Pim asserts:
> I already stated that any belief which is incapable of being falsified
> does not qualify as scientific knowledge since science requires that theory
> can be falsified. It's the definition of scientific knowledge.
and:
> > What cannot observed cannot be proven to
> > exist or not exist. It's the simple basics of science. What cannot be
> > observed is not knowledge but belief/faith etc.
I think what Keith has been attempting to demonstrate is that the
philosophy you *seem* to be espousing destroys itself. Your belief in
the scientific method as a way of approaching the truth of nature is
itself not subject to verification or falsifiablity. It depends on
several unobservable things in order to have any validity
1) What we observe, whether with our senses or with the instruments we
make, must be reliable. In other words there must be some reality that we
can perceive correctly. But the science you *seem* to be advocating
cannot address this question since it depends on it.
2) Granting that #1 is possible, our ability to make inferences based
upon our observations--our ability to form hypotheses--must be valid. In
other words, our reasoning powers need to work. But there is no way for
science to address the efficiency of our reasoning since science is a
product of reason.
Using your own words:
> Since there is no observational evidence there is no scientific way to
> prove or disprove the existance of such. The absence of suitable
> experiments for instance already lead to exclusion of science in this
> area.
So, as you state, science is excluded from examining the foundation upon
which science rests. I am curious why you seem to trust the ability of
science to answer anything that means anything to anyone.
While you seem rather cagey on what your "worldview" is and frequently
take people to task for assuming it is one thing or another, I have no
fear of saying that my foundational assumptions are Christian and I
believe I can show that my trust in the Triune God provides more than a
sufficient basis for doing science *and* trusting in the results I get
(albeit infrequently! :-) in the laboratory. I am not sure that your
worldview, as you have expressed it thus far, offers similar support.
Regards,
Gene
PS.
Pim also states:
> To use the bible to support the existance of a deity is rather circular.
> The Christian worldview is based on an acceptance of faith.
Greater than 99% of the knowledge upon which I base my experiments comes
from faith--faith that other people have told the truth about what *they*
have observed, and faith that they observed it correctly and faith that
they reasoned through to the implications correctly. I have vast
personal experience that all those things I mentioned can be done
improperly, and I bet you do too. Most of our lives are based on faith,
*every* "worldview" is based on it, even materialistic ones. There isn't
anything bad abou;t faith as a concept, but you seem to use it only
pejoratively.
-- ____________________________________________________________Gene D. Godbold, Ph.D. Lab: 804 924-5167Research Associate Desk: 804 243-2764Div. Infectious Disease/Dept. Medicine Home: 804 973-6913and Dept. Microbiology Fax: 804 924-7500MR4 Bldg, Room 2115 email: anselm@virginia.edu300 Park Place Charlottesville, VA 22908 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""