Gene: Pardon me, you seem to be saying that *observations* are
irrelevant. Observations *are* perceptions of reality. If
they aren't relevant then science, which depends on observations,
isn't relevant. Of course, you must have meant something else.
Observations are very relevant, the fact that they are perceptions of
reality is irrelevant for science which relies on making the best of
observations and understanding to come up with a description of what can
be observed. If our perception is inadequate future scientists will find
out about this or perhaps it will be never detected. But what can not be
detected can not be addressed in science.
> we have no way of determining this also is irrelevant for the issue of
the
> scientific method. It relies on repeatability of observation and
> falsifiability.
Gene: Right, I agree with you. But repeated observations that can't
be trusted (because they are "irrelevant") aren't going to produce
accurate science. I'm having a hard time following you here.
I did not say that they were irrelevant but that whether or not our
perception of 'reality' is reliable is irrelevant. Repeatability of
observations addresses the accuracy of these observations (within the
limits of our perception).
If a later more correct observation occurs or our
> perception changes, science will adapt accordingly. Science does not
> address if our perception is the correct one since it cannot address such
> a question.
> Does this make the scientific method self destructive ? I donot believe
so.
Gen: I wasn't arguing that the scientific method *was* self
destructive, only that it *seemed* self destructive if one
bases it upon the ground rules that you seem to base it upon.
We disagree.
Gene: I don't. The scientific method is based on metaphysical assumptions
about the nature of the natural world and the reliability and
potency of human reason which have to be taken on faith
because they *cannot* be proved by observation (the scientific
method). However, once you grant that faith underlies the method
that you (and I) hold dear, many of the objections that you offer
to our friends on this list regarding their religious assertions
must necessarily drop away. (Not all of them, just some.)
The scientific method does not pretend that observations and potency of
human reasoning are optimal or perfect but accepts that both are limited
and tries to use this (limited) information to come up with a (limited)
understanding of our reality. That science benifits from new perceptions
and new observations is self evident. There is no absolute truth in
science.
Pim:
> Whether or not our reasoning powers work is also irrelevant. If we cannot
> observe it or if our reasoning powers do not work correctly, the
> scientific method still works. We have seen in sciences that better or
new
> observations have changed science, similarly new techniques of analysing
> problems have resulted in major changes in scientific understanding.
Gene: Pim, the scientific method does not work in a vacuum. You seem to
be saying that if nobody can reason, science can still go on.
It would be a different science from what we are used to but if this is
the case then science stops at observations, no theory or hypotheses. Not
very useful but the best description of our reality.
> Does the fact that science does not claim to have perfect observations or
> interpretations lead to a self destruction of science ?
Gen: No, of course not, and I never claimed that the imperfection of
observations is the problem with the scientific method.
The problem I have with your version of the scientific method is
rather that observations cannot be used to prove the suitability
of observations as a basis for the scientific method!
Nor does the scientific method claim that observability is all that
matters, just that if it cannot be observed it cannot make any statements
about it.
Pim:
> Because as far as I am concerned science addresses the best presently
> known observations with the best presently known hypotheses and theories.
> Does this mean that science is perfect or infallible ? On the contrary,
> but this does not mean that the scientific method is self destructive.
Gene: You have not shown that you have any reasons beyond your assertion
that this is so.
If you are aware of better hypotheses or observations I would love to hear
of them. Science would benifit immensely from new perceptions and new
observations. Within our perception and observations (however limited)
science deals with making the best out of what may be limited.
Gen: (Is this faith?) You will again note that I
have never claimed that science is perfect or infallible
(especially as I practice it!) Neither do I believe that the
scientific method is self-destructive under the philosophy I
espouse. I *have* attempted to show that *your* philosophical
justification for it is self-destuctive. I have not been given
any evidence to the contrary in this last posting.
Perhaps you have been given evidence but perception differs ? You claim
that under my explanation of science, science self destroys because its
foundations do not follow the scientific method and therefor it cannot be
used to show the suitability of observations. But science does not claim
that our observations are the absolute truth or that there is not
something which can exist outside our perception or observability. Since
it cannot be observed however it states that it cannot address these
issues.
Pim:
> Since we are talking issues of faith, you will have to accept similarly
> that my worldview offers similar support.
Gen: I can explain (and will, if you'd like) how my foundational
assumptions
support the scientific method. Just from the glimpse of your reasoning
processes that I have so far observed, I have insufficient evidence to
conclude that yours does. I suppose I'll have to take it on faith, eh?
The use of ad hominems tends to be an unsuitable though popular form of
debate Gene. I take your foundamental assumptions and your arguments as
faith, why can you not take faith in mine ? After all faith requires no
proof now does it ?
Pim:
> The word faith however has far different meanings within science and
> within religion. In science your faith in the quality of someone's work
> will never be an obstacle to you rejecting this person's work if new
> information appears to contradict your observations. Such luxury however
> does not exist in a religious faith since there are no observations which
> could contradict or prove your faith.
Gene: It is possible that you do not understand the nature of Christian
faith. Permit me to try to explain. Faith in Jesus Christ is the
same sort of faith as the faith one has in a spouse or friend.
You trust that they won't let you down. There is ample textual
evidence that a Christian *should* trust Christ in this manner.
Christian faith goes further than the faith in a friend since one does not
even permit the possibility that JC will fail you. Or does Christian faith
involve the perception of a fallible God ? I do not believe so.
Gene: Any Christian with any experience can also
attest to a living relationship with the risen Lord in which he
or she is a recipient of love and grace from a source which *is*
observed, though not in a manner which is subject to verification
by the scientific method (usually, at least).
Then we disagree about the definition of observation. I am sure that one
can attest to such a relationship, millions do but it is based on faith
not based on fact.
Gene: Many things that are worthwhile and that enrich
existence immeasurably (love between humans for instance) cannot
be directly observed. I don't doubt that it exists for all that,
though.
We do not disagree that faith can have an enrichment of the lives of many
or that is worthwile. We also agree that it cannot be (directly) observed.
So where do we disagree ? What about faith providing for an objective
standard of morality ?