Dan wrote:
>OK, fair enough. The reason I was asking was your statement that
>scientists
>are taught metaphysics as part of their training. The statement I was
>referring to is:
>
>"So, how can a scientist believe in God when he is trained to only
>accept
>that what is scientifically proven?"
>
>It seemed to imply that scientists are taught that only the emperical
>can be
>accepted. That is a metaphysical presupposition that science need not
>make
>and chooses not to adress at all.
>
>Dan M.
>
I can confirm that only a handful of science course had any sort of
metaphysical/philosophy of science content. And the one or two that
did simply had a quick rundown of different metaphysical
assumptions...positivism, empiricism, materialism, etc. No professor
ever indicated which position was the right one, they merely catalogued
them.
Scientists are not trained to have any sort of metaphysical standards.
They are trained to have practical standards: such and such is
neccesary before you can be published. Such and such behavior will get
you fired. Such and such confidence levels are required for
publication. Such and such data collection standards must be met or
other scientists won't take you seriously.
Eh, I'm starting to come around to Dan's position that scientist have
given up searching for truth and have settled for just figuring stuff
out. Except that to believe THAT, I'd have to think it was the truth,
and I don't believe in the truth any more. But wait, is it the truth
that I don't believe in the truth? Ah, hell with it, I'm gonna watch
the Simpsons....
=====
Darryl
Think Galactically -- Act Terrestrially
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
