Wearied by the distortion of theory by prejudice
in so many areas of intellectual activity,
many have found the objectivity
sought by the natural sciences
to offer stability and sanity to their reflections.
Alistair McGrath, Nature (A Scientific Theology, v. 1), 18.
I’m an academic trained in the humanities. But my heart has always been in the natural sciences, a rocket scientist wannabe. I’ve longed for the same kind of rigor and validation that the scientific method provides the researcher in the natural sciences. And I’m not alone in that longing! Subjectivity has long reigned in biblical studies, much more so with the advent of post-modern epistemologies which deny valid knowledge of reality and “truth”, however defined.
Can researchers in the humanities do better? I believe that we can, and this blog is a record of my search for valid and effective analogies to the scientific method. This is a sort of public scratchpad, a notebook or journal that everyone can watch or kibitz on. To really learn, one must write about what one reads and thinks about that reading. Writing in such a way that the general public can understand and follow (more or less) is also essential: fuzzy writing means fuzzy thinking. Just look at the writing of Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Douglas Hofsteadter, or (my hero) C. S. Lewis.
Enjoy the ride! I know I will!