> 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.
(emphasis mine)
> 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 ?*
(emphasis mine)
> 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.*
(emphasis mine)
I think there has been a misunderstanding here. Neither Gene nor I
suggested that it is the scientific method or science itself that is
self destructive but rather the philosophical stance that rejects all
epistemological claims that do not conform to it. This is what I have
been referring to as "scientism". J. P. Moreland, in his book "The
Creation Hypothesis" (IVP) describes this approach to
knowledge:
Scientism is the view that science is the very paradigm of truth and
rationality. If something does not square with currently
well-established scientific beliefs, if it is not within the domain of
entities appropriate for scientific investigation, or if it is not
amenable to scientific methodology, then it isnot true or rational.
Everything outside of science is a matter of mere belief and subjective
opinion, of which rational assessment is impossible. Science,
exclusively and idealloy, is our model of intellectual excellence (p.
14).
No one is denying the validity and usefulness of the scientific method
for making observations about the natural world and forming and testing
hypotheses on the basis of them. What is in question is the elevation
of the scientific method to such a height that it is regarded as the
only possible source of knowledge. It is this theory of knowledge that
is self-destructive because when held to its own standard it fails. The
claim that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience is not
itself known to be true (nor can it be) on the basis of observation or
by means of science since science can neither confirm nor falsify such a
universal claim about the limits of knowledge. As Gene has pointed out,
science itself rests on certain presuppositions (e.g. the validity of
the laws of logic), the knowledge of which, is not scientifically
obtained. Thus, we must either conclude that we don't really know that
such things as the laws of logic are true, or we must retract our
universal assertion that ALL knowledge is the result of
observation/experimentation.
If anyone should defend the use of the scientifc method, it should be
the Christian since the method has its roots in theistic
presuppositions. Modern science did not arise in the East but in
Christianized Europe. Men such as Kepler, Boyle, Newton, etc. believed
that the natural world was the product of a rational mind which was also
responsible for the structuring of the human mind so that it could
correspond with the external world and learn about it. Thus, the
motivation for scientific inquiry was the conviction that it was
possible (in a limited fashion) to "think God's thoughts after Him."
Any attempt to make Christian theism and the scientific method
inherently
antithetical is historically and theologically uninformed.
So let's not misconstrue things so as to present the "naive" Christians
kicking and screaming against scientific investigation. The heart of
the matter is philosophical.
Keith