Hi Frederick
Just a few quick comments before I get away for a short break.
Cornel
"Frederick [FN] Noronha" wrote:
If Science is all that accurate and self-cleansing, how come so many
horrors
have been conducted in the name of "Science"? Or is it Doc Helecar's claim
that when Science does exceesses of any kind, it is not longer "Science"?
CORNEL: To me science is a methodology embracing the key concept of
falsification. Scientific theories are always provisional.They are open to
testing unlike religious theories for example. Some scientific theories are
considerably more rigorous/firm than others. And yes, man has been able to
use science for constructive purposes and also for destructive purposes.
Scientific theories used in hospitals have saved many lives but scientific
theories have also been used for destructive purposes throught the use of
horrendous weapons etc.
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that science is totally accurate but
it is "self-cleansing" to use your non-scientific terms through the process
of falsification. The use of science can't always be successful. Yes, errors
have occured in using scientific knowledge of some of the type to which you
refer.
I am afraid I have never had difficulty understanding (indeed I have
generally been impressed) by what Santosh has to say about science. This may
simply be because I have had a substantial academic grounding in the nature
of science and this may differentiate me from a layman's understanding of
science. Above all, I don't believe Santosh has made excessive claims for
science but I will be happy to receive specific examples of where he is
supposed to have fallen short and examine such material disinterestedly.
Progression in the scientific field has been too great to put any stop to
it. However, ethics have to play a stronger part perhaps in the utilisation
of science. The empirical sciences are here to stay but there is always room
towards refining this discipline.
Regret I cannot go further for now but I do value the scientific culture
strongly in its potential for good. Equally, I'd like to see more invested
in reducing its capacity for destruction at all levels. In the final
analysis, political decisions have to decide how much science to use and how
much not to use.
Cornel
PS Science did nor create the atom bomb. Man did it through the use of
available scientific knowledge. Science has no life of its own!
On 20/07/07, Santosh Helekar wrote:
The idea that any science is not a science because it
is empirical i.e. based on objective observational
evidence, is laughable. Indeed, it is the dependence
on evidence for confirmation or falsification of
scientific hypotheses that makes science powerful and
of practical significance. The technological
achievements of all natural sciences can be attributed
in large part to the fact that they are empirical.
