Liz Kantor

History 1445 M 10:00-11:00

Monday November 17, 2014

TF: Steven Brown
Section Assignment
Response to Kirk and Clark

Kirks article brings an interesting point into question what exactly can we
regard as science? If we start calling fields that bridge into the humanities sciences,
then where do we draw the line? We could end up calling religion scientific. Physics
turns to social physics turns to divine physics, and so on. He states, Genuine science
does not need to cloak itself in convoluted verbiage. His argument about how science
can stand on its own is very similar to the earlier arguments about truth we have seen in
this course. Truth does not need fancy names or complex vocabulary because it exists no
matter what, as does science. Eventually touching on the topic of religion, he affirms,
Religious convictions are unscientific, irrational, absurd, and perhaps dangerous.
However, Kirks article ignores how necessary the social sciences are. It may be a
misnomer to call them science, but they tell us how people tend to behave in social,
economic, and political situations. They allow us to predict action and change. At the
root of this, there are specific causes in psychology (and then in biology, then chemistry,
then physics, etc.), but it is undeniably valuable to apply these ideas to give us a greater
understanding of humanity as a whole. Studies like the one laid out in the Clarks piece
are, in their own way, empirical. Statistical data is not the most pure form of evidence
and can be subject to prejudices, but they often tell us a great deal about correlations
not causations. In the example of the Clarks study, they revealed information about
racial preference that was crucial to the Brown v. Board decision and the Civil Rights
debate. Although science is incredible valuable, information based in statistical analysis
and studies of humanity are integral to our well being as a species. Science is valuable,
but it is not the only valuable thing.
Questions:
1. Kings paragraph on just vs. unjust laws reminded me of part of the Scopes trial
argument about unfair laws could we possibly talk about the connections
between the two?
2. Malcolm X talks about how if people search through the Bible, they will see how
terrible god has sometimes been to humanity, and yet he champions Allah as the
solution to this problem. Ingersoll made an argument in his piece about how if
you cannot reconcile the injustices of the world with the Judeo-Christian god then
how can you do it with other gods? Can we discuss Malcolm Xs attempt to prove
that Allah is the solution in this context?