(April 12, 2013 at 10:32 am)frz Wrote: Well, we have witnessed that only through science has there been any progress, or change as you so put it in the history of man. What else or other means would we need to find then to achieve anything? And even science has its shortcomings, don't forget all the religious people of all faiths constantly fighting against it for centuries, although they'd be the first one in line to reap the benefits of its labor. When Dick Cheney needed a heart he had no issue running to the hospital and have someone else's heart scientifically implanted into him to keep him alive.
Science has made material changes, I have never said it hasn't.
What we should guard against is the notion that this is progress. The idea that science (or scientific method et al) can lead to progress requires a teleological thought structure.
However, if we are to use scientific method as our guide then we must question that teleological thought structure. The idea that we are progressing requires a final cause and no such final cause exists that can be reasonably supported by empirical evidence.
To blindly accept human progress as a result of scientific endeavour is to buy into the idea of some kind of metaphysical universal design or purpose. Which is unscientific.
Science is a neutral discipline, and that's exactly what it should be.
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)
