From: Keith Miller (kbmill@ksu.edu)
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 21:31:20 EDT
My comments below try to emphasize that scientific methodology is
decidedly NOT a statement about the nature of all reality. I don't
know why this distinction is so hard to get people to grasp despite the
continuing efforts of many within the scientific community. The
absence of such a distinction is one of the foundational errors
committed by thorough-going naturalists as well as their critics among
supporters of ID and creation science. Both seem to agree on the
underlying materialistic basis for modern science.
WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
Although different fields of scientific study have unique ways of
approaching their subject, there are some basic elements that
characterize the scientific methodologies.
1) Observations are made of the natural world, whether directly or
through the use of instruments.
2) Perceived patterns and regularities in these observations become the
basis for proposing hypotheses to explain them.
3) A new set of observations not yet made is predicted from the
hypothesis.
4) The hypothesis can then be tested against these new observations,
and modified or rejected if necessary.
Although hypotheses can be disproven by the methodology of science,
they cannot be positively proved. No scientific theory can be proven
in the sense of a mathematical or logical proof. Any accepted
scientific theory is simply the best existing unfalsified explanation
for the observations already made. This is as true for physics as it
is for evolutionary biology.
The construction of scientific hypotheses is often influenced by
philosophical, religious and cultural assumptions of which the
investigator may be unaware. However, those hypotheses are subject to
test, and will not become widely held by the scientific community
unless those predictions are fruitful. To be widely accepted, a
hypothesis must be retested and validated by other investigators, who
will likely have differing philosophical, religious and cultural
assumptions. This process is called peer review, and provides the
essential basis for quality control within the scientific community.
ISN'T SCIENCE BASED ON AN ATHEISTIC PHILOSOPHY?
The answer is an emphatic NO! Science is a methodology, a limited way
of knowing about the natural world. Scientific research proceeds by
the search for chains of cause-and-effect, and confines itself to the
investigation of "natural" entities and forces. This self-limitation
is sometimes referred to as "methodological naturalism." Science does
not affirm or deny the existence of a creator -- it is simply silent
on the existence or action of God. The confirmation or denial of
ultimate causes is beyond its capacity to investigate. Methodological
naturalism simply describes what empirical inquiry is, it certainly is
not a statement of the nature of all reality. Science pursues truth
within very narrow limits. Our most profound questions about the
nature of reality (questions of meaning and purpose and morality),
while they may arise from within science, are theological or
philosophical in nature and their answers lie beyond the reach of
science.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 21:31:22 EDT