Starboy

Vanderzayden,

Why is it important for science to be able to withstand critique from non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy?

Why science, why not politics or art or mathematics? And if mathematics were to be critiqued by philosophers, why would it matter? And if it is important that science is critiqued by other non-scientific disciplines, why not by artists or lawyers instead of philosophers? And while we are at it, is philosophy exempt from critique from other disciplines non-scientific or otherwise. Why is it important at all? Don’t the results of an endeavor stand or fall on its own merits, Art for arts sake, science for sciences sake, philosophy for philosophy’s sake? Could it be that you perceive science to be trespassing on philosophy’s stomping ground, “the truth”? And while we are at it, religions’ stomping ground as well?

For what it is worth I apologize for my previous rude behavior and I hope that you will favor me with a reply.

Starboy

Lizard

VZ,

What, pray tell, does any of this have to do with science?

Methinks it is a red herring. You still have many unanswered questions on other threads. Why don't you quit serpentining and answer them?

Starboy

Vanderzyden, please do not take this the wrong way; I hope you were not trying to pull a fast one. Empirical science is not necessary to answer this question. I would think that the answer to this question would be obvious to any graduate student of philosophy with a reasonable grasp of logic.

1. To start off, if there were nothing we would not be having this discussion, so there must be something.

2. The question implies that something cannot come from nothing. Since if something could come from nothing, then the question would just be silly.

3. Your use of the question has the implicit assumption that at one time there was nothing. There is no evidence that I am aware of that there was ever a time that there was nothing. The big bang theory doesn’t make this assumption, not even Genesis makes this assumption.

4. If you do assume that originally there was nothing then it begs the question: who made it. Logically it makes no sense, because there is nothing. There is no one or no thing to make the something. There are those that make a fantastic claim that god made it, but they do not make it clear as to how god could exist.

5. The obvious answer to this question is: We assume that something cannot come from nothing. We all agree that there is something. Therefore there was never nothing.

Starboy

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Why does the observation of the writing not count as an empirical observation? What you have demonstrated here is one person, skeptical, empirically observing some effect and producing a verifyable theory from it. Thus, your mind has been empirically observed, no?

Starboy

Skeptic, Vanderzyden:

Forgive me for butting into this exchange. I don’t think that there is a scientist in the world that would make the claim “anything that is empirically unverifiable has no utility”. That would be silly. They would however say that anything that is empirically unverifiable is not scientific. Scientific knowledge is a subset of all knowledge. Because science restricts itself to what can be tested it automatically restricts itself to the kind of questions, theories and assertions it can make. There was a time when it was called natural philosophy and was not so constricted, however it was found that restricting explanations to testable natural causes worked much better. There are those that appear to confuse scientific knowledge with “truth”. If you examine the scientific method it is obvious that it produces what works but it is not obvious that it produces “truth”. As such, I really do not see where philosophy fits into science since “truth” is the major industry of philosophy and science has abandoned “truth” for utility. Evolution is not the “truth”, it just works better than any other scientific theory. You got a better scientific theory, great! Gather your data, get it published and accepted by the scientific community and collect your Nobel prize.

Starboy

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

I partially disagree, starboy.

I think that, rather than scientific knowledge being 'true' and everything else being 'false', scientific knowledge should be considered 'as true as possible' and non scientific knowliedge should be either true or false, but untestable.

In my opinion, anything that can be properly tested (i.e. a test where all variables can be controlled) counts as scientific knowledge. Under this definition, 'mind' is certainly a testable proposition under science.

Starboy

Hi DD,

I think you misunderstood me. The claim that scientific knowledge is “true” has no bearing to science. The only criterion for scientific knowledge is: does it pass the test. It is an assumption that just because it passes the test it is true. As any doctor knows, a positive result doesn’t mean that the patient has the disease; it only means that it is indicated. If knowledge can be tested and it is part of a tradition that requires it, then that knowledge is scientific. “Truth” is in the realm of theologians, philosophers and mathematicians, but not scientists.

I agree with your last sentence, if you can examine it empirically and test it empirically then it is both natural and scientific, there are assertions about the mind that can be treated in this fashion.

To be perfectly clear. Science is a totally new way of understanding our surroundings. There has never been anything like it. It is THE MOST SUCCESSFUL HUMAN ENDEAVOUR FOR UNDERSTANDING OUR SURROUNDINGS IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.

I just love saying that.

Starboy

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

I don't understand the divide you place between a positive result and truth.

If a doctor tests for cancer, he is usually testing something other than the actual prescence of cancerous cells. Not being medical, I will hypothesise an imaginary element C, the presence of which is disproportionately high in most cancer patients. If a test is performed for element C comes out positive, and is repeatedly confirmed, surely the claim 'C is present in this patient' is true in any sense of the word?

The application of test results to theories (such as the theory that element C signifies cance) generates conclusions that can only be thought of as 'provisionally true' or as true as is currently possible. Surely the true result of the test for C, coupled with the theory that C signifies cancer generates the conclusion 'The patient probably has cancer'. NOT 'the patient definitely has cancer', as C does not ALWAYS indicate cancer

Nonetheless, the conclusion 'the patient probably has cancer' can only be described as true. It does not just 'work', it is a true statement. A tentative statement, to be sure, but nonetheless true.

Doubting Didymus

A note to make my above post clearer.

If said doctor takes a sample of a patients tumor, and tests it for cancer by veiwing it under a microscope, or some other controlled test. It would be true that the patient has cancer, no?

Starboy

DD:

I understand your distinction. I agree with it in principle, but the reality challenged don’t understand it. For them “truth” is not provisional truth. When they say “true” they mean the result never changes, and is always true. It is confusing to those that don’t get science.

I don’t think there is any reason for science to claim the “truth”. For me, and the rest of the modern world, the fact that it works suits me just fine. Also I think that calling it provisional truth is somewhat misleading since it doesn’t convey how dynamic scientific knowledge can be.

The problem with associating science with “truth” is it implies that we know everything there is to know about nature. This robs science of its most exciting aspect; the incredible journey that is in progress to understand our surroundings.

Starboy