The limitations of science (The limitations of science)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, February 18, 2010, 12:20 (5391 days ago) @ dhw

dhw writes: "I'd be surprised if a chemist/physicist/biologist agreed that the "concern" of his subject was to distinguish between connaître and savoir, between a priori and a posteriori, between deduction and induction, between practical and propositional. Is chemistry "concerned" with the distinction between ethical naturalism and ethical rationalism, or with questions such as whether the means justifies the end? -Chemistry may not be concerned with these questions, but Chemists must be. Without being aware of the epistemological basis and ethical motivation on which they are working their work would be worthless. -dhw: "I said that where you and I differ is in what we regard as possible evidence. You respond that the difference between us is "the degree of reliability that we place on different forms of evidence." Since I have drawn no conclusions, I don't claim that ANY evidence for or against design/chance, physical/spiritual, God/no God is reliable."-This just proves my point. You dismiss evidence that I evaluate as reliable, and place them on an equal footing to evidence I evaluate as unreliable. And my methods of evaluation are not just a matter of emotive reaction but of rational balancing of the probabilities.-dhw: "I refuse to dismiss certain mystic, emotional, psychic experiences ... for which science as yet has no explanation ... as possible evidence"-I would say that science does have adequate explanations of such experiences.-dhw: "This constitutes any experience, observation or interpretation that does not conform to your concept of existence, which is that there is no form of life beyond the material world as we know it (i.e. the world studied by the natural sciences)." -This is putting the cart before the horse. I don't have any preconceived concept of existence. I come to that view by weighing the evidence. It also overstates my view, since I remain open to other evidence.-dhw claims: "Words like "excessive", "worthless", "negligible" are expressions of opinion, nothing more." ... "What I don't understand is your apparent reluctance to acknowledge the subjectivity of the process and priorities that have led to your beliefs."-Absolutely not. They are the result of careful thought, of weighing of the evidence, of going to a lot of trouble trying to be as objective and unbiased as possible. You are free to disagree with me, but I can only think you have a personal need for "certain mystic, emotional, psychic experiences" to have greater value and meaning than can be objectively maintained.

--
GPJ