The claim that atheism is also a form of faith (or at least what passes for this) so would not get better by repetition. So one can at least read it or hear. But I'm that do not learn, and I dedicate myself yet once again the subject, again from another side. For hardly a rejection that is not held against how it would be better. And in the case of faith which is typically the science, at least in the empirical sciences, or further restricts the natural sciences. So let's go to the question of what makes an empirical science into one. Laaaangweilig! Because of course there is wonderful harmony in the fact that it is the testability of a theory of experience, and in particular its refutability by experience that makes a theory of an empirical science. Here we go but still a bit further into detail.
The demand to rebuttal, that is, falsifiability, just consider two demands on a statement. Once a statement has to have a logical form that allowed a rebuttal. The beautiful example statement All bachelors are unmarried is not refutable, and the logical basis of their form. Their accuracy is ensured by the meaning of their components, and one may call such a statement analytically. (This, this point brings so his difficulties today was ignored again.) allowed if the logical form of a statement is a refutation, but that does not mean that they also experience, ie observation of the world, can be refuted. The statement God will that anyone who has sex with a menstruating, is killed (Lev 20, 18), although it allows logical refutation, but not a refutation by observation of the world. Therefore, the aggravation, to demand the next logical refutability empirically refutable.
So you now have a beautifully ordered world. Once added to the analytical statements that you can keep boring at best. Then there is the logical, but not empirically refutable statements that are bad. And then you have the empirically refutable statements, which are good and scientifically. But we can go to the empirically refutable statements a bit further into detail.
When is a statement empirically refutable? The answer is not so easy when it is time precise. It is raining outside can you check yes or empirically obvious. And how is it with Tomorrow will be here rain ? Until tomorrow, you can still wait, and then check. And what about In exactly 100 years it will regenen here? Or In just 2 million years it will rain here ? Considering all these sentences to the same extent as refutable? Probably not, but where you put the line?
But we are more fundamental. The question of when one accepts a statement as empirically refutable out, apparently the question of what methods you allow to verify a statement. And wait for 2 million years or entrails will not allow it, but only methods that are "scientific". This is the question of what is an (empirical) science, simply the question of the methods that are allowed. And that can change dramatically.
first time they may change within a scientific discipline with time. A prime example is the introduction of the telescope in astronomy. A good part of the resistance to feel the Galileo was touched, so that his contemporaries as a telescope would allow an instrument of knowledge discovery across the sky. This rejection had metaphysical reasons. The spheres of heaven were fundamentally different nature than the earth, and just because a good telescope in observing earthly objects works, that does not mean that it is also useful for observing celestial objects. And today this attitude has completely reversed. Today, it is assumed that the same natural laws that exist on earth, unchanged into the distant region of the universe are applicable. Again, this is ultimately a metaphysical assumption. Although it is logically falsifiable, but not empirically, and thus not itself (natural) science.
And also Subject to subject, the methods vary. Again you can use a recent example from astronomy. You look around for objects in the outer solar system by searching for occultations of stars by such objects. Such a measurement would then theoretically unique and unrepeatable. Certainly would gain knowledge through unique, non-repeatable and verifiable by other measurements for the physics of a nightmare. Astronomers seem to be as flexible in their time of need. Another fine example is the theory of evolution, when compared to significantly scale down the requirements for the physics is ready (survive the most adapted to living beings. And best suited the creatures that have survived. Such structures can be the theory of evolution as a physicist - go through - and rightly so. For the psychoanalytically inclined physicists probably do, methodically being picky. )
So back to the real question, what (different empirical) science than other schools of thought. Ultimately, this then, are the accepted methods. And that differ from discipline to discipline and are subject to change over time. In addition, the approval of methods metaphysical ideas flow with a significantly (which here is not empirically refutable considerations to be understood).
And the claim that scientific findings are, by their very nature, others, particularly religious, consider interpretations of the world is reduced, thus ultimately on the allegation that certain empirically refutable his other assumptions not empirically refutable assumptions preferable. And that may well be so. Just - a fundamental difference I can not see, unfortunately.
0 comments:
Post a Comment