Keith: Scientism is the view that science is the very paradigm of truth and
rationality.
This first sentence already shows that scientism is not 'science' since it
assumes that it is the paradigm of truth. Science does not lay such claims
to the truth but merely relies on the best observations available and the
best perceptions of its time to describe as well as possible the perceived
reality.
Keith: If something does not square with currently well-established
scientific beliefs, if it is not within the domain of entities appropriate
for scientific investigation, or if it is not amenable to scientific
methodology, then it isnot true or rational.
Again science does not lay claims to that which cannot be observed. If it
falls outside the realm of science it is inappropiate for scientific
investigation and methodology but truth or rationality of it cannot be
addressed.
Keithp: Everything outside of science is a matter of mere belief and
subjective opinion, of which rational assessment is impossible. Science,
exclusively and idealloy, is our model of intellectual excellence (p. 14).
If it cannot be observed then it is a matter of belief and subjective
opinion. Science is our model of the best intellectual effort to describe
our understanding of observations of the perceived world around us.
Keith: No one is denying the validity and usefulness of the scientific
method
for making observations about the natural world and forming and testing
hypotheses on the basis of them. What is in question is the elevation
of the scientific method to such a height that it is regarded as the
only possible source of knowledge.
That depends on our definition of knowledge. To me knowledge does not
include my (possible) belief in fairies or the UFO behind Hale Bopp or the
existance of the Greek deities. Perhaps we could include faith in
knowledge but then the meaning of the word knowledge would not be the same
as it used to be for me....
Keith: It is this theory of knowledge that is self-destructive because
when held to its own standard it fails. The claim that all knowledge is
derived from sensory experience is not itself known to be true (nor can it
be) on the basis of observation or by means of science since science can
neither confirm nor falsify such a universal claim about the limits of
knowledge.
Nor is the claim that knowledge includes more than the sensory perception
necessarily true either since we cannot observe it we cannot address such
a statement. So if you want to include in knowledge a faith in the
supernatural then science cannot oppose this or support this. THere is
just no evidence to support of falsify this assumption.
Keith: As Gene has pointed out, science itself rests on certain
presuppositions (e.g. the validity of the laws of logic), the knowledge of
which, is not scientifically obtained. Thus, we must either conclude that
we don't really know that such things as the laws of logic are true, or we
must retract our
universal assertion that ALL knowledge is the result of
observation/experimentation.
I am curious about the laws of logic ? What are they ? So your are saying
that there might be knowledge which does not exist in any observable form,
cannot be supported or falsifies but should still be considered knowledge
? I believe that this weakens the word knowledge to include anything from
superstition to prejudice to irrationality.
Keith: If anyone should defend the use of the scientifc method, it should
be
the Christian since the method has its roots in theistic
presuppositions. Modern science did not arise in the East but in
Christianized Europe. Men such as Kepler, Boyle, Newton, etc. believed
that the natural world was the product of a rational mind which was also
responsible for the structuring of the human mind so that it could
correspond with the external world and learn about it.
Yet their scientific method did not rely on their belief in a deity.
Keith: Thus, the motivation for scientific inquiry was the conviction that
it was possible (in a limited fashion) to "think God's thoughts after
Him."
Any attempt to make Christian theism and the scientific method
inherently antithetical is historically and theologically uninformed.
Historically you might be right but this is irrelevant for the discussion
about knowledge, science and faith. After all one does not need the belief
in a specific deity to feel the need to 'think god's thoughts after
her/him'. What if one believed that mother nature was the deity ? What
would prevent such a belief from using the scientific method ? That
historically christianity was prevalent in (western) europe and that many
of our present science relies on scientists from that era and region does
not mean that scientific method is uniquely rooted in a belief in a deity.
Regards
Pim