--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote:
Many fascinating points! I'll comment below. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> > > wrote: > > > > Always good to consider an edit for simplification especially with a > > potentially pretentious word like "epistemological". In most conversations > > I would not use it. But here on FFL life some posters like Doug use a > > system for assessing validity that is outside the methods accepted by the > > field. So in this case I am making clear where I am coming from. Doug > > likes to use some of the terminology of the epistemology of the scientific > > method while ignoring its actual rules in favor of a subjective valuation. > > > > I would say that, for me, figuring out where a person is coming from in > > their relationship to epistemological standards is key for understanding > > the perspective of the poster. That includes myself since I am often > > guilty of failing to apply them rigorously. > > > > I don't consider your point picky at all. I welcome any challenge to > > justify me using the "E" word! > > That's generous of you - I sometimes wonder whether > my interest in such things is a bit, well, 'maladjusted' > or some such! ;-) > > I would come back to a point though which I feel something > for. You say, for example, 'Doug likes to use some of the > terminology of the epistemology of the scientific method > while ignoring its actual rules...' > > I see where you're coming from there (and sympathise). > > On the other hand, where I see things differently to you, > is that I don't believe, as you say, that there are any *actual > rules* that can be assigned to this thing we refer to as "the > scientific method". I don't understand you here. The method is a collection of rules. That is pretty much all it is. The variables come in when we apply them. > > Given the huge role played by this idea of the "scientific > method" in our culture, in our time, in our psyches, I take > this consequence to be hugely significant. Not understanding its values and limitations is a big problem in society. > > It's as if, for many people, the previous ages' certainties > of Religion have been replaced by a belief in Science. It is > the opium of the atheists. And this faith in Science is, at > rock bottom, a faith in method - in other words an epistemological > view (back to our word!). I'm not sure faith is the right term. I would use earned confidence. As far as sciences relationship to, atheism is concerned I don't believe it is my opium. More like my cup of coffee! And I do not limit my own confidence to things which happen to be easy to apply the scientific method to. I believe that we can know things in lots of different ways and some things are not well suited to that kind of analysis. The arts give us a completely different lens to view our lives through but they are no less valuable for their lack of application of the scientific method. But many claims made in spiritual systems are in fact stated in a falsifiable form so the method can help sort fact from fantasy. It certainly was not the application of the scientific method that led me away from believing in any of the God myths I am aware of as being literally true. It had more to do with studying the history of ideas and reading the scriptures and asking myself, how would I know if this was true? What is the proof system being offered for these assertions? Some scriptures, like the New Testiment, use fragments of the evidence methods contained in the scientific method because these are natural ways for people to test credibility and were only formalized recently in history. But you see the attempts at using things like consensus among witnesses just as we do here on FFL. And just like here they are used unconvincingly to me often times. > > How I see it though is that all attempts to *grasp* this method > (especially as a set of rules) fail. You might say it's a story > started by David Hume, then a rearguard action from Kant followed > by the 19th & 20th century positivists, then severely disrupted > by Peirce, Duhem, Popper, Kuhn, Feyarabend et. al. > > Where that leaves us (IMO) is that, whether or not Science > works, (it obviously does to an extent!), HOW it works is > something of a deep mystery. It's NOT reducible to a set > of rules. I think we know why some of the rules work. You may be transcending my level of theoretical analysis. Philosophy has a way of challenging some basic tenants that we take for granted in how we actually live our lives and test ideas in the real world. I see the scientific method to be useful in making fewer mistakes not eliminating them. I'll certainly read anything you care to write expanding this topic. I would welcome the mental stretch. > > And I find that intriguing! Being intrigued with theoretical topics is such a blessing. You are lucky you have the horsepower to engage with ideas like that. >
