2018-02-12, 02:38 PM
(2018-02-08, 12:05 PM)Valmar Wrote: [ -> ]*Sigh* You do realize that the use scientific method isn't restricted to, nor defined by, the dogmas of reductionist materialism / physicalism, right?
Parapsychology is a field that yields very useful results while adhering to the scientific method, for example.
What I find interesting is that most people here seem to be on the same page with respect to scientific investigation - there isn’t really anything which says that particular ideas aren’t amenable to scientific investigation a priori. And this showed up in the An Alternative Look at Naturalism thread, where there was general agreement that the claim that the “supernatural” was excluded from methodological naturalism was incoherent.
Science doesn’t confine itself to material or physical causes. It only appears to do so because the products of science have turned out to be “material” and then “physical”. What I think that science confines itself to is ideas which are useful, and that objections to various “supernatural” ideas come about because they aren’t useful. For example:
(2018-01-23, 06:52 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]That depends on the definition. If it includes the fact that a supernatural agent cannot have any causal effect on the world, then I can rule it out. But yes, I can't rule out all possible definitions.
~~ Paul
I’ve been thinking for a while about what is meant by “useful”. This is what I’ve come up with so far. I’d be interested in any additions or revisions.
Knowledge is progressive. This refers to the ability to continue to build on past knowledge. Each successive generation has the state-of-the-art as its starting point (standing on the shoulders of giants). Contrast this with Buddhism, where the path to enlightenment obtained by Gautama Buddha is retrod by each successive generation, with little hope of ever even reaching those shoulders.
It distinguishes between ideas which are true or false.
It allows us to make predictions wth sufficient certainty to act on them. For example, we can launch a ship into space to eventually land on the moon prior to knowing the moment by moment position the ship takes. Contrast this with Paul’s inability to predict whether his house may or may not be shaded by a tree in his yard, under idealism.
It tightly constrains the possibilities. This doesn’t refers to limiting our creativity, but rather, whether an idea is specific. Newton’s gravity was so specific that even a very small deviation from its predictions told us that it was incomplete. Contrast this with the observation that any outcome (I am cured from cancer/I am given cancer) can be God’s will.
It generates novel information and observations. Quantum mechanics, which was concerned with the description of fundamental properties, was discovered to unexpectedly have something to say about local realism (EPR paradox). Similarly, it also told us about a new elementary particle which went unobserved til we looked for it (Higgs boson).
I’ve included a few illustrative examples, but examples of seeming exceptions, or examples which don’t seem to fall under any of those descriptions would be helpful.
I’ve posted this under “other stuff”, rather than “philosophy”, because I want this to be a description of how science actually operates, not a description of a philosophical stance which has little to do with actuality.
Linda