophy+of+Physics&q=converting#search_anchor}}</ref>

*"Academic appointments were also manipulated to favor younger scientists with Darwinian sympathies who would ensure that the next generation was educated to take the theory for granted."<ref>{{cite book

*"Academic appointments were also manipulated to favor younger scientists with Darwinian sympathies who would ensure that the next generation was educated to take the theory for granted."<ref>{{cite book

|author=Janet Browne

|author=Janet Browne

|isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3

|isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3

|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php

|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php

|quote=}}</ref> C.S. Lewis stated that the era when people managed to distinguish the difference between what was proved and what was not, a then they truly believed the first, has finished several centuries ago.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Screwtape Letters |author=C.S. Lewis |year=1942, 2013 |publisher=HarperCollins (2013)|isbn=9780062299086 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=aSj_-mgwWbYC&dq=The+Screwtape+Letters&hl=sk&sa=X&ei=jjrYUsnOJ4Kl4ATe14H4DA&redir_esc=y}}</ref>   

|quote=}}</ref> C.S. Lewis stated that the era when people managed to distinguish the difference between what was proved and what was not, a then they truly believed the first, has finished several centuries ago.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Screwtape Letters |author=C.S. Lewis |year=1942, 2013 |publisher=HarperCollins (2013)|isbn=9780062299086 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aSj_-mgwWbYC&dq=The+Screwtape+Letters&hl=sk&sa=X&ei=jjrYUsnOJ4Kl4ATe14H4DA&redir_esc=y}}</ref>   

== Notable examples ==

== Notable examples ==

*In the postmodern science, the traditional [[scientific method]] demanding from scientists to provide the [[scientific evidence]] for their [[hypothesis]] and conduct [[experiment]]s was replaced by [[logic of possibility]] leading to extensive usage of [[doubletalk]] mixing the true or logically coherent information with unsubstantiated hypothetical speculations and [[logical fallacies]] such as [[Non sequitur]] thus making the resulting assertions exceedingly obscure and tedious. This [[paradigm]] shift in [[science]] can be demonstrated at a representative example, the description of research by [[Alan Guth]], where a claim is made about tests being performed in a '' 'hypothetical laboratory' '':<ref>{{cite web|title=Faculty Directory: Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics|publisher=Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics|accessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/guth_alan.html|quote=}}</ref> <blockquote>''"Working with Prof. Edward Farhi and others, Guth has explored the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe. The answer is a definite maybe. They showed that it cannot be done classically, but with quantum tunneling it might be theoretically possible.{{#tag:ref|cf."Physical scientists like [[Newton]] are not content to say that it ''may'' be so, and then build up theories based on bare possibilites."<ref>{{cite book |title=Darwin and his critics: the reception of Darwin's theory of evolution by the scientific community|author=David L. Hull|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=1973|pages=275|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=jkUzUb-xK4Ol4gS27IGYAQ&id=juTaAAAAMAAJ&dq=Hull+Darwin+and+his+critics&q=verb#search_anchor}}</ref>|group=note}} The new universe, if it can be created, would not endanger our own universe. Instead it would slip through a [[wormhole]] and rapidly disconnect completely."</blockquote>'' Postmodern science does not lead to resolution of scientific questions but leaves them undecided by applying terms like '' 'a definite maybe' ''{{#tag:ref|cf."If one wishes to obtain a definite answer from Nature one must attack the question from a more general and less selfish point of view." [[Max Planck]]<ref>{{cite book |title=Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics|author=Alfred Korzybski|publisher=Institute of General Semantics|year=1995|pages=415|isbn=978-0937298015|url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Sanity-Introduction-Non-Aristotelian-Semantics/dp/0937298018}}</ref>|group=note}}. Consequently, the scientific discoveries are being replaced by the beliefs affected by worldview of scientist which are then effectively promulgated as [[Creed|statements of faith]] or scientific [[myth]] calling for public acceptance. The journal Science published in 2002 an article in which Charles Darwin is criticised for gamely nailing together a ''just-so story'' of how creation of complex organs might have happened.<ref>{{cite web |title=Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies|author=Virginia Morell|publisher=Science Magazine|date=01-Nov-2002|accessdate=17-Mar-2013|url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5595/945.1.summary?sid=c4eced8d-4cde-4a65-89ee-67fe22a16f66|quote=It's one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together just-so story of how it might have happened...}}</ref>

*In the postmodern science, the traditional [[scientific method]] demanding from scientists to provide the [[scientific evidence]] for their [[hypothesis]] and conduct [[experiment]]s was replaced by [[logic of possibility]] leading to extensive usage of [[doubletalk]] mixing the true or logically coherent information with unsubstantiated hypothetical speculations and [[logical fallacies]] such as [[Non sequitur]] thus making the resulting assertions exceedingly obscure and tedious. This [[paradigm]] shift in [[science]] can be demonstrated at a representative example, the description of research by [[Alan Guth]], where a claim is made about tests being performed in a '' 'hypothetical laboratory' '':<ref>{{cite web|title=Faculty Directory: Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics|publisher=Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics|accessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/guth_alan.html|quote=}}</ref> <blockquote>''"Working with Prof. Edward Farhi and others, Guth has explored the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe. The answer is a definite maybe. They showed that it cannot be done classically, but with quantum tunneling it might be theoretically possible.{{#tag:ref|cf."Physical scientists like [[Newton]] are not content to say that it ''may'' be so, and then build up theories based on bare possibilites."<ref>{{cite book |title=Darwin and his critics: the reception of Darwin's theory of evolution by the scientific community|author=David L. Hull|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=1973|pages=275|url=https://books.google.com/books?ei=jkUzUb-xK4Ol4gS27IGYAQ&id=juTaAAAAMAAJ&dq=Hull+Darwin+and+his+critics&q=verb#search_anchor}}</ref>|group=note}} The new universe, if it can be created, would not endanger our own universe. Instead it would slip through a [[wormhole]] and rapidly disconnect completely."</blockquote>'' Postmodern science does not lead to resolution of scientific questions but leaves them undecided by applying terms like '' 'a definite maybe' ''{{#tag:ref|cf."If one wishes to obtain a definite answer from Nature one must attack the question from a more general and less selfish point of view." [[Max Planck]]<ref>{{cite book |title=Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics|author=Alfred Korzybski|publisher=Institute of General Semantics|year=1995|pages=415|isbn=978-0937298015|url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Sanity-Introduction-Non-Aristotelian-Semantics/dp/0937298018}}</ref>|group=note}}. Consequently, the scientific discoveries are being replaced by the beliefs affected by worldview of scientist which are then effectively promulgated as [[Creed|statements of faith]] or scientific [[myth]] calling for public acceptance. The journal Science published in 2002 an article in which Charles Darwin is criticised for gamely nailing together a ''just-so story'' of how creation of complex organs might have happened.<ref>{{cite web |title=Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies|author=Virginia Morell|publisher=Science Magazine|date=01-Nov-2002|accessdate=17-Mar-2013|url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5595/945.1.summary?sid=c4eced8d-4cde-4a65-89ee-67fe22a16f66|quote=It's one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together just-so story of how it might have happened...}}</ref>

*Another example demonstrating the traits of Postmodern science can be given from interview with Joseph Silk, Savilian Professor of [[Astronomy]] at [[University of Oxford]]:<ref name="ESA">{{cite web

*Another example demonstrating the traits of Postmodern science can be given from interview with Joseph Silk, Savilian Professor of [[Astronomy]] at [[University of Oxford]]:<ref name="ESA">{{cite web