david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (05/07/84)
[!] Chris Minson sent me a note about Science vs. Theology/Philosophy, which I'd like to present to spark some discussion on the subject (reprinted with permission from Chris): >About the "Why" questions. Aren't questions like "why am I here?" >fundamentally congruent to "why are there triangles?" I just >don't see how one can get a logical handle on such questions. >That was my point; if you can't get a logical handle on it >it isn't proper material for science. Such questions can be left >to theology, but in practice theology seems to use the same logical >methods found in science (after we get past the faith-inspired >premises). Therefore, one wonders about the validity of >theological research into such questions and the answers produced >therof. I think we can safely lump philosophy in with theology. First, I don't think that science handles all questions within the realm of logic; the scientific method demands repeatability, which, while logical, further limits the scope of science as a tool. But I'd like to throw the question out to anyone else. I'd be especially interested in any works which discuss the scope of Science as a tool, and its interaction with theology and/or philosophy. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
crm@duke.UUCP (Charles R. Martin) (05/10/84)
I am going to once again react to one little taken-out-of-context thing, then reply generally... (if anyone notices a little flame around the edges here, well...) David Norris said in the article to which I am replying that we can safely lump philosophy in with theology. No. In fact, philosophy has often -- perhaps usually! -- been in conflict with theology. (Consider that Plato and Socrates were both strongly opposed to the then-current religion; or consider that Spinoza was "excommunicated" from the Jewish community for his views.) Philo- sophy has been the only branch of knowledge which has *defended* us from theology. Philosophy gets a lot of bad press nowadays, but that is because any time something in philosophy becomes really well-defined, we name it something else. Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, and the first 4000 years of the history of logic were history of philosophy. (EOFlame) As to references in the philosophy of science, perhaps the best is Popper's *Logik der Forschuung*, translated as "the Logic of Scientific Discovery" or some such (the book isn't right at hand). A better simple exposition is in Popper's autobiography, "Unended Quest", which is also a really fascinating book!
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (05/11/84)
> >In fact, philosophy has often -- perhaps usually! -- been in conflict >with theology. (Consider that Plato and Socrates were both strongly >opposed to the then-current religion; or consider that Spinoza was >"excommunicated" from the Jewish community for his views.) Philo- >sophy has been the only branch of knowledge which has *defended* us >from theology. But Plato and Socrates were not atheists were they? Were these really against theology, or religion, in general, or just opposed to a specific theology. It is eaiser to lump theology and philosophy together than to try to separate them. In practice they have been greatly intermingled. They address similar types of questions. > >As to references in the philosophy of science, perhaps the best >is Popper's *Logik der Forschuung*, translated as "the Logic >of Scientific Discovery" or some such (the book isn't right at hand). >A better simple exposition is in Popper's autobiography, "Unended >Quest", which is also a really fascinating book! > I think philosopher's like Popper and the Logical Empiricists (aka the Vienna Circle) have given a very idealistic view of science. It may be fascinating, but not an accurate or realistic view. For a contrast to that stuff, I would strongly suggest reading "Betrayer's of the Truth" by William Broad and Nicholas Wade [1982 Simon & Schuster. See especially chapters 7 and 11, "The Myth of Logic" and "The Failure of Objectivity"] and Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" [1970 U. of Chicago Press]. Paul Dubuc