(September 1, 2014 at 6:05 am)Michael Wrote: ManMachine
Something I would throw in there is that there is a slight anachronism talking about falsification in Darwin's day. The idea of falsification at the centre of science is quite a recent one (formalised only in the last 50 years). Darwin followed the scientific method of his day which was an inductive method, as described by the great philosopher of science Francis Bacon. Inductive science, such as Darwin's, is based on the accumulation of large amounts of data and the formulation of a model, after the data gathering ('post-hoc'), that best fits the data. Many now see falsification as 'the' scientific method, but I doubt Darwin would have ever come up with his theory using that one particular method of science: inductive, rather than deductive methods (as falsification is) are often behind the great paradigm shifts in science, with falsification then following on. There is a danger people get too wedded to falsification, forgetting that science has a broader range of tools in its toolbox. Inductive reasoning, as per Bacon's science, is still incredibly valuable especially for opening up new ground. And it's still the main foundation of wide-ranging theories like evolution that are not easily subject to simple falsification: we simply look for the best explanation of the available data (that's the inductive method in a nutshell).
Sorry, I just have a bit of a bee in my bonnet when science is equated with just falsification. That would remove centuries of great science, and significantly limit our scientific toolbox today.
My point was not to denigrate centuries of scientific endeavour or to equate 'science with just falsification'. Having said that the flaws inherent in scientific inductive reasoning have been well covered by Popper, as C D Broad said, 'Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy." so there is no need to reiterate that debate here.
The argument that eliminating anything not arrived at through a falsifiable theory removing centuries of great science and significantly limiting our scientific toolbox today is not a valid argument against Theology, as in the OP. The underlying point I am making is that the origins of science are no less irrational than Theology, regardless of what it has since become.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
