Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: grey_whiskers

>>Science can only labor inside a materialistic world.

This seems to contradict your statement in post 66,
“Science is not making the absolute statement. Science is a tool we use to determine things, not an answer to all things.”<<

No, the fact science labors within a materialistic world does not say that it knows all about that world.

Incidentally, wouldn’t you think that the accuracy of your >>statement is affected by who one is attempting to view the results / predictions of science? I.e., for science to be “absolutely true” one ought to insist on no supernatural; for science to be “hey, we don’t know for sure, but it works pretty well in the meantime” Deism or theism with only rare miracles, which make sure to keep themselves out of the lab would be sufficient, for “we’ll we’re building models to generalize observations based on limited observations under controlled conditions, but make no claims to TRUTHTM”, then the supernatural doesn’t affect things too much.<<

You lurch into the philosophical, which, although fun, is off-track from my main point. There is no process in science, no theory, no mechanism, no place for “here a supernatural being does something.”

The supernatural as a wrapper around science is perhaps a valid pursuit or concept, but that is also and completely in the realm oh philosophy.


72 posted on 10/25/2009 5:30:53 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: freedumb2003
Semantic difference.

I took the "can only labor inside a materialistic world" to mean "science itself can only hope to be fruitful" {if and only if, in the logical syllogism, not the vernacular sense} the world is in fact materialistic".

This is not what you are saying, as far as I can see. Rather, you are saying, science is only equipped, prepared, capable of dealing with the material, all else, whether there is any such or not, is outside the purview of science.

In a certain fashion, I agree completely; in another, not at all. (What does one do when -- for the sake of argument, assuming there *is* a supernatural -- it interacts with the material world? It leads to paradoxes, or "unexplained phenomena", or gets hidden in the noise, as far as the science is able to ascertain.)

Pass, and all's well.

74 posted on 10/25/2009 6:35:33 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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