> 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.
Pardon me, you seem to be saying that *observations* are
irrelevant. Observations *are* perceptions of reality. If
they aren't relevant then science, which depends on observations,
isn't relevant. Of course, you must have meant something else.
> 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.
Right, I agree with you. But repeated observations that can't
be trusted (because they are "irrelevant") aren't going to produce
accurate science. I'm having a hard time following you here.
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.
I wasn't arguing that the scientific method *was* self
destructive, only that it *seemed* self destructive if one
bases it upon the ground rules that you seem to base it upon. I
don't. The scientific method is based on metaphysical assumptions
about the nature of the natural world and the reliability and
potency of human reason which have to be taken on faith
because they *cannot* be proved by observation (the scientific
method). However, once you grant that faith underlies the method
that you (and I) hold dear, many of the objections that you offer
to our friends on this list regarding their religious assertions
must necessarily drop away. (Not all of them, just some.)
> 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.
Pim:
> 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.
Pim, the scientific method does not work in a vacuum. You seem to
be saying that if nobody can reason, science can still go on.
(I actually suspect that something like this might happen in NIH
study sections judging from some reviews I have been privy to, but
I don't yet have enough evidence to make a firm conclusion :-)
Help me out here.
> Does the fact that science does not claim to have perfect observations or
> interpretations lead to a self destruction of science ?
No, of course not, and I never claimed that the imperfection of
observations is the problem with the scientific method.
The problem I have with your version of the scientific method is
rather that observations cannot be used to prove the suitability
of observations as a basis for the scientific method!
Good grief that's a horrible sentence!
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.
Pim:
> 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.
You have not shown that you have any reasons beyond your assertion
that this is so. (Is this faith?) You will again note that I
have never claimed that science is perfect or infallible
(especially as I practice it!) Neither do I believe that the
scientific method is self-destructive under the philosophy I
espouse. I *have* attempted to show that *your* philosophical
justification for it is self-destuctive. I have not been given
any evidence to the contrary in this last posting.
Pim:
> Since we are talking issues of faith, you will have to accept similarly
> that my worldview offers similar support.
I can explain (and will, if you'd like) how my foundational assumptions
support the scientific method. Just from the glimpse of your reasoning
processes that I have so far observed, I have insufficient evidence to
conclude that yours does. I suppose I'll have to take it on faith, eh?
Pim:
> 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.
It is possible that you do not understand the nature of Christian
faith. Permit me to try to explain. Faith in Jesus Christ is the
same sort of faith as the faith one has in a spouse or friend.
You trust that they won't let you down. There is ample textual
evidence that a Christian *should* trust Christ in this manner.
Any Christian with any experience can also
attest to a living relationship with the risen Lord in which he
or she is a recipient of love and grace from a source which *is*
observed, though not in a manner which is subject to verification
by the scientific method (usually, at least). There is a large
body of literature testifying to these observations, though I
admit that it might not be suitable for publication in a refereed
journal. Many things that are worthwhile and that enrich
existence immeasurably (love between humans for instance) cannot
be directly observed. I don't doubt that it exists for all that,
though.
Grace and peace to you,
Gene
-- ____________________________________________________________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 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""