But if you're saying that there are higher truths than science, how do you propose to test such a thesis? And if there is danger in developing principles of action from scientific data (which may or may not be applicable), what do you propose instead? And how would we know that it's a better way - or what about it is better?
There are really two versions of the world. One is that there are religious or philosophical conditions of Creation or Nature and that from using these as first principles, we can analyze the world. The other is Science, which suggests that Nature is as it is and all we have is observations and mathematics (and some simple logical principles) to analyze those observations. We reduce our assumptions to a minimum and observe.
Many people say that there are assumptions baked into science qua science, but this is untrue. Science doesn't assume that there is a God or that there isn't a God. Science simply says that there are no reproducible observations of God or anything which would suggest that God exists. There is a lot that science is mute on - although scientists and those who use and misuse the philosophy of science aren't.
So I would ask you and all those who have doubts about science a few questions:
1) What, other than science, should we consult in determining the nature of the universe?
2) If we consult something else, how do we test it?
3) What evidence is there that something other than science should be consulted in determining the nature of the universe?
4) If we separate the questions of determining the nature of humans and determining the nature of the universe, will we not solve a lot of apparent conflicts between science and other disciplines?
peace,
boddi
On 10/6/06, ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org> wrote:
> At around 6/10/06 1:56 pm, boddi satva wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I think I see your problem!
> >
> > You don't actually have a problem with science. What you have is a
> > problem with engineering.
> >
>
> Boddi,
>
> I am afraid the above is not the case. I am aware of the science vs
> technology and science vs engineering distinctions and my arguments do
> not assume or imply that confusion (where applicable). I wish I had the
> time to go into in more detail but that would be a brand new thread of
> equal or higher volume. All I can suggest is to re-read my posts...
>
> --ravi
>
> --
> Support something better than yourself: ;-)
> PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
> GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
> If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>