At 6/17/2012 1:30:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:51:27 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/17/2012 11:46:50 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: and instead of giving this everything about science is hopeless, Why are you not helping fixing the bugs. That is may attitude, I think its can be proven that we are progressing for sure. I have some awsome theories. Its a matter of communication, But I am saving it for my thesis.
Again, you misrepresent me. I'm not saying science is hopeless so therefore God. What I am saying is that the presuppositions of science render it ineffective for it to encompass all knowledge. Science is empirical, but there are also rational truths.
But nothing beyond science is "knowable".
^this is my aim, this is what I want to bring out & deny right here. Science is predicated upon the very things which it cannot prove, so by definition there ARE other knowable things apart from science, & which, interestingly enough, make science knowable in the first place.
We know 2+2=4 because the Peano axioms are immediate to us, we know that no event precedes itself because it's immediate to us that temporal becoming is real, we know that the external world is real because it's immediate to us.
These are all rational truths which science presupposes yet doesn't seek to prove. So by definition there are other truths, indeed important ones, other than science.
In order for one to know something, that fact must be
a) logically understandable, and
b) capable of being interpreted by our limited senses.
Empiricism therefore dictates our understanding.
^these criteria logically contradict themselves: For example, is something that is logically understandable capable of being interpreted by our limited sense? No! You might say we perceive them to be true or they are self-evident, but that's not being apprehended by our senses. So at best what you offer as a criteria for knowledge is necessary but not sufficient conditions.
Further still, is it empirical that empiricism dictates our understanding? No! It's rational to accept empirical proves, but that's rationalism at the end of the day, something that Empiricism presupposes.
Indeed this is a weak evidentialist account of epistemology, and has since been refuted by the greatest modern philosophers of science. See Plantinga, McGrew, Goetz, Koontz, Rescher, Lennox (James & John), etc.
You're right in saying that science does not encompass all knowledge, but my argument is that science encompasses all "achievable" knowledge. I'd like it if you could elaborate on what part of theism provides more legitimate knowledge than science. Otherwise, there is no necessity to believe in theism.
I'm not saying if we believe in theism than we believe it necessarily, man this crowd really misrepresents me with so many straw men! It's really quite predictable. lol!
Regarding the bold, I agree that science is about achieving more knowledge, which interestingly enough, diminishes as information increases (see Rescher). Anyhow I disagree that science encompasses all
achievable knowledge. Since I can achieve the knowledge that I'm being appeared to redly when I see a red apple. All science can do is tell me about light waves interacting, it cannot tell me the mental states of my being appeared to redly. Yet I know
that I'm being appeared to redly!
So it seems to me that your criteria are simply wanting, and indeed philosophers of science broadly recognize today that there are no sufficient conditions for making something 'scientific' ... see "the demarcation problem of science."