My thought on Del's original article:
The biggest issue I found
was this: Do scientists presume that there is an underlying order that
was caused by someone/thing? The whole article seems to presume that
scientists have faith that there is an underlying order - the author
did nothing to convince me that anyone believes that there is an
underlying order. Indeed, Chaos Theory suggests that there is no
underlying order - that it is sheer coincidence and random chance that
up is up and down is not.
My thoughts on Paul's thoughts:
I agree
with Paul about the "Faith is Justified" bit. The original author is
using a different connotation of "faith" than the religious
connotation.
As for Richard Feynman's comment - that seems patently offensive.
I would be saddened if scientists did not ask philosophical questions
about science. It might not pay the bills, but it is as essential to
being a scientist as the scientific method is. Similarly, as a lawyer,
I ask philosophical questions about law ALL OF THE TIME. Those lawyers
who don't ask such questions are the ones who really have no idea what
a lawyer does.
And Kant vs Hume - Kant suggests that there is a priori knowledge about how to order the universe. Hume suggests that the order of the universe is based on a posteriori knowledge. I dunno if they can be mixed, because one talks about knowledge before and one talks about knowledge after.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I love that you now think of yourself as a lawyer. That makes me very happy.
Here's my thoughts:
Order exists in the universe. We observed natural phenomena and...surprise there is an order to the way things happen. The only "faith" that enters into the situation is in the idea that the current order is eternal and/or the only order. For example, when we extrapolate data to predict future events/conditions we assume that the methods used in the present situation will be valid during the entire simulation. I agree with Paul in that the word faith probably isn't the right word to use in relation to scientists. When confronted with evidence that they might be wrong, the theist views it as a test and resolves to continue in their belief. In a similar situation the true scientist will recheck the data, repeat experiments and adjust any problems in their "belief system".
In order for scientific "faith" to be equivalent to religious faith, I think that there would have to be experimental results that strongly suggest the existence of God, or an order to the universe so complex that experimental results are virtually impossible to predict/duplicate.
Post a Comment