> > Pim: Indeed. So anything outside this realm is faith.
>
> Keith: Does that include philosophical materialism and the philosophical
> assumptions upon which science is built?
>
> Pim: What philosophical assumptions are you refering to ? Science deals with
> observations, theories, falsification etc. There is no faith involved in
> science because it does not deal with issues of faith similar to religious
> faith.
Pim, I'll gladly answer your question about the second part of my
original question but I do hope to hear your reply to the first part of
my question which it seems you have evaded on numerous occasions. What
I'm really interested in learning from you is whether the
materialism/physicalism/naturalism (have I left anything out?) to which
you adhere, was arrived at scientifically and whether it is even capable
of being scientifically confirmed or falsified. I maintain that it is
an ontological/metaphysical precommitment and as such is in the domain
of the philosopher or theologian as opposed to the scientist.
Now, as to the philosophical assumptions of science, anyone who is
familiar with the philosophy of science is aware that the discipline of
science rests upon certain presuppositions which themselves are not
arrived at by means of scientific methodology and which are incapable of
being proven scientifically without assuming them a priori. Among them
are: 1) the existence of an external, material world, 2) the validity
of the laws of logic, 3) the reliability of our cognitive and sensory
faculties to serve as the source of justified beliefs in our
intellectual environments, 4) the adequacy of language to describe the
external world, 5) the existence of values used in science (e.g. "test
theories fairly" and "report results honestly", 6) the uniformity of
nature (or as you have put it - the stability of natural laws).
The post of yours that led to my asking the questions that I did, was a
reply to Giraldo who wrote:
> Since science can't trascend its own boundaries is powerless
> beyond them.It can't prove that there are no facts save those recognized
> by external
> observation or that there is no truth except that which explains what is
> displayed to the natural senses.
I want to ask you, Pim - do you really want to make the parameters of
truth so narrow? Is our knowledge really limited to that which we have
observed? Do you really mean to suggest that the only "facts' for which
we are justified in claiming knowledge of are those which are capable of
being observed or experienced by our senses? History doesn't fall into
the parameters of science as you have defined it. Are we to conclude
then that we have no knowledge of historical events, only faith that
certain events occurred? Do you KNOW what you had for breakfast this
morning? If so, how? Did you observe yourself? How frequently did you
observe yourself eating this morning? How would you go about falsifying
any claim you made concerning what you had to eat? If we are to hold
all epistemological claims to the standards that you have suggested,
wouldn't it be more accurate to say "I BELIEVE (i.e. have faith) I had
eggs and sausage for breakfast but I don't KNOW that I did." ?
Inquisitively,
Keith