(July 19, 2012 at 2:43 am)Categories+Sheaves Wrote: My "short" argument: Our standards for interpreting evidence, our standards of what constitutes proof, and even our standards for the importance of an experiment are all occurring prior to any statement like, "Evidence X will force me to relinquish supposition A". Every falsification-check occurs within an ocean of unexamined presuppositions, and in most discussions where this is pointed out, the pro-science person (whose opponent usually has their head fully up their ass, e.g. presuppository apologetics) has to nuke the issue. with something like "Even if our suppositions are wrong, we aggresively look for ways to discover their wrongness.. are you able to do this?" And that's a fair defense ...
But when the debate is over, we should be able to sit down examine how these unexamined preuppositions function in science--and I don't mean by picking up some pop-pscyh book about how our subconscious runs most of our lives.
If I understand you correctly I'm going to say no. Science doesn't base falsification-checks and validations on presuppositions, it bases them on observations. Sometimes observations turn out to be wrong, but that's why scientists always try to independently verify observations before drawing any conclusions.
Maybe if you gave an example I could understand you better. Give an example of a test for a theory involving presuppositions.
