Hi Tom.
this I'm afraid isn't the objection to science I was considdering, sinse
it's not just the case that "science cannot explain" certain things, rather
there are certain flaws and inconsistancies in the scientific method that
means you need to fill in a lot of gaps via personal opinion.
for instance, there is the famous problem of induction which has been around
sinse David hume. namely, how can you be certain that any inductive line of
reasoning is ultimately going to end in the same conclusion all of the time,
the famous, well all the swans I've seen are white so all swans must be
white line of thinking.
more seriously than that, there is the problem of experimental regress. when
a scientist sets up an experiment occurs according to a set of strict
principles set by that scientist, ie, experimental conditions. The
experiment however is not exactly replicatable, because nobody can have the
same conditions, nor are the conclusions of the scientist necessarily shown
by the previous data.
for instance, a lot of findings of sir humphry davy about the movement of
gasses were unable to be replicated by his contemporaries because the
equipment he used was very unique, however most people believed him because
of his reputation as one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century.
there is then, the even more serious problem of paradigm shift, that when
two opposing scinetific viewpoints colide, it is not actually a case that
one will relinquish their theory, rather, you will have two competing modes
of scinetific expression,, and the one that "wins" so to speak is the one
that grabs most people's attention.
This is not to say science doesn't work, or that study of science is not
worth while, only that we should remember sicnece is not the stablishment of
ultimate, absolute truth, but the construction of human opinions about the
universe, ---- consistant opinions perhaps, but ultimately opinions none the
less.
the germ theory of desease for instance cannot currently explain the causes
of cansa and several other immunological reactions, sinse no foreign
organisms are nvolved, and our understanding of the human mind is barely
begun.
so, while I two have an interest in science, I do not follow people like
richard dorkins who think that science is some sort of new religion, and
that we are always uncovering truth with it, sinse the past shows sicnece is
just as prone to error and mistakes, ---- heck at one time it was
scientifically believed that the sun was the center of the universe, or that
germs were spontaniusly generated from within rotting meet and other matter,
rather than being unique in themselves.
Beware the grue!
Dark.
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
