<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Faith and Wisdom in Science]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://tcbmcleish.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[tcbmcleish]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://tcbmcleish.wordpress.com/author/tcbmcleish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[The unsolvable tension: faith, science, or faith in&nbsp;evidence?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<div class="wpcom-reblog-snapshot"><div class="reblogger-note"><div class='reblogger-note-content'><blockquote><p>Here is a really clear articulation of one of the difficulties some people have with my view that the &#8216;conflict  narrative&#8217; for science and religion is a category error (but for subtle reasons not to do with non&#8211;overlapping magisteria). Answer to follow anon &#8230;</p>
</blockquote></div></div><div class="reblog-post"><p class="reblog-from"><img alt='' src='https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eb850385ca1b0f0a7392feccc3005c3e?s=32&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=G' class='avatar avatar-32' height='32' width='32' /><a href="http://sergiograziosi.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/the-unsolvable-tension-faith-science-or-faith-in-evidence">Writing my own user manual</a></p><div class="reblogged-content">
<p>A couple of weeks ago, a puzzling piece appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk" title="The Conversation">The Conversation</a>: the title “<a href="https://theconversation.com/restoring-sciences-place-in-society-will-help-us-resolve-the-big-debates-26410" title="Restoring science’s place in society will help us resolve the big debates">Restoring science’s place in society will help us resolve the big debates</a>” naturally caught my eye, and I started reading it expecting to find some hints on how to surpass the common attitude that grants the same weight to opinion and evidence. Reading it, however, quickly became puzzling and made me experience a sort of dissonance discomfort. As a result, I <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/26437r/restoring_sciences_place_in_society_will_help_us/" title="Link on Reddit">posted</a> the link on Reddit, with a very short and critical disclaimer (further explained in a subsequent <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/26437r/restoring_sciences_place_in_society_will_help_us/chnkmrn" title="comment">comment</a>), and then tweeted my disappointment directly to <a href="https://twitter.com/ConversationUK" title="The Conversation UK">The Conversation</a>.<br>
To my surprise, Tom McLeish, the author of the original article replied to my rather blunt tweet (it’s official, Twitter is fine for praise, but it really doesn’t work for criticism, constructive or not), and we engaged on a short and <a href="https://twitter.com/GraziosiSergio/status/469492297810182145" title="Exchange on Twitter">very civilised exchange</a></p>
</div><p class="reblog-source"><a href="http://sergiograziosi.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/the-unsolvable-tension-faith-science-or-faith-in-evidence">View original post</a> <span class="more-words">2,048 more words</span></p></div></div>]]></html></oembed>