Following are some links that educate on the topic:
“We don’t need a
scientifically based or a strong philosophical underpinning to validate
science. All we need to know is that the method works: that it produces
results that all scientists could in principle replicate (if they can’t the
results are discarded), and it produces—apologies to Jane Austen—truths
universally acknowledged. It also produces progress. It cures
diseases, flies us to the moon, improves our crops. No other “way of
knowing” does that—certainly not religion, Brown’s favorite hobbyhorse. And
yes, the practice of science rests implicitly on the value that it’s good to
find out what is true and real, but does Brown disagree with that?
In the end, the method is validated by its results and needs no a priori
justification. After all, the methods of science weren’t devised before
science was practiced—we simply learned from experience that if we wanted to
find truth, we had to go about it in a certain way.” (link)
“A little reflection shows that there are several other ways of knowledge besides
the one provided by science. None of these are in any meaningful sense ‘better’
or ‘going beyond’ science, thereby not yielding any comfort to the purveyors of
woo. Each has its proper domain of application, and of course, there are plenty
of areas of overlap and interaction.” (link)
“The important point, which we both recognize, is that pure
intuition, revelation, and unchallenged dogma are not ways of
finding out things, other than about the subjective nature of the person who
experiences them.” (link)
· " - - - humanity has
developed its approach to knowledge over time. Initially, much of our knowledge
was superstitious and mythical. Mythology provided explanations. A
philosophical approach, based on logic and reason, developed in Greece and
Italy from about the sixth century BCE. Today, modern science has its feet
firmly placed on evidence. Scientific ideas are, must be, tested against
reality.
· "To assert today that
we should revert to a pre-scientific era, that theology or philosophy should
trump scientific knowledge, is to claim that mythology/logic/reason is more
reliable than evidence.
· "Of course logic and
reason are important – and they can contribute to knowledge. They can provide a
synthesis, an overview, and intuitions to the researcher. But they are not a
substitute for evidence. In the end our reason and logic must conform to the
evidence, not displace it.
· "It’s not surprising
that philosophy/logic has limitations. It is after all just a refinement of
common sense by reason. Philosophical/logical principles arise from intuitions
and may not properly represent reality. Quantum mechanics is an obvious
example.
· "Logical distortions
for ideological reasons are inherent in the process. In science, the requirement
of evidential input counters this subjectivity." (link)
“We don’t need a scientifically based or a strong philosophical underpinning to validate science. All we need to know is that the method works: that it produces results that all scientists could in principle replicate"
ReplyDeleteTo argue for the predictive success of something to the truth of a claim "science is the only thing that gives us knowledge" is a fallacy. This would be like saying that because metal detectors are so good at predicting metal along the beach, then no other method of finding things is valid. And to go further and argue that because metal detectors don't detect cardboard, therefore cardboard doesn't exist, would be even worse.
But that's what your argument amounts to: if the scientific method doesn't find something, than that thing doesn't exist. Even worse is that this claim is ITSELF a philosophical claim, not a scientific claim. So it is self refuting.
I suggest you get familiar with Ed Feser, who has a detailed blog and many books explaining this. Here is the most cited post of his, explaining why scientism is false: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
Following are my comments specifically addressing Feser's defense of HIS version of the Cosmological Argument:
Delete1. It is no more valid than any other "God of the Gaps"/Argument from Ignorance theist argument. There's no evidence for anything supernatural or an ultimate cause.
2. "Cause" requires time: "- - - there was no when there was no Universe. There was never a time when the universe did not exist. The Universe is the SpaceTime Continuum so whenever there is time there is a universe, even if there was nothing but
time. Time isn't an extension of the universe. The reason I don't believe that the Universe could have a cause is because to cause something to exist means to do something that results in a change from a time when that thing does not exist to a time when it does exist. Since there never was, or even coherently
could be, a time when the SpaceTime Continuum didn't exist, the universe could not have had a cause." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-0n1tHxkDg)
3. Cosmologists are in agreement that the reality that we call the Universe is probably eternal, with either a multiverse or an expanding/collapsing single universe. (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvD..90d3520W/abstract#)
Feser said, "I make no judgment about whether Le Poidevin’s or Dennett’s sleaziness was deliberate. But that they should know better is beyond question." I give you a mirror to reflect on this statement. I think that you are projecting and avoiding reality.
I am familiar with Feser: he is wrong. Read this post of mine
ReplyDeletehttps://understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/2020/07/does-science-justify-itself.html