On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 08:41:45 -0400 Moorad Alexanian
<alexanian@uncwil.edu> writes:
> Scientific data is collected by mechanical, electrical, etc. devices
> and so
> cannot be classified as illusions. If that were the case, then we
> are all
> interns in a mental asylum. Only man can have illusions. Of course,
> there
> are some who consider certain observations as the subject matter of
> science
> that are not. Moorad
>
Moorad,
You are making the naive assumption that you cannot hallucinate devices.
This is the practical assumption which all individuals attempting to
communicate share. But we need to back up. Historically, one of the
dominant schools of philosophy was skepticism. St. Augustine countered
their rejection of all possibility of knowledge by noting that, whatever
they doubted, not one of them could doubt that he, the doubter, existed.
Descartes, a millennium later, phrased it positively in his Cogito, ergo
sum (I think, therefore I exist). I have, with every act of awareness,
the direct evidence of my existence. But I cannot provide that evidence
to anyone else, nor can they, assuming they exist and have the same
internal evidence, provide their evidence to me. Because of this, I
cannot prove that anyone else exists, for they may be something that I
generate subjectively. Additionally, I cannot prove that there is a world
outside, for I may be imagining it all. Someone may think that hitting me
on the nose will prove their existence. But it may only show that I can
imagine some very unpleasant events. Some wiseacre students then tell a
fellow, "You don't exist. You're just a figment of my imagination." This
is a flat lie, for no one is crazy enough to argue with what he knows is
imaginary. Consequently, if there are any solipsists, they are found only
among the totally unresponsive mentally ill.
The Omphalos approach plays with another matter that cannot be disproved
but is not believed, that the world was created five seconds ago with the
appearance of age, all the memories, etc., that make it seem
older--whether 6000 years or 15x10^9 years ago makes no difference.
There are also other items that we cannot prove by observational
evidence. These include the other assumptions that are foundational for
science. Philosophers look at them, and other matters, and ask such
questions as whether they and their consequences are logically
consistent, whether they produce a simpler explanation than alternatives,
and the like. But these do not provide strict proof, any more than one
can prove the axioms of Euclidean geometry. The best we can do with the
last is a proof that it is consistent if, and only if, the Riemannian and
Lobachevskian geometries are consistent. Euclidean geometry is the best
to use for terrestrial measurements, but relativity requires a Riemannian
metric, at least in its current form. Since Whitehead was successful in
translating Einstein's work into Euclidian geometry in terms of what was
then recognized as relevant, I suspect that a more comprehensive
translation is possible, even though no one seems to want to tackle the
job.
Just as specific theorems can be proved when one accepts Euclid's axioms,
so specific consequences can be shown when certain assumptions provide
observations that fit into a specific scientific theories. But the very
observations depend on scientific theories, so there is no independent
proof. The fact is that human beings are finite, extremely limited, even
though we do not often think about these restrictions. The dim mirror
that Paul notes applies to more than the spiritual.
There is another point that Augustine held to be vital: credo ut
intelligam or "I believe in order to understand." Faith in our unproved
assumptions is the basis for all that we claim to know--with the one
exception. Faith is the basis of science as much as it is our eternal
hope. Those who come to the world to do science must believe that it
exists just as surely as those who come to God must believe that he
exists.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 17:19:06 EDT