(October 17, 2012 at 8:18 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote:(October 17, 2012 at 3:49 am)Brunitski Wrote: What things do scientists have confidence in that are "not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" - name a few.The scientific method itself. You can't prove that science produces knowledge by the method of the scientific method itself - that would result in circular reasoning.
How do you prove that the human attempt at knowledge can produce anything really true? And further, how do you know it can produce true knowledge about the origin of life and the universe?
Firstly, thanks for answering; I do think however, that you need to address the other questions I asked, specifically, what is your understanding of the scientific method.
Secondly, in the first iteration of this question you asked "What proves the scientific method produces real knowledge? Answer: your faith that it does."
in the next iteration, you are asking for "truth".
Point the first.
There are no "things" (plural) which "not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof", there is only one and that is a Meta linguistic or possibly philosophical issue. Fine; that the scientific method cannot be used to investigate the scientific method is a topic that could chew up some of our time, but it is not a topic that concerns science. Or me to be frank.
Point the second.
Science doesn't do "TRUTHtm"
Science does Hypothesis, evidence, investigation, self checking, confirmation, and more evidence.
Point the third
How do we know that the scientific method produces "real" knowledge? We use our experience, our powers of observation, our rationality and our understanding of others to inform us that we are living longer, healthier, more productive, more sustainable and safer lives than ever before - and in that I include even those whose standards of living are so far below yours and mine as to be laughable, whose lives are nonetheless measurably better today than they were 100 years ago.
That and the fact that you are asking these questions on a frikken 'puter that would not be possible if there was a flaw in this argument.
