It is your position that all universal truths can or will eventually be discovered by science? That there are none excluded by definition or by method?
As I said, check back in a few hundred years.
I have so little interest in philosophy that I don't even care to debate it. For one thing, how does a philosopher know that he has come up with a correct answer? What test does a philosopher apply to determine his answer is correct, rather than just rhetoric?
I think you should continue this discussion with Alamo-Girl and betty boop. They would probably enjoy it far more than I would. I have pinged them to this post.
Well, you quoted Asimov concerning assumptions. Logic is within the discipline of philosophy. Falsifiability is a philosophical concept not a scientific one.
Thanks for the ping!
The short answer: Logic and reason, the same "tests" that scientists use. Don't forget: the natural sciences are first-born of philosophy; the subdiscipline of epistemology is particularly strongly emphasized. (What do we know? How do we know it? How do we know we know it?)
Coyoteman, I gather you'd answer dan1123's query -- "...is [it] your position that all universal truths can or will eventually be discovered by science? That there are none excluded by definition or by method?" -- in the affirmative. Evidently you believe that in a few hundred years you'll have corroborating evidence for this expectation.
"There are two forms of evidence, direct and indirect. Direct evidence for the existence of postulated entities means that the entities directly impinge upon human or machine sensors. Indirect evidence for postulated entities and their behavior means that there is no direct evidence. However, using defined scientific logic and the assumed behavior for the postulated entities that themselves cannot be directly observed, verified predictions are made in the behavior of other entities that can be directly observed. The major examples of where indirect evidence is a mainstay are atomic physics and early-history cosmology. [Plus Darwin's evolution theory is another prime example....].*** According to the author of the above -- the mathematician Robert A. Herrmann, "Metaphysical" (or "supernatural") is defined as "any entity that is not confined to material space and observer time." In general, such entities are considered to reside in realms "exterior" to any defined physical universe or universes. "Metaphysical processes are also not so confined, they are initiated by metaphysical entities and must employ procedures that are not defined as physical in character.""In physical science, a language is used to describe physical laws and physical behavior. The descriptions follow logical patterns that include classical logic, as well as certain modifications of classical logic and some aspects of universal logic. These patterns are termed as "scientific logic." For all that follows, a rational description is any description that satisfies such logical patterns. Although Marx and Engels suggested that other dialectical methods might be used, this has not occurred. Science communities could simply state, 'the metaphysical does not exist.'*** However, as so stated, they would be condemned for employing the unacceptable ad hoc method. Spurred on by the often-stated notion that metaphysical discourse is inherently irrational and scientific discourse is definably rational, scientific atheism and those philosophic systems that presupposed this belief system consider the following, explicit or implicit, hypothesis as irrefutable.
"Secular Hypothesis"Today, based upon aspects of "scientism," secular humanists, secular scientists, ... most atheists and even certain so-called theologians accept this secular hypothesis. Relative to human comprehension, they also accept the following axiom.
It is impossible to give a rational description that combines accepted human laws of behavior, physical laws or physical behavior based upon such laws with metaphysical concepts such as the behavior and attributes of a deity, the Christian concept of a higher intelligence, various Trinity notions, miracles, a metaphysical notion of 'evil' entities [or metaphysical influences of human thought], among others.
"Axiom of Physical Consistency
A description for any portion of reality is acceptable if and only if it is a rational description." [emphasis added]
But this is precisely what the secular hypothesis rejects. It stipulates that the scientific method should be applied in all fields of investigation whatever, and that "all meaningful questions can be answered by using a scientific method." The name for this presupposition is scientism, not science.
As Dr. Herrmann points out, scientism is a philosophical system with a hidden premise: that reason and logic can be applied to physical entities only. Dr. Herrmann characterizes this rationale as the consequence of "the extreme egotistical belief that given enough time the human mind will describe, via scientific logic, all important aspects of physical behavior, social behavior, etc., as well as 'explain' all observed phenomena using a scientific method."
That, to me, is like looking at reality through a preconceived filter that screens out more than it lets in.... The parts that are "filtered out" are still very much as real as the parts the scientific method can admit.
Giving Dr. Herrmann the last word: "From a purely abstract and unemotional viewpoint, it can be minimally stated that Christianity with its metaphysical component is just as 'real' as any scientific theory based upon mathematical models."
Just some food for thought....
Thanks for the ping Coyoteman!