Keith: 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
What materialism/naturalism do I subscribe to ? Perhaps you could
enlighten me here ?
an ontological/metaphysical precommitment and as such is in the domain
of the philosopher or theologian as opposed to the scientist.
Keith: 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).
Where di I start. Science requires the existance of an observable world.
Science deals with observations, derives hypotheses and deals with
supporting and falsifying the these hypotheses. Since science relies on
observations it does rely on our sensory facilites as well as sensors
built by us to observe the world around us. Adequacy of language to
describe the world is hardly relevant but useful. Fair testing and honest
reporting are requirements of scientists but science does not care about
such values. It deals with repeatable observations and falsifications.
Uniformity of nature or stability of nature's laws might be presumed in
certain instances but can be falsified.
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.
Keith: 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
Yes.
Keith: observed? Do you really mean to suggest that the only "facts' for
which
Yes
Keoth: 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
Yes. If they cannot be observed then they might as well not exist.
Keith: 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
Yes. History relies to a large extent on subjective interpretation of
data. We might have an idea of what happened but the accuracy of the
details is much harder to determine. After all don't the say the winners
of a war write the history ?
Keith: morning? If so, how? Did you observe yourself? How frequently
did you
I do not eat breakfast.
Keith: 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
Since my breakfast is not a scientific observation it is hard to prove or
falsify what I had for breakfast. Science can deal with it to a certain
extent.
On the other hand who cares until I state what I had for breakfast. And
only then it matters if others care.
Keith: 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." ?
We usually leave out the believe part since we deal with our own little
subjective world. So from a scientific point of view we do not have an
accurate knowledge of what the person had for breakfast unless we had some
objective observation.
But we are not merely dealing with breakfasts here but with external
events which cannot be observed.Events external to what can be observed by
our sensors might be interesting for faith issues but are not provable or
falsifiable. Interesting issues for philospophy but that's about it.