[Buddha-l] science #3

[Bob Zeuschner]

Dan --
Your reference to a "grounding" that science lacks, seems to me to be 
misleading.
The "ground" that Islamic and Chrisitian "science" offers (and which 
science lacks) seems to me to be precisely:
The ground of all science and scientific laws and principles is that an 
incomprehensible being using incomprehensible laws for incomprehensible 
purposes made it that way.
I find that to be no ground whatsoever.
Science does not use arguments from authority; the concenses of 
scientists is based on empirical arguments such as --
If theory X is correct, we should observe Y.
We observe Y.
This provides CONFIRMATION of a theory (but not proof).

If theory X is incorrect, we should observe Y.
We do observe Y.
Therefore, theory X is incorrect.

I do recognize that it is more complex than this (a network of 
assumptions about reality), but I fail to see how Islamic and Christian 
science overcomes their appeal to authority, but to an authority which 
is ultimately incomprehensible (revelation, divinity).
Bob

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> science is deluded, the religionists arguing that secular science is 
> misguided science because it prohibits itself precisely from those 
> aspects of its subject that make it universal (while claiming universal 
> validity), while the secularists argue that the religionists go beyond 
> the evidence. That impasse leaves both alternatives as oxymorons or 
> untenabilities.
>  
> It is precisely the lack of such epistemological grounding in the 
> secular sciences that prompted Husserl to write his last major work, 
> _The Crisis of European Sciences_.
>  
> One can take the attitude which most 20th c. scientists took toward 
> their work, i.e., a kind of pragmatism that said it's good enough if it 
> seems to work for now, whether or not we can articulate solid grounding 
> principles or not. We can then shift our attention to methods, rather 
> than grounds, as many scientists have also done. But, whether addressed 
> or not, that does eventually lead to a crisis -- such as the obvious 
> lack of philosophical ability that contemporary scientists -- 
> evolutionists, physicists -- demonstrate when challenged by Rightwing 
> Christians employing epistemological challenges to their discipline. The 
> best the scientists usually muster in their defense are arguments from 
> authority ("the consensus of scientists we consider legitimate today 
> agree that..."). They are in crisis.