Gene: 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.
Reliability of observations can be addressed. Whether or not our
perception of reality is reliable is irrelevant. If it is not reliable but
we have no way of determining this also is irrelevant for the issue of the
scientific method. It relies on repeatability of observation and
falsifiability. If a later more correct observation occurs or our
perception changes, science will adapt accordingly. Science does not
address if our perception is the correct one since it cannot address such
a question.
Does this make the scientific method self destructive ? I donot believe so.
Gene: 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.
Whether or not our reasoning powers work is also irrelevant. If we cannot
observe it or if our reasoning powers do not work correctly, the
scientific method still works. We have seen in sciences that better or new
observations have changed science, similarly new techniques of analysing
problems have resulted in major changes in scientific understanding.
Does the fact that science does not claim to have perfect observations or
interpretations lead to a self destruction of science ?
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.
Gene: 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.
Because as far as I am concerned science addresses the best presently
known observations with the best presently known hypotheses and theories.
Does this mean that science is perfect or infallible ? On the contrary,
but this does not mean that the scientific method is self destructive.
Gene: 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.
Since we are talking issues of faith, you will have to accept similarly
that my worldview offers similar support.
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.
Gene: 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.
The word faith however has far different meanings within science and
within religion. In science your faith in the quality of someone's work
will never be an obstacle to you rejecting this person's work if new
information appears to contradict your observations. Such luxury however
does not exist in a religious faith since there are no observations which
could contradict or prove your faith.
Gene: 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.
On the contrary I am trying to separate religious faith from (scientific)
faith.
Pim