What can science prove?

[tavarish]

I wasn't making some sort of metaphysical claim here, only that science tells us the things we see are real because we understand through science how we see them.

To make my point, revisit the Matrix scenario as posited by Dagda last fall. In the Matrix, science would tell you that sound waves, the object that produced them, their interaction with the ossicles and cochlea inside your ear, etc., are all real—and it would be wrong. "You think that's air you're breathing now?" Science is an empirical discipline; it would be viciously circular for science to assume these things are real and then conclude they're real. No, it assumes they're real and proceeds to describe them in terms of being real.

If metaphysical naturalism were untrue, then yes, we would still have the natural sciences, but we would have to change them radically, as I noted. What if the reason gravity exists is because of some supernatural gravity being? What if the tides were controlled by spiritual beings?

You are making an unwarranted leap. Metaphysical naturalism is already considered bollocks by the majority of people (and for extremely good reasons)—including many who are scientists—and yet science has not had to change for them. Those scientists who reject metaphysical naturalism still do science in the usual way, studying natural causes and events. It's a very common thing to hold that abstract things exist (e.g., numbers, minds, etc.), which a monist view rejects. There is no good reason to think that science is altogether something different for people who subscribe to a dualist view. They use exactly the same science as those who subscribe to a monist view, sometimes working alongside them. Your leap is unwarranted, because supernatural meddling does not automatically follow from the rejection of monistic views of reality; there are dualists who reject the supernatural. Just because I accept that abstract entities exist, that doesn't mean I have to toss out geodesic paths and metric tensors, etc.

This reminds me of the heated argument the non prophets radio staff had about Francis Collins. Some tried to make the point that his radical religious views would hinder his progress in the NIH. Matt Dillahunty basically took apart that point and said it was basically unfounded and bigoted. The most outspoken atheist of the bunch was defending a theist who was applying for a scientific position. Pretty cool.

here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqd5fNFwLuo


/offtopic