Duane Bozarth wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:46:06 -0700, fredfighter wrote:
The problem is that ID is not obviously true or false and for that matter,
neither is science. Both can only be argued on philosophical (and perhaps
utilitarian) grounds. No absolute winner can ever be demonstrated. Hence
ID is legitimately entitled to as much traction as the scientific belief system.
Sigh. The paragraph above is wrong is so many ways. Science discovers the
way the world is. The scientific method tests hypotheses against
experiment. When experiment contradicts a hypothesis, the hypothesis is
rejected, or modified and tested again. Science considers falsifiable
hypotheses. "Falsifiable" means that an experiment can be devised which
would, if the hypothesis is false, contradict the hypothesis. Note that to
be falsifiable, the actual experiment need not
be technically or economically possible at the time of its proposal. This
OK - let's test your little rant here. Describe an experiment, in principle,
that could falsify the First Proposition of Science: That a materialist/
mechanist set of methods are *sufficient* to apprehend all that can
(in principle) be known by Reason-Empiricism. Hint: You can't.
All systems of knowlege have non-falsifiable starting propositions,
even your dearly-believed science.
The problem w/ this viewpoint is that you're claiming a priori that
there isn't a scientific basis. This, of course, negates there even
being "science".
Not exactly. I am only saying that science has an epistemology that is
no more verifiable in its starting points than any other epistemology.
One way we check the merits of our starting points is in where they lead
us. By that measure, Science is a huge success - it has demonstrated
considerable *utility* value. But that doesn't prove it's
epistemological starting points and it doesn't invalidate other
epistemologies. It just says that the assumptions of Science have
utility value *over some domain*.
The problem here is that people who are schooled in Science and
Mathematics (I am among them, BTW) have a natural tendency to elevate
the Reason-Empiricist school of thinking as being "better" than all
other epistemologies. This is not warranted. Reason has real limits,
even in the world we can observe. In fact, the very calculus of Reason -
logic - is innately limited by it's nature. By Godel's Incompleteness
Theorems, we know that you cannot reach all true statements in a formal
logical system, solely from that system's starting propositions and
logic alone. i.e., Logic is "incomplete". This has a pretty important
consequence philosophically - if the very calculus of Reason cannot get
us to all true statements in a given system, it suggests we ask the
question, "Then how *do* we get to those true statements?" Now, I don't
know the answer to that question, but I do know that maintaing a sort of
High Priestly "My way is the best one and no one dare question it..."
stance is not productive...
As noted before, it is possible that "science" may reach a point at
which it _is_ forced to "throw up its proverbial hands" and say any
further understanding is clearly totally impossible. I don't think that
I would suggest that Science build on a materialist-mechanical foundation
is 'blind in one eye' to *any* First Cause and ought to throw up its
hands now.
will happen, but it is possible. If so, as I've noted before, it will
cause great havoc as we will have shown that everything we do is pure
luck and subject to complete failure at any point since there will have
been shown to be no basis for any physical law whatsoever.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/