On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Richard Ellam wrote:
> No, I'm afraid that the claim that science is just another religion simply
> doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Whilst I wouldn't label science as another religion, as I consider it
neutral between religions, it is important to distinguish between science
that makes claims only to investigate the physical world, and the
*religious* claim that the physical world is all that there is.
<snip>
> Science on the other hand makes testable statements about its subject
> matter.
So does theology and religion. Scientists assume a real objective
physical world exists and can be invesitigated with certain criteria and
within certain limits. Theologians believe a god exists and can be
investigated with certain criteria and within certain limits. The
criteria nad limits are different, but the structure is remarkably
similar.
<snip>
> Because in
> order for a new theory to replace an old one it has to meet a specific set
> of criteria, namely that it reproduces all the successes of the old theory,
> and that it succesfully passes the tests which the old theory failed. Only
> under these circumstances does the new theory assume dominance over the old.
So where do these criteria come from? Are they not a statement of faith
or of underlying principles that cannot be tested within the scientific
method, i.e. against themselves? Logical positivism failed as philosophy
because it claimed that all meaningful statements can be tested by
observation/experiment, but as that claim cannot be tested in that way it
makes itself meaningless. Similarly all philosophies are incomplete
because they cannot justify their criteria without reference to something
outside the philosophy. Go"del's theorem is a formal statement of this
for mathematics.
It seems to me that the debate about the teaching of creationism in
schools needs to be refocussed on the teaching of philosophy of science in
schools. If good philosophy of science were being taught then students
would be able to judge what are and are not scientific theories for
themselves, and to realise when scientists are using their position as
scientists to promote philosophies (whether Christian, atheist, humanist
or whatever) which cannot be based on science.
And to just to make sure that where I am coming from is clear, let me
declare that I am a Christian, I attend the same church as Peter Vardy,
I believe that God created the world through evolutionary processes.
Andrew Millard
=========================================================================
Dr. Andrew Millard [log in to unmask]
Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, Tel: +44 191 374 4757
South Road, Durham. DH1 3LE. United Kingdom. Fax: +44 191 374 3619
http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/
=========================================================================
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
|