>1) Science is an enterprise undertaken by human beings therefore
>there is room for fallacy.
>2) As an ideal, a scientist would have his work reviewed by other
>scientists who could pass judgement on the merits of the idea itself,
>rather than forming an ole boy network to keep competing ideas out and
protecting the status quo.
>However, since scientists are humans, they too give in to these
>weaknesses. The peer-review process behaves as
>a "closed club" network and while this may not be intentional, the
>current system is set up that way--thus peer review is not so hot a
>system for placing "faith" in science.
>3) Most scientific studies and experiements are never validated by
>replication, thus to depend on this as a safe-check method is not a
>good idea. That is, to assume that it has been replicated or proven
>could be a fatal mistake (in finding the truth).
>4) A good healthy dose of skepticism should be used when looking at
>scientific assertions. We should want to at least see some proof for
>the claim, including any information which shows that the experiments
>or findings have been successfully repeated or, which is just as
>important, that they could not be repeated. At this present time, this
almost
>never happens.
>I still insist the book "Betrayers of the Truth" is a pretty good
>read. Believe it or not, there is much I did not quote--good stuff.
>Chardin
>> David McFadzean
List,
Why must scientists base their beliefs on refutations of religion and visa
versa? The memetic idea is a good one (that <fiath> encourages others to
disregard logic). But, aren't either science or religion based on a
philosophical perspective which is coherent enough to do what they do
respectively (or even cooperate where that is possible) without attacking
the other system. Aren't we lookeing for objective reality, or truth?
Don't both systems attempt to do that?
It would seem that a person who determines reality using faith must be in
short supply of it to destroy another's faith/logic in order to boost their
own supply (the same for scientists). If a logician or an adherent has to
stoop to finding fault with others, then their own system is incomplete. I
have never found any difficulty with using both faith and logic to confirm
what my senses tell me. I have no doubt that good science is about
explaining exactly what the faithful are looking for, an *understanding* of
cause and effect.
Although this seems like a critique of Chardin for trying to disprove
science in order to bolster her faith (and it is that, too), there is an
important question here as well. Is there, on some level, a basic
difference in the view of reality that the two--science and religion--are
trying to establish...I mean, is it somehow true that if there is a prime
cause then science cannot function--or if there is not does science function
any better?
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Magpie, n.:
A bird whose theivish disposition suggested to someone that
it might be taught to talk.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"