Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Ten Presuppositions of Science - Apologetics 315

Here is a post from Brian Auten listing 10 basic presuppositions of science. These are assumptions that many people take for grant it. I don't think that all of them are necessarily true but I think many people believe it.

Here is a list of some of the presuppositions of science:

(1) the existence of a theory-independent, external world;
(2) the orderly nature of the external world;
(3) the knowability of the external world;
(4) the existence of truth;
(5) the laws of logic;
(6) the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment;
(7) the adequacy of language to describe the world;
(8) the existence of values used in science (e.g., "test theories fairly and report test results honestly");
(9) the uniformity of nature and induction;
(10) the existence of numbers.1

The one presupposition that I can't fully agree with is number 6 because sin greatly diminishes our cognitive abilities to understand truth. And given that our sensory faculties are woefully inadequate because all of our senses can be fooled or give false information  - relying on them 100% to determine truth is extremely problematic.

Ten Presuppositions of Science - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

14 comments:

  1. Maybe I’m misunderstanding #6, but it seems to me, science presupposes the exact opposite of what Brian has claimed in #6, and it’s main raison d’etre is to combat that subjective fallibility with rigorous, repeatable methodologies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you did misunderstand number 6 and no I don't think Brian or Craig or Moreland are wrong in the statement. My point is that it's that presupposition that people put so much stock in that they think it's enough to determine truth. What does "cognitive ability" and "sensory faculties" solely have to do with "rigorous, repeatable methodologies"? The post is regarding those things scientists assume before they define and implement "rigorous, repeatable methodologies".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wait a minute. You asked for peer-reviewed evidence of consciousness in real Near-death experience cases, yet when I re-posted Dr. Gary Habermas' lecture on that very topic this last weekend you gave no comment. You don't have to of course, but i do hope you looked at it and the info linked to about Dr. Ayer's NDE.

    http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/02/near-death-experiences-as-evidence-for.html

    and

    http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/02/aj-ayer-prominent-skeptics-beliefs.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do you disagree just for the sake of disagreeing? Didn't you say in your final paragraph that you disagreed with Brian on #6, obviously for different (nonsensical) reason than me.

    I'll check out those posts later. But if it's Habermas, I have my doubts about the validity of the "peer review" process.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My point was that science is in the business of designing "rigorous, repeatable methodologies" to counter act the fallible "cognitive ability" and "sensory faculties" of individual scientist. That's really the whole point of the scientific method.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The post isn't about the scientific method. It is about the presuppositions of scientist who employ the scientific method. I agree with what the presupposition is - therefore I agree with Brian. I disagree that the presupposition should hold the sway over people like you as much as it does. That is why I can't agree that it should be a presupposition guiding scientists. Of course you do not understand my reasoning why because according to your fallible cognitive abilities you don't recognize your own sin (definitely not born-again). This has led you to miss my point entirely. You are saying that the scientific method mitigates the problem, but Brian is saying the methods science employs relies on fallible "cognitive ability" and "sensory faculties" of individual scientist presupposing that they are reliable. I'm saying that people take that reliability and says that its more reliable than scripture in understanding the results of the Scientific method.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Brian said (and you reposted "10 basic presuppositions of science."

    Science. Not sure why you'd think he was talking about individual scientists as opposed to the scientific method.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This has led you to miss my point entirely.

    Spell it out. I understand points that countless people make every day, day in and out. And I really only consistently miss your points, so I'm going to assume the fault is not mine.

    As far as I can tell, you are saying numbers 1-5 and 7-10 should be presumed, but 6 shouldn't because we're fallible (or in giberish speak, we have sin a nature). Do I get you?

    If I do get you, then I believe I'm justified in concluding that you do not understand what science (i.e. the scientific method) really is.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why do you think science = scientific method. does science have "cognitive ability" and "sensory faculties" or do scientist have them? Let me help you: Scientist have them no science. I have noticed that you misunderstand Brennon on his blog too..;.it's not just me you misunderstand. Am I justified in concluding that you like to share the wealth of your ignorance? Seems so.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I can't recall the last time I posted on Brennon's blog. He's an angry little man.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brian says "the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties..."

    Science is the scientific method. He's talking about (presumably) the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties, which is something the scientific method specifically trys to mitigate by not relying on them.

    Enjoy your afternoon. I wouldn't give Harvey Burrnet any of your money to invest though. Seems shady.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can't recall the last time I posted on Brennon's blog. He's an angry little man.

    That has not been impression of Brennon at all. I think that describes you much better than he. He's never called me names when he disagreed with me.

    Science is the scientific method. He's talking about (presumably) the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties, which is something the scientific method specifically trys to mitigate by not relying on them.

    But the presupposition is still there - which was Brian's point. And my point was that people lean heavy on it and base their conclusions on it instead of going on the scientific method.

    Enjoy your afternoon. I wouldn't give Harvey Burrnet any of your money to invest though. Seems shady.

    What does Harvey Burnett have to do with the discussion? Although he would most likely agree with me, Brian, Brennon, Craig, and Moreland on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  13. But the presupposition is still there - which was Brian's point.

    Sigh... last time. Brian's point was that science presupposes that we can rely on our cognitive and sensory faculties. In reality, the scientific method actually presupposes that we cannot.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sigh... last time. Brian's point was that science presupposes that we can rely on our cognitive and sensory faculties. In reality, the scientific method actually presupposes that we cannot.

    I don't think you understand the post at all. What is it that you are disagreeing with? Scientist say that they are not relying on our cognitive and sensory faculties and yet when they comment on something they can't prove and write them off as improbable or unlikely, that is exactly what they have done. Brian is right. It's a presupposition that you can rely on your own cognitive and sensory faculties. You could not possibly saying that scientist don't do that. You also can't assume that it doesn't taint the scientific method if one is not extremely careful. Brian was not talking about scientific method in and of itself.

    ReplyDelete