Post by dockirk on Apr 20, 2008 8:29:52 GMT -5
re: our recent meeting on Church and State:
Something has been bothering me a little since the last PRT meeting. I think it is how the meeting ended with a rather relativistic compromise that might be summed as follows: "Explanations of how the universe operates are dependent upon the culture within which such explanations are formed." There is certainly SOME truth to this and I think this was Jonathan's point. However, this begs the question, "by what criteria can one decide between non-testable religious assumptions and scientific one?" or "Is there a criterion at all?"
I think there is such a criterion, and it can be stated as so "A scientific finding is one that eliminates all other explanations." So, if you take the "world is flat" cultural assumption, this can clearly be tested and those tests replicated.....So, regardless of cultural/religious belief, the world is not flat. The assertion that all life on earth is the result of completely random processes in a universe where "matter has always existed" is not testable and is subject to many alternative explanations.
Another example, one cannot reasonable argue that Neandertals never existed. There is no other reasonable alternative explanation for the fossils/skulls that have been found. However, one might argue about why Neanderthals were here, or what their relationship was to Homo Sapiens.
Another observation: Growing technology characterizes scientific discovery over the last 500 years, IOW, things that were once inexplicable become explicable when better observing technologies are invented. So..it is always possible that some future technology will make some current metaphysical issue a scientific one. For example, what if some future technology proves a non-physical dimension of Mind? I actually think this might happen. This would put to bed all speculations about purely physical explanations of "mental" problems, for example...
Anyway good meeting! Have a nice week.
Something has been bothering me a little since the last PRT meeting. I think it is how the meeting ended with a rather relativistic compromise that might be summed as follows: "Explanations of how the universe operates are dependent upon the culture within which such explanations are formed." There is certainly SOME truth to this and I think this was Jonathan's point. However, this begs the question, "by what criteria can one decide between non-testable religious assumptions and scientific one?" or "Is there a criterion at all?"
I think there is such a criterion, and it can be stated as so "A scientific finding is one that eliminates all other explanations." So, if you take the "world is flat" cultural assumption, this can clearly be tested and those tests replicated.....So, regardless of cultural/religious belief, the world is not flat. The assertion that all life on earth is the result of completely random processes in a universe where "matter has always existed" is not testable and is subject to many alternative explanations.
Another example, one cannot reasonable argue that Neandertals never existed. There is no other reasonable alternative explanation for the fossils/skulls that have been found. However, one might argue about why Neanderthals were here, or what their relationship was to Homo Sapiens.
Another observation: Growing technology characterizes scientific discovery over the last 500 years, IOW, things that were once inexplicable become explicable when better observing technologies are invented. So..it is always possible that some future technology will make some current metaphysical issue a scientific one. For example, what if some future technology proves a non-physical dimension of Mind? I actually think this might happen. This would put to bed all speculations about purely physical explanations of "mental" problems, for example...
Anyway good meeting! Have a nice week.