Posted on 07/18/2002 10:17:50 AM PDT by nuda_veritas
The set of "Knowable reality" encompasses far more than the set of "truths".
Perhaps we have a definitional problem to overcome. If something is, if it exists in reality, then a statement that it exists is a "truth." If something is of value, "x is better than y," then this statement of its value is a "truth."
I'm defining "truth" as what is true in reality. I would reverse your statement and say that we cannot, likely, know all of reality (humans have finite limits). So "knowable reality" would be a subset of all truth about reality.
"Most of the universal "truths" do not exist yet in the set of "knowable reality".
"Most" and "universal" would need clarification. I'd start with substituting "absolute" for universal. "Most" we could leave out of consideration for now, I think. (We'd have to deteremine the set of all absolutes, and that might distract from the basic discusssion.)
We can however know some very basic absolute truths. In fact, it is impossible for self-conscious humans to act without at least assuming some absolutes. The alternative, all conditional truths, must have some absolute on which to begin. All of us act as if we have knowledge of basic absolute truths, yourself included.
"Science is the job of moving those "truths" into that set."
Only a subset of all possible knowable truths: those that can be known using through the physical senses (and their extensions-telescopes, microscopes…)
This strict sense empiricism must leave out "values" (in the sense of better than). For example, one molecule is not better than another, life is not better than death (except for its utility to the experiment). This is how science should and must be. It's its strength, but also its limitation.
So science is the firmest form of "truth," yes, but it is not the only truths we can know, and as I've said, we cannot function with what can be known by the senses alone.
There are things that can be supposed/theorized or be articles of faith. These may be treated as reality but it does not transform them to provable "truths".
Provable using scientific method? No, of course not. Only those things that can be known through sense empiricism (as well as having number, size and simple location) can be known by science.
Again, science is the most firm knowledge, it is the knowledge of rocks, material. But we do not wish to limit ourselves to this subset of knowledge. If we did, for example, we'd have to leave out a great deal of what you think of as science. Science itself has to take a great deal for granted, supposed/articles of faith. For starters, that the universe is everywhere consistent and that we can trust our sense experience. These cannot be proven using science alone.
"We learn to deal and find practical use everyday for things we do not understand."
And one of the ways we deal with reality everyday is to know, or assume we know, absolute (unconditional/non-scientifically-provable) truths. We can act as though we know them unaware that we do so; we can choose to assume them based on other people's view; or we can explore what we can know about them for ourself, by direct personal experience, and by then comparing results with others examining the same areas.
The latter route is one definition of religion: the exploration of absolute truths through empiricism. It's the definition of religion that I prefer, though it is not the one in popular use. Still it's a very common method, or practice, of many religious folks around the world for many centuries.
It's likely the method of religion that would appeal to many of a scientific bent - like me - perhaps you too. Though many scientists are not at all interested.
Still, scientists should not make the logical error of going from "it cannot be known by science" to "therefore it does not exists."
It did just that. They demonstrated how more complex biological molecules can arise out of a mixture of inorganic chemicals under certain conditions.
Entropy is a positive number. God is a negative number.
I think of "creation" as being the opposite of entropy. Whether by God, or by any other means (ourselves, for example). Any creative act launches in the face of entropy, and is a momentary defiance of it.
"Life" is the opposite of entropy.
I prefer scientific "truth" to mean that which exists independent of the perceptions or thoughts of humans.
I prefer "reality" to encompass the entirety of the world as perceived by, thought of and acting upon humankind.
For instance, the unknowable, or unprovable, may be treated as an article of faith by an individual. As such, that faith does indeed form a part of his reality. Yet it may be directly counter to the faith of another individual.
That these two "faiths" exist is real, but that does not render both of them "true". (Hence, the motivation behind so many religions to "prove" their own faith to be true by disproving the faith of the other.)
For me I readily accept God as real and true. I pursue science as a means to learn more about the truth of Gods universe. I do not fear "truth" conflicting with my faith, because those truths could only be correcting human misunderstanding. (Humans err, the truth just is.)
I can accept an article of faith being shown to be false. Only a greater, stronger faith can thus evolve.
Your statement is positively medieval and in conflict with the great religions of today.
As one example:
"May the faithful, therefore, live in very close union with the other men of their time and may they strive to understand perfectly their way of thinking and judging, as expressed in their culture. Let them blend new sciences and theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and the teaching of Christian doctrine, so that their religious culture and morality may keep pace with scientific knowledge and with the constantly progressing technology. Thus they will be able to interpret and evaluate all things in a truly Christian spirit."
