|
taleon -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 1:13:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Science is not the only way of knowing.
I think science is not a way of knowing, period. It is a methodology for modeling the world around us, usually with the purpose to have some predictive power. Whether the prevailing model is actually "absolutely true" is not really an issue. Take Newton, his equations were not the final word on gravity. Far from it. But, he had penned down the most accurate model right until Einstein came along and improved it. And here religion and science are diametrically opposed. A scientist should tell you: "this is the prevailing model at the moment, and it works out pretty well for us. If you can do better, go for it", where a priest should tell you "This is how it happened. Take it or leave it".
Of course, some theories are so well established and tested that it seems extremely unlikely that someone will come along with a better idea. Evolution being one of those theories. It's been around for 150 years, made testable predictions which were verified, and without any convincing counter-argument it is still going strong. But hey, I could have made that same argument about Newton in 1914, the year before Einstein came up with general relativity. Ok, I'll stop contradicting myself now.
quote:
But to deny any other ways of knowing belies experience. As long as we don't present false claims and conclusions from that experience, it's a valid way of exploring the world--without this, we'd even have to toss the atheist religions (Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.).
Valid? I'm not sure who determines what is valid in this context. But, in science usually Occam's razor is applied. Which means that in general the most simplest solution is the correct one. Thus, an explanation which doesn't negate our current experiences but still is needlessly complex, is deemed to be inferior to an explanation which needs less assumptions to explain the same phenomenon. In addition, an explanation needs to be testable. For example, I can entertain the assumption that I've dreamed this all up, and you are all figments of my imagination. This claim is perfectly valid in the sense that it encapsulates all our experiences. So, job done, universe explained. Sadly, that's not science though. There is no way for you to test this assumption (as surely, I'd explain any result on any conceivable test as a part of my imagination).
Mind you, I'm not saying this is the only way to evaluate or judge explanations. Surely, there are others and I'm not the one to say they are valid or invalid. However, if you want to come up with a theory which will not be blown out of the water by your most skeptical peer, Occam's razor and falsifiability do help a lot.
quote:
I have great respect for science. But as an accomplished musician, I also know we can think and experience well in other means. To deny this is to deny our own experiences.
That might very well be. Love being a good example, I find. I am not that well introduced to the biochemistry of love, but I do believe we have a pretty good understanding of it. However, that doesn't take away the powerful feelings those chemicals induce. So, love can be "experienced" at the intellectual level by following a course in biochemistry, and it can be experienced as this wonderful surge of excitement, when that lovely girl at the front row returns your smile. There is a TED talk about that too, come to think of it. If you are interested, I'll look it up for you.
quote:
If someone said, "I had this experience, and this proves there's a God," then yes, I'd agree this is not a logically sound conclusion in the demonstrable scientific sense. If someone said, "I had this experience; I believe it is because of a God," I also have no real problem with this presented as a matter of personal belief. When someone can say, "I had this experience. I can't explain it, but I can show you how to have the same experience," we have to accept this as demonstrable and replicable--two main tenets any scientist would respect.
Well, yes. You'd have a phenomenon you can reproduce; an experiment you can carry out. Next stop: making a falsifiable hypothesis that can explain the experience (after doing the proper research that there is indeed no prior work on the topic). Next stop after that: imagine the hypothesis is correct, think of what kind of predictions you can make with it. Then, test those predictions. Jot it all down, and give it to those working in the same field and see if they can find any holes in it. If not, chances are you just expanded our understanding!
|
|
|
|
