Science is a Philosophy

On Apr 4, 8:40 am, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


That there is a body of philosophical work about subject matter X does
not make subject matter X a philosophy.

And, of course, let us not forget:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_war


I guess Sean would argue that war is a "specific view and philosophy",
too.



The following is an interesting discussion of this topic by Rand
Simberg - a "recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space
commercialization, space tourism and Internet security" who has
written many such articles that have been published on occasion by
FOXnews etc.

"Belief in the scientific method is faith, in the sense that there
are
a number of unprovable axioms that must be accepted:


1) There is an objective reality
2) It obeys universal laws
3) Its nature can be revealed by asking questions of it in the form
of
experiments
4) The simplest explanation that fits the facts is the one that
should
be preferred


There are other tenets, but these are the main ones.


My own gripe about science education in this country is that it's not
taught as a philosophy of how to attain knowledge, but rather it's
simply taught as a compendium of "facts" that must be learned. Given
that it starts out with this fundamental misunderstanding
(promulgated, unfortunately, by many incompetent science teachers),
it's not surprising that many take umbrage at the teaching of "facts"
that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.


So if science is a religion (in the sense of a belief system, which I
think it is), then is it a legitimate subject for public schools? As
I've said previously, this is largely a symptom of a much larger
problem--the fact that we have public schools, in which the "public"
will always be at loggerheads about what subjects should be taught
and
how. But given the utility of learning science (something that I
employ every day, whenever I troubleshoot my computer network, or
figure out what kinds of foods are good or bad for me), I think that
it is an important subject to which everyone should be exposed. But
if
I were teaching evolution, I would offer it as the scientific
explanation for how life on earth developed, not a "fact" or "the
truth."


The problem arises when some scientists, blind to their own faith and
its tenets, come to believe that their beliefs represent Truth, and
that those who disagree are fools and slack-jawed yokels. And with
that, I come full circle in once again agreeing with Hugh that the
media does a disservice to the debate when it doesn't respect the
beliefs of those who feel that their children are being indoctrinated
away from their faith.


....I have faith in the scientific method, but I can't prove it's the
best way to achieve knowledge to anyone who doesn't. Unlike many who
believe that the scientific method is the correct one, I admit that
this belief is based on faith.


To me, the argument of evolution versus...well, other unspecified
(and
unscientific) explanations is not about true and false--it is just
about science versus non-science. If I were to teach evolution in a
school, I would state it not as "this is what happened," but rather,
"this is what scientists believe happened."


In other words, I don't want to indoctrinate people what to believe--
I
just want to make sure that when they take a science class, that
they're getting science, and not a religion dressed up as science.
Whether they want to accept science is up to them...


....Unfortunately, the debate can tend to degenerate quickly, on both
sides. Many creationists view evolutionists as godless propagandists,
with the agenda of poisoning the minds of their children against
their
faith. Some evolutionists (particularly devout atheists), don't
recognize that their own belief system is faith based, and believe
that it really is an issue of right versus wrong."


http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/004760.html

Submitted by:

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.