Keithp: So in other words, according to your view, science doesn't really
give
us knowledge about the world, rather it gives us knowledge about
ourselves - what we perceive and what we think about what we think we
perceive? After all, you did say that we each live in our own little
subejctive world, didn't you?
No that is wrong again. Science gives us knowledge about the world.
Subjective interpretation of the world might become scientific fact or
theory though. We do live in our own subjective little world yes but that
is not what science is all about.
[snip]
Pim: Hmm. I would define (scientific) knowledge as our understanding of
the world around us based upon observations, theories and hypotheses.
Keithp: OK, I hate to do it but feel that I must - what exactly do you
mean by
"understanding"? I can think of a few possible defintions. For
example, in asking you to clarify how you are using certain words, I am
hoping to "understand" what you are saying. Put another way, I am
seeking to arrive at your intended meaning; trying to conform my
thoughts to what it is that you are attempting to communicate.
And I am lost at what you are looking for. You struggle with definitions
of words, you presume to know my view. Honestly this discussion is not
getting anywhere.
Keithp: In other contexts, when I profess to understand something like the
workings of a car motor or the mating practices of cockatiels, I am
claiming that I possess beliefs that accurately correspond to those
things; beliefs that are true about them. When two people have been
arguing and finally come to some resolution, we often say that they come
to a mutual understanding, by which we mean that they have agreed upon a
certain course of action or belief. According to the American Heritage
Dictionary, one possible definition of the verb "understand" is "to
accept (something) as agreed fact". Is THIS what you mean by the word?
That is part of the meaning. Indeed agreement is what leads to acceptance
of facts and theory. Of course fact in the scientific meaning of the word.
Keithp: If so, I fail to see how merely agreeing with so many others that a
particular belief is factual, increases our knowledge. In that case,
It is factual as far as it is based on observations of the world around
us. The use of theory to explain the observations combined with the
observations increases our knowledge of the world around us.
Merely agreeing is not enough though. It should be founded in scientific
principles.
Keithp: Christians understand that the world is the product God's creative
act
because they have agreed that this is factual.
But there is no scientific foundation to their claim. As such their claims
remain truely subjective and the truth remains truely rigid.
It is neither based observation nor theory. It is a belief inspired by an
acceptance of something that cannot be observed and whose existance is
accepted beyond any doubt. No observations, no falsification, no theory.
Nothing but an acceptance of 'truth'.