Replies

There is no science in and of itself.

I think it's easy to lose sight of this. Neils Bohr's take on the issue is fascinating to me:

...We realize the simple fact that natural science is not nature itself but a part of the relation between man and nature, and therefore is dependent on man.

Man, in his relation to nature, is "suspended in language" when he attempts to articulate that relation. And that gets complicated; for as Bohr noted,

"A word is such a complicated thing that we couldn't possibly hope to represent it by a mathematical symbol. A mathematical symbol [the language of natural science] can only represent that discrete aspect of the word which is at the center of our thoughts. However, I need hardly stress that the word itself raises something into the full light of consciousness, but at the same time, it raises many other things which are only in a shaded light. And all these things enter into our consciousness at the same time. What surrounds the word provides it with meaning. And so we are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is "up" and what is "down."

Which to me gives the lie to the idea of science as an independent "thing in itself." The reduction of science to doctrine -- as is evidently the case with, say, neo-Darwinism -- denies the irremedial contingency and indeterminacy that characterizes man's relation to nature. It seems to me "the observer problem" is alive and well here. Yet it seems to me there must be some Truth "beyond" nature that does not depend on man in order for the world to hold together, thus to make science possible in the first place.

To me, another name for that Truth is ... Logos -- in the sense of Saint John's Gospel. FWIW.

Thank you for your great posts, cornelis!

We realize the simple fact that natural science is not nature itself but a part of the relation between man and nature

Great quote, betty boop. And as you say, there is an "irremedial contingency and indeterminacy that characterizes man's relation to nature."

This interaction between the knowing person and the objects of knowledge is a relation that demands honesty and humility.

Think about it. Our situation is one of limited knowledge. Don't we do a disservice in the education of the next generation to pretend otherwise?

Which to me gives the lie to the idea of science as an independent "thing in itself." The reduction of science to doctrine -- as is evidently the case with, say, neo-Darwinism -- denies the irremedial contingency and indeterminacy that characterizes man's relation to nature. It seems to me "the observer problem" is alive and well here. Yet it seems to me there must be some Truth "beyond" nature that does not depend on man in order for the world to hold together, thus to make science possible in the first place.

Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe often points out that science is the interpretation of the facts of nature, not the facts themselves (analogous to how theology is the interpretation of the facts of God's word. Just as there can be good and bad theology, there can be good and bad science. But facts are facts, regardless of the interpretation).

I don't believe an interpretation is possible without being affected by some sort of bias of the worldview of the interpreter. An example might be whether or not a person holds to a dualistic view (body and soul) of human nature - the study of the mind, of ethics (is sociology a science?), etc., are all impacted by how the one doing the studying views the roots of human nature.

In such a view, it doesn't seem (as you point out) that science can be some sort of standalone endeavour, untainted or unaffected by human prejudices.

The unilateral discarding of metaphysics would seem, in a number of areas, to greatly impact how successful science can be at providing satisfactory and/or complete answers.