> Keith: Pim, I'll gladly answer your question about the second part of my
> original question but I do hope to hear your reply to the first part of
> my question which it seems you have evaded on numerous occasions. What
> I'm really interested in learning from you is whether the
> materialism/physicalism/naturalism (have I left anything out?) to which
> you adhere, was arrived at scientifically and whether it is even capable
> of being scientifically confirmed or falsified. I maintain that it is
>
> What materialism/naturalism do I subscribe to ? Perhaps you could
> enlighten me here ?
I explained what I mean by materialism the last time you requested a
definition in our "A Lament" thread (which, by the way, you never
responded to). Rather than my repeating what I said there, please refer
to that post which can be found at:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199706/0173.html
Please refer to my definition and tell me what points you disagree with.
> Keith: Now, as to the philosophical assumptions of science, anyone who is
> familiar with the philosophy of science is aware that the discipline of
> science rests upon certain presuppositions which themselves are not
> arrived at by means of scientific methodology and which are incapable of
> being proven scientifically without assuming them a priori. Among them
> are: 1) the existence of an external, material world, 2) the validity
> of the laws of logic, 3) the reliability of our cognitive and sensory
> faculties to serve as the source of justified beliefs in our
> intellectual environments, 4) the adequacy of language to describe the
> external world, 5) the existence of values used in science (e.g. "test
> theories fairly" and "report results honestly", 6) the uniformity of
> nature (or as you have put it - the stability of natural laws).
>
> Where di I start. Science requires the existance of an observable world.
> Science deals with observations, derives hypotheses and deals with
> supporting and falsifying the these hypotheses. Since science relies on
> observations it does rely on our sensory facilites as well as sensors
> built by us to observe the world around us. Adequacy of language to
> describe the world is hardly relevant but useful. Fair testing and honest
> reporting are requirements of scientists but science does not care about
> such values. It deals with repeatable observations and falsifications.
> Uniformity of nature or stability of nature's laws might be presumed in
> certain instances but can be falsified.
You've done little more than reiterate the points I originally listed
(although you omitted any reference to the laws of logic) while failing
to address the main issue. My point is that the presuppositions or
presumptions upon which the scientific method is founded, are
themsleves not derived by means of the scientific method nor are they
capable of being scientifically verified. Since they don't fall into
the category of science, then according to your proposed classification
of propositions, they must be matters of faith, in which case the
scientific method, which you tout as the sole source of knowledge and
factuality, rests upon faith. The conclusions of science, therefore,
are more reliable than the foundation upon which science is built.
While we can know with certainty the conclusions yielded by science, we
cannot know that the governing assumptions of scientific inquiry are
true since they are not scientifically derived. While we are justified
in claiming to know something on the basis of scientific
experimentation, we are not justified in claiming to know that the
presuppositions of science are true or factual. This seems odd to me.
> Keith: I want to ask you, Pim - do you really want to make the parameters
> of
> truth so narrow? Is our knowledge really limited to that which we have
>
> Pim: Yes.
>
> Keith: observed? Do you really mean to suggest that the only "facts' for
> which
>
> Pim: Yes
>
> Keoth: we are justified in claiming knowledge of are those which are
> capable of
> being observed or experienced by our senses? History doesn't fall into
>
> Pim: Yes. If they cannot be observed then they might as well not exist.
I must admit that I was a tad surprised at your affirmative replies to
these questions. But may I ask you another? How do you KNOW that
knowledge is limited to that which is capable of being observed? Did
you come to that conclusion on the basis of scientific experimentation?
What have you observed or what sensory experience have you had that
justifies such a claim? Or is it just that you "believe" that our
knowledge is limited to our sense experience?
>
>
> Keith: morning? If so, how? Did you observe yourself? How frequently
> did you
>
> Pim: I do not eat breakfast.
Do you know that for a fact? If so, how? As the result of observing
yourself not eating breakfast?
>
> Keith: all epistemological claims to the standards that you have suggested,
> wouldn't it be more accurate to say "I BELIEVE (i.e. have faith) I had
> eggs and sausage for breakfast but I don't KNOW that I did." ?
>
> Pim: We usually leave out the believe part since we deal with our own little
> subjective world. So from a scientific point of view we do not have an
> accurate knowledge of what the person had for breakfast unless we had some
> objective observation.
Again, how do you KNOW that we all deal with our own little subjective
worlds? Is this a scientific/empirical claim? And if it is true that we
each deal with our own little subejctive world, then isn't your attempt
to objectively explain the nature of human knowledge just an expression
of YOUR little subjective world in which case there is no real reason
for any of us to believe it?