(Ron) Natural Man
Achilles Sophia achillesz@usa.net
Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:47:30 -0400 (00906814050, 07473095912050@cfagroup.com)
>> RON
>> I don't agree that scientists have "a universal standard of proof
>> which allows these differences to be resolved in favour of demonstrable
>> truth." The only method they have is observation.
ACHILLES
The scientific method is not limited to observation, and observation alone
is not the scientific method.
ROB
>> Observation is
>> subjective and limited by the capacity of the observer. For example this
>> method relies on physical human senses and is limited thereby to
>> physical things. Since it cannot encompass spiritual realities it
>> dismisses them out of hand.
ACHILLES
Observation is indeed subjective, or "relative" is probably a better term.
This is why a single observation is not considered definitive. Many
observations, performed by many observers, and wherever possible using
instruments (such as cameras for example) which leave permanent records
which can be examined by still more observers are required. This way the
fallability of individual observers may be discovered, and corrected. It
doesn't happen overnight, no, but it does happen.
Furthermore science does not dismiss out of hand things which the human
senses cannot apprehend - far from it. There are many things we cannot
directly apprehend which have nonetheless been investigated scientifically
through indirect observations. Have you ever seen an electron? Of course
not. Nor has anyone ever seen a quark. If spirit exists, and has any
influence on the material world, then it is investigable by science in the
same way.
ROB
>> Besides this the scientist must first arrive
>> at a theory reflective of his own prejudices and based on his own
>> subjective observation. As Jastrow demonstrated, they tend to resist
>> conclusions which contradict their pet theories.
ACHILLES
Certainly scientists are humans, and humans are known to resist theories
which contradict their own assumptions. This much we can agree on. Not only
scientists, but all humans, including your theologians, have this tendancy.
And this is precisely where science is vastly superior to catholicism. As I
point out in another post, it is understood that even the greatest
scientists are fallible. When scientists make mistakes their word is not
just taken for granted, but are questioned. Additional scientists work on
the problem, whether with the aim to prove the first, to disprove the first,
or with purely heuristic goals, they subject the first scientists
conclusions to test after test. If the original conclusion is wrong they
will eventually demonstrate it is wrong. This is why, despite Einsteins
fervent rejection of it, Quantum Physics has flourished.
But who in the catholic church questions the pope? What experiments can be
replicated by hundreds or thousands of independant observers to test his
conclusions? Even assuming he is a VERY smart man and VERY rarely wrong, if
he were wrong once how would you ever know?
Achilles
"...we are not simply contending in order that my view or that
of yours may prevail, but I presume we ought both of us to be
fighting for the truth..."
from Philebus, the Dialogues of Plato