Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
SNIP
In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
is Science.
I suppose by that you mean that Science is based on faith in the
scientific method. On that point I have no issue.
However, the scientific method pwer se, is based on doubt.
And the assumption of the sufficiency of Reason itself.
No. At best, that is only true for those scientists who believe
(as a matter of Faith) in the sufficiency of Science itself.
The sufficiency of Reason, with respect to Science follows
directly from the definition of Science. An understanding
that is beyond Reason, is beyond Scinece. Certainly one may
define a discipline that includes Science and considerations
outside of Reason, but to avoid confusion that other dscipline
should be called by a name other than 'Science'. Or, if one
insists on thus redefining 'Science' then one should assign a
new name to the old discipline.
Personally, I think that to combine science with metaphysics
is less useful than to combine woodworking with politics.
I think perhaps we are talking past each other here. I only meant
that the *efficacy* of Reason is presumed by Science.
I understood. That is why I disagree.
Science does not presume Reason to be sufficient. Science
is defined such that reason is sufficient
That is,
Science presumes Reason to be efficacious and thus sufficient to do
_everything Science wants to do_ (not that Reason is sufficient for
everything in general).
I do not agree that Science wants. Perhpas this is the crux
of our disagreement.
If this were not so, Science would be
looking to add other mechanisms for knowledge acquisition like
the IDers suggest should be done. But Science clearly is *not*
looking for other such mechanism - it presumes Reason to be sufficient
to its task.
Science is a specific method. If you change that method, you
no longer have Science _by definition_. You may have a meta-
method that includes science. The practice of medicine is an
example of a meta-method that includs science. The practice
of medicine is not, itself, science.
--
FF