Steve Peterson wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
These foundational
axioms are *assumed* and cannot be proven or disproven. In the case of
science, several axioms are obvious:
1) Reason combined with Sensory Input is a reliable way to learn new
things (when guided by the Scientific Method to minimize/elmininate
individual bias).
2) The Universe can be understood in purely material-mechanical terms.
That is, there is no need to understand or acknowledge an intelligent
First and/or Sustaining Cause in order to get meaningful information
about the Universe.
3) 2) above is *sufficient* to know everything (in principle) that we can
know about the Universe.
And so on ... Note that Science *proceeds from* (begins with) these
assumptions. Note also that these are neither provable nor falsifiable,
they are just assumed starting points.
I note that you have rearranged and renumbered the basic axioms of science.
Fine, can we then stick to this, or will new First Propositions appear when
handy?
Hang on - I cited these as *examples* (without the intention of priortizing
them - sorry if the numbering misled you) in response to the contention that
Science has *no* (my emphasis) First Propositions. I was responding
only to that narrow point, not reinventing the philosophy of Science.
This is not a remarkable thing. As I said, all systems of epistemology
have this property. You start with one or more unprovable propositions
and see where they take you. *However*, thoughtful people stop now and
then and ask, "Given where my system of thought has taken me thus far,
are some changes in my starting propositions justified?"
*This* is where the heart of the debate between the IDers and today's
Establishment Science lies. The IDers argue that, as we look at where
*Science* has taken us over the past several hundred years, proposition
2) above should be reconsidered. The High Priests of Science don't like
it - partly because they see it as being a dangerous throwback to an
anti-rational religion (it isn't inherently) and partly because, as a
matter of personal practice, many of the High Priests are atheists (who
cannot bear the thought that they are not the highest form of
intelligence).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
AAAARGH. Scientists are about as anarchic as you can get. There are no
High Priests of Science. There is no Pope of Science; there are no Bishops
Again, look at some of the rhetoric in this thread - Science is objective
Scientists are not and they are sometimes prone to ad homina and
turf defense. It is in that sense I used the term "High Priests". I
did not mean to imply that Science has a pecking order that mirrors
the Papists - again, My Bad due to imprecision in language.
of Science (although there are bishops in chess). There are a few Nobel
Prize winners, none of which accept the claims of ID.
Steve
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/