The Paranormal (Where is it now?)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, February 08, 2009, 20:05 (5555 days ago) @ dhw

DHW wrote: If I may link this thread to the one on The Attenborough Mystery, the statements made by Attenborough (as quoted by George) and by David in his response to George, for me sum up the essence of agnosticism. I will repeat David's aphorism, as I would like to expand on it very slightly: "No new science must be viewed by a preconceived prism of past views, finding excuses to ignore a discovery that is disturbing to them." I would prefer not to be tied to science, because I'm not convinced that science holds all the answers. May I suggest some small amendments? "New discoveries must not be viewed through a preconceived prism of past views that find excuses to ignore whatever is disturbing to them." It's a principle with which I'm sure many people will agree, but which very few will follow. - 
I offer two counter-proposals to this approach. I do prefer to be tied to science, in the sense of scientific method, because I'm convinced that that is the only way we have of finding out reliable answers. What are the alternatives? Divine revelation? - Likewise I propose that: New discoveries must be viewed through the prism of past views. This is because scientific knowledge is cumulative. We can't go back to first principles all the time. It is important to fit new discoveries within the existing framework. This, for instance, is what has happened with plate tectonics, which is now able to explain continental drift in terms of Newtonian mechanics. - Of course, a good scientist does not ignore facts that don't fit into the established theories. He seeks an explanation of them, preferably within the existing paradigm. It is only after much contrary evidence has come to light that the paradigm can be replaced by an improved version.

--
GPJ