Gene:
I agree with your statement "there is no absolute truth" only because you
have the caveat "in science" along with it. That leaves open the
possibility that there is absolute truth *not* in science. I accept that
science's conclusions are always, in some sense, provisional.
(You recognize that the statement "There is no absolute truth" has to
assume the absolute truthfulness of that statement and so refutes itself.)
> 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.
Pim:
> 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.
Gene:
The rules of the scientific method depend on reason. If you don't have a
functional reason which can be used to reach and apprehend truth then you
shouldn't trust the scientific method (which you seem to do, and I know I
do) to lead you to anything other than nonsense.
Pim:
> 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.
I think you might anger many mathematicians with that statement. Many of
the postulates of mathematics, which have been rather helpful in the
advancement of science, depend upon unobservable things which can only be
"proved" in the mind. In fact most of mathematics operates at an
unobservable level. The insights weren't gained from nature either. No
one has ever observed a fully perfect circle, yet we still have the idea
of a perfect circle and can define what a perfect circle would be like
(all points equidistant from a given point) even though we will never see
one. How do you incorporate this into your philosophy?
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: Again, I have never argued that science is infallible. I argue
that with the limits you *seem* to be placing on science, the scientific
method could never have arisen because your epistemology, your theory of
knowledge, cannot support it. Observations alone cannot lead to the
development of a way to assess the truth of observations. There is a very
easy way to refute this argument--show that you *can* use only
observations to develop the scientific method. I'd be happy to support
you in your effort, but you need to start because I can't see how it will
work. Since you seem to be able to see how this can arise you *must* be
able to develop a proper framework for the scientific method by
observation alone.
Pim:
> 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.
Gene:
You seem to be saying that science cannot address the suitability of the
scientific method. Then we agree. But if science cannot address the
suitability of the scientific method, why do you think science can yield
any truth (and not absolute truth, just provisional truth) about the
world.
> 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).
Pim:
> 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:
I don't think we disagree as much as you think. You can never observe the
love someone has for you, but you still know that you are loved. This is
knowledge. A perfect circle cannot be observed, but one can still define
it. This is knowledge. There is a process of observation occurring,
albeit a subjective one. I think I would have difficulty convincing
someone with autism of the idea of a perfect circle. I think it might be
difficult to convince sociopaths of the existence of love. That doesn't
mean that those things don't exist.
Peace,
Gene
-- ____________________________________________________________Gene D. Godbold, Ph.D. Lab: 804 924-5167Research Associate Desk: 804 243-2764Div. Infectious Disease/Dept. Medicine Home: 804 973-6913and Dept. Microbiology Fax: 804 924-7500MR4 Bldg, Room 2115 email: anselm@virginia.edu300 Park Place Charlottesville, VA 22908 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""