Fact or Fiction? (General)

by dhw, Saturday, March 27, 2010, 17:53 (5353 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: It is only at the frontiers where controversy appears. There we have to use character judgment and as far as possible seek out the facts for ourselves. Where the evidence is inadequate we have to say we don't know, but may nevertheless have to make an informed guess for practical or political purposes.-In the case of religion the evidence is of a far lower order of reliability (i.e. anecdotal and subjective) and the theories expounded by rival theologians are mutually contradictory. So there is no good reason to believe any of it.-In a practical or political context, I go along with the above, especially as you use the word "may" in relation to having to make guesses. On subjects like global warming, a layman like myself can't even make an informed guess, although huge numbers of non-scientists seem to have made up their minds already. However, I would like to apply the precepts of the first paragraph to the second. In the case of the origin of life, the theories expounded by rival scientists are mutually contradictory, since they can't all be right. So "there is no reason to believe any of them." You might argue that rival scientists are proceeding from the same assumption that there is a material explanation (and indeed there must be, whether the materials were combined by accident or by design), but one could also argue that rival theologians proceed from the same assumption that there is a divine explanation. Disagreements between theologians do not mean that the basic premise is wrong, any more than disagreements between scientists invalidate their starting-point.-As for reliability, your criteria depend entirely on the nature of what is being investigated. A testable subject like the composition of water obviously can't be compared to an untestable one like the aesthetic appeal of a Beethoven symphony. As you say, "it is only at the frontiers where controversy appears", and the frontiers in the context of our discussion are subjects like the origin of life, the nature of consciousness, the source of ideas/emotions/ aesthetics/the so-called "paranormal". These are cases where science has so far failed to come up with explanations, and "the evidence is inadequate". We cannot even be sure that science is better equipped than subjective experience to deal with such realities. Nevertheless, you and David have each chosen to make "an informed guess", based on the evidence available, and your informed guesses are the exact opposite of each other. I follow your first option and have to say I don't know.