Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: spirited irish
Science is merely the art of observation, of weights, measurements and hypothesis. It is in fact the lowest order of knowledge, metaphysics being of the highest.

An interesting but extremely odd point of view, IMO.

I quite agree that science is often perverted in today's world into scientism, in which proponents of various ideologies attempt to use science to promote their ideas in realms where science is not applicable.

But the scientific method is the only method we (presently) have for knowing anything on the "fact" level, as opposed to the speculation or faith level.

I can (and do) believe in things that aren't demonstrable facts, as such, but I cannot really have any logical reason for expecting others to do the same. And science is the only method we have available for demonstrating facts to be such.

IOW, we can demonstrate by repeatable experiment that gravity is a fact. We cannot demonstrate the existence of God or his nature to the same level of factual certainty.

While I don't rank these various types of belief, I think it odd to claim that the only one we can demonstrate to be true is the "lowest" on the scale, while those supported solely by mental gymnastics are the "highest."

153 posted on 01/18/2013 7:02:59 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

“We cannot demonstrate the existence of God or his nature to the same level of factual certainty.”

Spirited: Neither can you demonstrate your dreams, memory, and thoughts, yet you accept their existence.

Furthermore, facts, principles, theories, suppositions, presuppositions, etc. are of the unseen realm, they occur within mind which is spirit. They are not things we can see, touch, smell, weigh, measure, etc.

How very bizarre that on one hand, empiricists deny things of the unseen realm while on the other they are forced to utilize mind to make their utterly absurd claims.


160 posted on 01/18/2013 10:08:26 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan
Try reading up on the history of classical thought -- note that for the longest time (until technology began to catch up, and the transition in thought from scholasticism to empiricism was mated with beginning to ask for mechanism rather than "motivation"), the "natural sciences" were thought of as sickly weak sisters to the other disciplines.

The shoe definitely is on the other foot now.

Cheers!

199 posted on 01/19/2013 5:53:52 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson