Epistemology of Design (The limitations of science)

by Matt , Saturday, December 12, 2009, 15:20 (5458 days ago) @ dhw

Matt: In science, an explanation is accepted because of its utility. If it explains something better, it is accepted, and that is that. 
> You...appear to stop at that point. I get the impression that even if a model is as explanatory as possible that your skepticism prevents you from accepting it on any level ... even though the nature of science is itself a chain of provisional explanations. 
> At this point it's a discussion of my judgment of your thinking, and lacking the ability to be in your head ... I'm in lala land. 
> 
> Here comes a dangerous generalization: it is dangerous to generalize from the particular. The subjects of God's existence, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness are all bound up with a unique set of circumstances. My scepticism-cum-open-mindedness in this context should not be taken as a sign of general scepticism, and in most other contexts I do indeed accept "a relative truth over something we wish to be ultimate." George thinks I should never sit on a jury. I'd back myself to do a good job! 
> 
>....But the moment scientists make pronouncements about processes being directed by chance or by God, they cease to speak as scientists, and I cease to trust in their authority. 
> -*applause* -> The fact that science is "a chain of provisional explanations", and that there are vast gaps in our knowledge of life and the universe, is a clear enough indication that the chain will undergo many more changes before there is a consensus (if there ever is). I can accept a useful explanation, but "that" is definitely not "that" in this unique context. I would therefore disagree with you even over what you call scientific paralysis. You say "science cannot function in terms of the level of strictness that you appear to operate in". I would say that science HAS to function at this level of strictness ... it HAS to be sceptical, because it's only by eliminating doubt that it can come up with working models. In the context of our discussion, and keeping in mind the excellent article by Marcelo Gleiser, what is so admirable about science is that even if the Theory of Everything may never materialize, humans continue their quest for it. You say: "There is a point where skepticism paralyzes, and it's the point where I would say idealism trumps utility." I'd say that science is actually kept moving by idealism's constant encroachment on utility. Scepticism is an indispensable tool in the quest for truth (= the ideal), and the continuation of the quest is the ultimate triumph over scepticism! Now what would Nietzsche say to that?-Tough stuff here and I have no argument with any of it--how could I? Science *should* be a tug of war. I certainly wouldn't disagree that science needs to be skeptical; that is its nature and would be a husk otherwise. Your last statement earns its own unique sort of praise: It raises my "ocean's wave" metaphor of human existence to a more noble and "owned" thing. -I don't know how much you've read Nietzsche, but I would think you would appreciate this line, in reference to Moses: "Whoever said man should love man for God's sake is one who's flown the highest yet--yet most beautifully astray!" -In Nietzsche's writing you see a constant battle between utility and "high-thinking," that aspect ascribed to mystics really who fed from and build on some kind of abstract idea. I don't know the man but I think he'd agree with you.