NavList:

   

Reply

Dear Mike,

> I think that you mistake my point: I agree violently
> with you about the value that science has delivered.

OK.

> I do not therefore wish to argue aginst the theory of
> gravitation....a theory is after all an explanation
> for a phenomenon that an observer describes. In this
> case the theory, the explanation, fits very well to
> the observed phenomenon, it has utility.

Ok, I can give other examples which are not observable in
our daily life (and would never be observable if not because
of science). Electricity.

Can you imagine some "indigeneous culcure" (American Indians,
Ancient Egyptians, Pacific Islanders, Ancient Chinese...)
inventing an electric motor, telephone, ....
on purely empirical basis?
Just by experimenting in their daily life.
(Like apparently the fire, the wheel and other basic things were
invented). Or penicillin, for example.

> In other cicumstances that may not be so. In other
> circumstances an alternative framework of explanation
> may operate with greater utility.

Like what, for example?
I can imagine two broad areas for this:
1. There is always an "unexplored territory",
the area where science did not penetrate yet.
That's clear and natural. The area of phenomena explained by
scientific theories always expands. There is always a space to
expand to.
2. The notions of "good and evil", "Justice" and like. Which
are apparently just
human invention (or determined by God, depending of ones beliefs)

Science never even claimed to explain this or interfere.

> We should always have our eyes open to this
> possibility.

What else?
Specific examples.

Again, the point I was trying to make is that science
is the only available method of establishing (some) truths
about the real world,
beyong the reasonable doubts, INDEPENDNENTLY of someone's
beliefs.

You seemed to be objecting this statement.
But you only said that you disagree.
Without any further details.

Alex.

P.S. If we continue this discussion, I propose to
avoid the examples from physics after 1930.
The reason is that neither I, nor you (I suppose;
correct me if I am wrnng here) understand it well enough.
So let's stick to the science we both understand:
from Archimedian Law to penicillin, say:-)
or even to DNA.
Examples are plenty.

Alex.

   

Reply