Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [RELIGION] creation myths

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > I will be brief, because I think we have discussed these things 
> > before, and also because I am in a bit of a hurry.
> >
> > But it seems to me that the whole subject of epistimology (how do we 
> > know what we know) is not as easy as you make it out to be.  In 
> > particular, if you really start thinking about what the scientific 
> > method really is, you find that it cannot be rigorously justified any 
> > better than any other method.  At the end of the day, you simply get 
> > down to things like "it just feels right" or "it seems to work well so 
> > far."
>
>
> The "it seems to work well so far" argument is valid, but "it just feels 
> right" sound more like the religious approach.  With science, we test 
> theories, change them, test some more, and we *make* *progress.* This 
> idea of progress is very important.  Science is about testing and 
> improving. Religion is about staying the same.  How can we improve on 
> the Biblical account of creation?  We can't, some would say.  Why not?  
> Because it's perfect - it came straight from God.  How do you know?  Faith.
>
> Science marches forward.  The "faithful" stay stuck in a rut.
>
>
> > Another issue - I think that one has to account for the fact that I 
> > might have some piece of knowledge which I just know to be true, but 
> > which I cannot communicate to you (because, for example, it was a one 
> > time or otherwise limited event which you happened not to have 
> > experienced).  You might be doubtful that I am reporting it accurately 
> > or truthfully, but you can never be sure that I am wrong.
> >
> > Obviously one can think of many different shades of these kinds of 
> > things going on.  But the point is, I don't think that one can 
> > simplistically say that the scientific method is the only sure way to 
> > find the best approximation to truth.
>
>
> Maybe revelation is the best way to get the truth.  Seriously.  Science 
> is the best way to tell what's best.  How are you going to compare Joe's 
> revelation to Bob's revelation?  If they aren't identical, they may make 
> different predictions.  Science is the way to test and compare and make 
> decisions and move forward.
>
> We don't know where our ideas come from.  We really don't.  We just make 
> them up.  That's fine.  Science is our way of find out which ideas are 
> good and worth holding on to.
>
> Mike

But I really feel that you have ducked the main question.

How is it that we really rigorously know that the scientific method is 
going to work?


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion