Andrew
I'd like to keep this discussion going a little longer if you don't mind.
Here are some thoughts on your thoughts:
>
> <snip>
>> Science on the other hand makes testable statements about its subject
>> matter.
>
> So does theology and religion.
Could you give us an example of an objectively testable theological or
religious statement, and a brief explanation of the methodology which should
be used to test it?
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.
Surely not! The thing about a scientific investigation is that it should
produce the same results if done by any compenent investigator using the
appropriate apparatus and techniques. I do not see how a theological
invetigation which is necessarily a metaphysical speculation can possibly
share these characteristics with a scientific investigation.
>
> <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?
Yes, I suppose these criteria stem from a metaphysical foundation, which is
the requirement that successive scientific theories, or paradigms in
Khun-speak are more generally applicable. This provides a rational test
between competing paradigms - if A works everywhere that B works, and also
works in some circumstances where B does not, then surely A is a more
general paradigm than B?
If on the other hand Paradigms B and C both explain some things adequately,
but C works sometimes when B fails and vice-versa how do we make a rational
choice between B and C?
Richard Ellam
L M Interactive
>
>
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************
|