I think that Shuan's summary of the nature of science is expressed well.
It is very close to how I present the issue. One possible way that this
"two ways of knowing" approach can be misunderstood, is that they can be
seen as being Hermetically sealed off from each other. This can end up as
Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria" idea. But just because science and
theology (I prefer the term theology to religion) have distinct ways of
knowing does not mean that they cannot or do not influence each other.
Below is something a put together dealing with the nature of science. I
think you will see a lot of common points with Shuan's post.
WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
Although different fields of scientific study have unique ways of
approaching their subject, there are some basic elements that characterize
the scientific methodologies.
1) Observations are made of the natural world, whether directly or through
the use of instruments.
2) Perceived patterns and regularities in these observations become the
basis for proposing hypotheses to explain them.
3) A new set of observations not yet made is predicted from the hypothesis.
4) The hypothesis can then be tested against these new observations, and
modified or rejected if necessary.
Although hypotheses can be disproven by the methodology of science, they
cannot be positively proved. No scientific theory can be proven in the
sense of a mathematical or logical proof. Any accepted scientific theory
is simply the best existing unfalsified explanation for the observations
already made. This is as true for physics as it is for evolutionary
biology.
The construction of scientific hypotheses is often influenced by
philosophical, religious and cultural assumptions of which the investigator
may be unaware. However, those hypotheses are subject to test, and will
not become widely held by the scientific community unless those predictions
are fruitful. To be widely accepted, a hypothesis must be retested and
validated by other investigators, who will likely have differing
philosophical, religious and cultural assumptions. This process is called
peer review, and provides the essential basis for quality control within
the scientific community.
ISN'T SCIENCE REALLY ABOUT PROVEN FACTS?
Science is not the mastery of a body of unchanging scientific "facts", but
a way of inquiry about our physical environment. It provides a way of
understanding, explaining, and integrating our observations of the natural
world. While observations form the foundation of scientific description,
serious theoretical inquiry is the essence of science. Nothing could be
more deadly to science than to divorce it from the unifying theories which
give observations meaning. Theories provide the predictions which suggest
new observations and drive new discovery.
The history of our changing scientific understanding of the universe, with
new theories replacing old, and previously accepted "facts" being
overturned by new discoveries, can be puzzling to someone who has learned
science as a body of facts. Furthermore, uncertainty or sharp disagreement
within the scientific community are often seen as failures of science
rather than expressions of its very strength.
ISN'T SCIENCE BASED ON AN ATHEISTIC PHILOSOPHY?
The answer is an emphatic NO! Science is a methodology, a limited way of
knowing about the natural world. Scientific research proceeds by the
search for chains of cause-and-effect, and confines itself to the
investigation of "natural" entities and forces. This self limitation is
sometimes referred to as "methodological naturalism." Science does not
affirm or deny the existence of a creator -- it is simply silent on the
existence or action of God. The confirmation or denial of ultimate causes
is beyond its capacity to investigate. Methodological naturalism describes
what empirical inquiry is, it certainly is not a statement of the nature
of all reality. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits. Our most
profound questions about the nature of reality (questions of meaning and
purpose and morality) , while they may arise from within science, are
theological or philosophical in nature and their answers lie beyond the
reach of science.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 01 2002 - 16:17:15 EST