The mythology of science post was something I wrote in May 2003, and posted to the MoQ.org mailing list. See the original here. Various responses (which you can explore from that site) but none actually made me change my view (which does happen – did happen at least twice, on significant things, whilst I was there – one was US foreign policy/capitalism). I wrote quite a bit over the course of four or five years at the MoQ site, and I’m going to progressively transcribe some of the more substantial ones into the blog.

My quotation from Wittgenstein at that time seems appropriate: “Even to have expressed a false thought boldly and clearly is already to have gained a great deal.” Which is what I was trying to do with the mythology of science – express a particular thought boldly and clearly.

As for the etiquette of discussing these things, there was something quoted by John Beasley on the MoQ forum which has always stuck with me, and which I think is the appropriate guide:

“The ‘third rate’ critic attacks the original thinker on the basis of the rhetorical consequences of his thought and defends the status quo against the corrupting effects of the philosopher’s rhetoric. ‘Second rate’ critics defend the same received wisdom by semantic analyses of the thinker which highlight ambiguities and vagueness in his terms and arguments. But ‘first rate’ critics “delight in the originality of those they criticise…; they attack an optimal version of the philosopher’s position–one in which the holes in the argument have been plugged or politely ignored.”

That’s what I think we should aim for – that’s what I think, for a Christian, seeking the truth in love amounts to. We accept that we are none of us in this life completely transparent to the truth and so we explore together, delighting in difference, ever willing to refashion ourselves according to the light which is within us and without us.