>My question is this - If science is the sole source of our knowledge,
>yet it makes no claims to truth, what then is it that we KNOW? Can
one
>claim to "know" something without making a claim about what is true?
Is
>it possible to know something that is not true? And how can one claim
>that a given hypothesis is the BEST explanation of observed phenomena
>without having some preconceived notion of what is true (e.g. the
>universe is materialistic)? If I am to say that a given theory is the
>best possible explanation for a particular observation, I must have
some
>idea about what is true in order to conclude that the hypothesis in
>question should be adopted in favor of its competitors. If I have no
>concept of what is true about the nature of reality or the universe,
by
>what standards am I justified in claiming that a certain hypothesis is
>better than any others?
>
>Regards,
>Keith
Keith,
I feel Rascher said it best:
"The theorist who maintains that science is the be-all and end-all
- that what is not in science textbooks is not worth knowing - is
an ideologist with a peculiar and distorted doctrine of his own.
For him, science is no longer a sector of the cognitive enterprise
but an all-inclusive world-view. This is the doctrine not of science
but of scientism. To take this stance is not to celebrate science
but to distort it..." (Nicholas Rascher, The Limits of Science, p.
103)
I have knowledge of the fact that I didn't steal the chocolate cookies as
a child but I certainly cannot prove such a thing by scientific methods,
nor could I at the time. This was the general gist of the 'George
Washington' thread. Science cannot approach many aspects of history, as
it is largely untestable and unfalsifiable. If it were not so, we would
have 'law laboratories' instead of law courts (excepting forensic law).
Isn't behavioral science therefore an oxymoron, since we can only 'best
guess' human behavior?
All this does indeed have direct bearing upon the question of origins -
as science cannot prove anything about prehistory - it can only formulate
hypotheses, however reasonable.
Thanks for the clear explanation of reductionism!
Kind Regards,
Peter Grice