[net.religion] Science as a limited tool

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