Post by Auburn on Nov 3, 2013 1:49:50 GMT -5
As said above, science uses both empiricism and rationalism. Most people cannot afford to go to space to see for themselves whether the Earth is flat or round.
Right, and there is little difference between present day humans and those one or two thousand years ago.
So if I was born a few hundred years back you'd tell me to believe the scientists of those times (or the equivalent human-collective-knowledge instructors, pawns of the pope most likely ) and I'd be believing the world is flat. Scarcity of time/lifetime does not justify a rational flaw. It seems your argument is that because we have a limited lifespan we have to just hope/depend on the collective human knowledge to be correct enough to fill the gaps we haven't explored. The correct logical approach to this dilemma is to simply claim agnosticism.
But practically speaking I suppose if you trust the premises of a method (i.e. Scientific Method) then there's a decent chance that the deductions others draw from their endeavors using this methodology would be conclusions you'd be in support of. I get that.
I am not in opposition to the Scientific Method as it is practiced by the scientists* themselves. What I am opposed(?) to is all the other non-scientists who depend on the scientists doing things correctly, rather than they themselves being the inquirers who have adept enough logical capacity to discern those truths. When I debate with people on online forums, it often becomes readily apparent which type they are. The 'scientists' will treat me as if I was a fellow scientist, as if we're in the lab right now and we were the highest qualified to investigate this, and debate with me one on one. The non-scientist will tell me I'm not a scientist and that my arguments are silly because they're not scientifically supported. (the irony)
* - I define a scientist as someone who thinks/processes and deduces with a particular rational methodology. Any laymen can do this, and even some certified "scientists" don't. My 18 year old brother can do this better than my (former) co-worker Pharmacists. I define a scientist more in the sense of Aristotle's philosophy - where people were encouraged to be liberal skeptics and be their own authority of their own opinion (and no authority of anyone else's).
It sounds like you're the type of person I'd enjoy a long 3 hour verbal debate with, were we to meet in person, and we'd eventually come to agree on most things. (ever had that happen?) I don't think we're examining things that differently, just mostly differing in semantics and a few shades of deduction. Though posts bottle-neck how much can be shared in a short time, and I've certainly taken a lot of your time already. o.o