Some might say this essay is the classical way that philosphers get people glassy eyed.
Recently I have read a lot of CS Lewis’ serious books, not Narnia stuff, and he gets me glassy for sure.
However Junkscience fans can handle it. I think. I read it and I’m still ok.
http://spectator.org/print/57869
Choosing not to call natural philosophy a religious belief does not change its nature. If you believe something to be true simply because it seems logical and reasonable to you based on a set of assumptions than you are exercising faith. The validity of your beliefs is independent of your motivation. Whether we work for financial gain or public edification, the truth remains the truth regardless of our machinations. No matter what a person’s goals may have been, if they are wrong then they are wrong. The consequences of spreading assumption masquerading as knowledge will be the same regardless of the reasoning behind the error. History is full of examples of people who have been sincerely wrong.
Religion is not based on observation or measurements. Religion is a belief in an assumption that seeks to explain observations and measurements. We do not need faith to believe in what we can observe and measure. Another way of saying it is that Science seeks to document what is happening; religion and philosophy seek to explain why it is happening.
Philosophical beliefs come and go but the truth remains the same. Science, by its most basic definition, is knowledge. If we empirically observe and measure phenomenon in an unbiased and repeatable way than we know it to be true. If we arrive at a conclusion by degrees of assumptions based on assumptions, no matter how logical or reasonable those assumptions may be, we do not honestly KNOW that our beliefs are the truth.
My objection is to the large number of assumptions being taught as though they were known truths based on observation and evidence. There are some things that we will simply never know. Without a time machine, many of the assumptions on which we base textbooks and journals will never be elevated to the status of known fact. It is my opinion that an honest practitioner of science should openly admit and even enjoy the ineffable mysteries of the universe rather than delude people by claiming to have figured it all out simply because the explanation sounds reasonable.
The biggest loss attributable to the habit of passing off natural philosophy as science is the generations of people who go through life under the impression that there is no longer any need to analyze and experiment on a topic because they were given the false impression that the answers had already been found simply because someone decades or centuries ago imagined a scenario based on logical assumptions.
GH05T, there are actually two general ways to do science. One way is what we call the scientific method, which has to include doing experimentation to arrive at an answer. The other way, a much older way, is called natural philosophy, which involves some logical thought process to arrive at an answer. Both the scientific method and natural philosophy are valid, but some of our current science is actually natural philosophy because it falls outside the scientific method. For example, chemistry is a good example of the scientific method, as most chemistry is defined by certain experiments. On the other hand, geology is a good example of natural philosophy (except where it rubs elbows with chemistry). Many geologic concepts are based upon observation, proxy measurements, and logical thinking. Very few geologic concepts can be tested with direct experimentation (not that there is anything wrong with that).
The gray area here is where we can draw the line between natural philosophy and religion. Because religion can be based upon observation, proxy measurements, and logical thinking. Which is probably why Sir Isaac Newton wrote as much about his religious thoughts, as he did about his scientific thoughts. So, we base a lot of geological knowledge on untested assumptions, but we don’t call geology a religious belief.
So I would suggest that a new criteria be created, to separate valid natural philosophy (including religion) from invalid natural philosophy. An invalid natural philosophy is a belief-system which appears to be based upon separating large numbers of people from large amounts of their money. A valid natural philosophy is a belief-system that seeks no monetary reward, or increase of control, but appears to be a legitimate search for truth and knowledge. In which case some of the TV-evangelists and Al Gore would fit in with the invalid natural philosophy, and people like C.S. Lewis and Stephen Hawking would fit in with the valid natural philosophy.
To me science is about fact or fiction, literal right or wrong. Where science fails is when it creeps into narratives and moral questions of good or bad. If I find a crystal on the ground and assert that it is quartz I am either right or wrong and there are tests to be done that will prove or disprove my assertion.
Claims that the crystal is somehow good for me or that it was formed over 250 million years ago when open fissures in the bedrock became filled by crystallization of quartz from hot, silicon-rich waters are conjectural and therefor stray into the realm of philosophy and religion. The biggest problem for the public at large is the practice of reporting and teaching scientific sounding philosophy and religion as though it were proven fact. Any narrative which requires the believer to exercise faith in a set of untested assumptions is a religious belief. Not science.
Sometimes, we must be reminded of the obvious.