The limitations of science (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Friday, February 19, 2010, 15:24 (5389 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: So according to dhw then everything is just a matter of opinion and we can never arrive at any agreement. The core of the problem then lies in dhw's statement: "I do put all these forms of evidence on an equal footing". This is his statement of his agnostic faith, which is not merely that "we don't know" but that "we cannot know". Because any evidence, however flimsy, must be given the same 50/50 valuation as every other. Every gap in the evidence is equally probable to be filled in every possible way, and on this methodology the sensible joining-up-the-dots solution is no more probable than any other.-Hey, hold on! First of all, finish the quote: "...equal footing, because in my view none of them are reliable enough to prove that life did or did not come about by chance, that the brain cells are or are not the actual source of consciousness etc., that there is or is not a God." I'm not talking about "everything". Furthermore, I'm talking about FORMS of evidence, not "any evidence, however flimsy". We are drawing a distinction between "subjective experiences" and "anecdotal evidence" on the one hand, and scientific evidence on the other. The fact that you and David have examined the scientific evidence and come up with diametrically opposite conclusions should be enough to demonstrate that the scientific evidence is not reliable enough to prove one theory or the other. There are certain subjective experiences and accounts which I consider to be just as important to my deliberations (I make no attempt to disguise the subjectivity of my judgement) as scientific theories for which there is (still) no evidence. But of course that same subjective judgement will be applied to every individual experience and anecdote. If a drunken Irishman assures me that he saw a leprechaun in the pub last Saturday night, I shan't believe him. But if my wife, David and BBella tell me about events for which there appears to be no rational explanation, I shall believe them. I shan't draw any conclusions from their anecdotes (nor in fact do they), but I shan't dismiss their personal evidence as "worthless" or "negligible". And so yes indeed, I give such subjective experiences the same 50/50 valuation as your personal conviction that some time in the future science will prove that the hugely complex mechanisms of life and evolution are capable of assembling themselves by chance. -I'm afraid I don't understand why my openness to such subjective experiences means "we cannot know". Admittedly that's the original definition of agnosticism, but I would still put myself in the don't-know category. We can only base beliefs on what we know or think we know now. Science is advancing at breathtaking speed. Maybe the project to build a brain will prove once and for all that consciousness and its many manifestations do have a physical source. Maybe the research project into NDEs will come up with something definitive. I have my doubts on both scores, but I'm not going to prejudge. I remain open to whatever form of evidence comes my way, and then I will apply my subjective judgement to its credibility. You clearly regard your personal beliefs as "the sensible joining-up-the-dots solution". All solutions involve joining up the dots, and "sensible" begs the obvious question of criteria. The difference between you and me here, though, is not the variety of gap-fillers, but the fact that I'm not prepared to ignore the dots that you consider to be unworthy of inclusion in the pattern.