JavaMan writes:
Now science is like a literary analysis of a poem.
Is it? I think testability and repetition are key parts of science that are not involved in literary analysis. Poetry appeals to peoples emotions and experience and its interpretation is subjective.
JavaMan writes:
So just as this poem can be analysed in terms of the poet's use of insect imagery, or her use of dashes for punctuation, so human life can be analysed in terms of its biochemistry or its evolutionary history.
Is that right? I still think that even on big issues, 100 scientific interpretations (where evidence exists and we are not postulating) will be more uniform than 100 analyses of a poem.
JavaMan writes:
... the attempt by those with a scientific world view to claim that the scientific analysis is more real than the human experience, as if a literary critic were to claim that the literary analysis were more important than the poem being analysed.
Well for me I think that (to the extent we can agree that reality is objective and solid whether we experience it or not) scientific analysis is more real. Now that doesn't mean my human experience isn't real, I'm experiencing it and it certainly is real to me. However, because my experience occurs in my head, as a result of filtering, rationalisation, conditioning, etc. my human experience is often wrong. I am sure we have all been certain of having witnessed a particular event in a certain way and been surprised to find that our recollection or interpretation is simply incorrect. Witness the variation in police witness reports for the same crime.
That we can individually verify that the earth is spherical by observation, or calculate the relative gas compositions of air and agree every time suggests to me that a scientific world view is more likely to be correct than my experience, especially when repeated observations disagree with me or my intuition. I'd hold relativity as an example, I'm regularly shocked by the realisation that the universe makes sure light travels at the same speed no matter what I do. The Monty Hall dilemna is another good counter-intuitive example where I know my initial human experience is simply wrong.
While I have lurked here for a couple of years, I have never engaged Faith(or anyone) in posting, and it would impolite of me to comment on her position. However, I think that because qualia is by its nature subjective, anyone trusting it more than science has at least slight solipsist tendancies. Distrust of science may be misunderstanding in many cases, I suspect it also partly a desire to not doubt that oneself is not only fallible but largely a product of our experience - an internal and ultimately incommunicable experience at that.
As you say JavaMan, science is conducted by people, with all the same desires and emotions as the rest of us, it strikes me as natural that human mistakes are made. We should treat these mistakes as we would any other human failings. Luckily testability usually wins over, this for me is very comforting, if it were not the case the universe would truly be a very odd place.
What does this mean for faith(the thing not the poster)? I think its value is in the use that those who have it find, and its harm is the extent that those who have use it for validating opinions that are harmful to others or demonstrably fallacious.
I am not a scientist, but I would tick the scientific world view box.
Hm, constructing well formed and considered posts is harder than it looks. My respect for the members of this community has just increased.
™ Version 4.2