-- Gaudium et Spes -- (Part 2), Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Second Vatican Council, 1965
Now admitting the soup theory of abiogenesis was "watered down". Plus, I always thought you Darwinians kept such abiogenesis theories at arms length, so it should have no bearing at all in any discussion of Darwininian theories.
I am happy to point out that this supports my contention that deep space is the most viable source of the required reactants for the formation of life. Despite this supporting evidence, I still don't trust the results in isolation. The traces of a chiral amino acid in space would be the next step. The "icing" on the cake would be the discovery of polypeptides/proteins on comets/meteors in space. It is possible that complex organics could be found on Jupiter or Neptune. Look for Darwininian evidence on the planet prior to Neptune.
" So as to avoid a debate in epistemology…"
How can we when discussing what we know and how we know it? I'm afraid epistemology is unavoidable in this subject.
"I prefer scientific "truth" to mean that which exists independent of the perceptions or thoughts of humans."
That would work for a definition of objective reality, or the objective component of reality. However, the term "scientific" is either misused here or is changed in definition.
Since this is, I think, key to understanding our differences, let's try to narrow in on it.
First, the problems I see in your definition. "…that which exists independent of the perceptions or thoughts of humans" is not limited to science or what can be proved by science. If, for example, what I would call God exists " independent of the perceptions or thoughts of humans" it would fit your definition, but not necessarily be provable using materialism or sense perceptions alone.Do you see my point here? "Scientific" and "independent of humans" are not necessarily indentical.
Your second definition: ""reality" = the entirety of the world as perceived by, thought of and acting upon humankind" could serve to describe human perceptions and interactions, but "reality" is more than this. Reality is what is real, what actually exists and is true, whether or not humans perceive it or interact with it.
"I pursue science as a means to learn more about the truth of Gods universe."
If by "science" here you mean pure science or the scientific method, then the only truths of God's universe you can know by this means are sensual and material. And, I think your religion likely aspires to more than sense empiricism and materialism.
"I readily accept God as real and true."
Using science alone, why?
"I'm afraid epistemology is unavoidable in this subject. "
I personally avoid it because to me it is much more assertion than science. We do not know what we do not know.
I like your use of the term "objective reality". If "science" does not deal with exposure of objective realities then it is not science. I do not interchange the words science and philosophy. "Philosophy" may be closer to your definition of science. Philosophy may use science to help build a framework of understanding, but science plays only a partial role. Faith, conjecture and theory also play their parts in philosophy.
I agree of course that "science" is not "independent of humans". Science seeks proofs that cannot be credibly challenged, or proven erroneous, by the best minds and resources available. Thus the limitations are obvious, and human. However, scientific "truths" tend to remain constant whilst human perceptions, faiths and philosophies do not. No matter the belief system of an individual, scientific truths cannot be credibly denied. Thus they exist independent of human beliefs, therefore might be said to exist whether humans perceive them or not. People who do not know or observe scientific principles still abide by precisely the same laws. Did gravity exist before Newton made his famous observations?
Can scientific "truths" be denied merely because they conflict with previously held systems of faith?
(I accept God as real and true.) "...Using science alone, why?"
Who said I used science alone?
God gave humans the power to ask questions. In so doing he simultaneously created human science and human faith. Both have improved the human condition. And neither can exist without the other.
Checking on the latest on comets, etc.
That's what they said at first, but a year or two later they found it had not. The retractions are always done quietly. Indeed if it had already been proven, they would not be trying to establish that there are amino acids in space by spectographic analysis which seems to be a pretty far-fetched way of getting such proof.
You can get any kind of molecules in the lab you like with enough technology. If certain elements can bond together in nature, it can be reproduced in a lab someway or other so such an experiment does not prove anything. What would prove it is if the experiment was conducted under conditions which were similar to those that occur in nature. The conditions under which the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted have been shown not to be those which occurred in nature.
In addition to which, it was the wrong way to do things. Nature produces amino acids through DNA being transcribed by RNA into amino acids and then stringing those amino acids together to produce proteins. You can have all the amino acids you want, all the proteing you want and you will never get DNA.
In short, Miller-Urey was utter nonsense when it was made, it is utter nonsense now, and evolutionists and materialists are perpetrating a humongous lie by continuing to use such nonsense as proof of their beliefs.
These experiments were very, very low tech. The Miller/Urey was the first of these. Subsequent experiments demonstrated that nucleotide bases can also arise spontaneously in mixtures contaijing HCN. Besides the nature of the original self-replicator may not necessarily have been nucleic acid based.
Since this article had quite a few comments and interest, I have restored it. Thanks, AM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.