[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[Ham Priday]

Ian, Ron, Marsha, Platt, Gav, et al --


[Ron]:
> Essentialism is cool but it doesent help me to understand
> complex systems which is what reality is composed of.

[Marsha]:
> The achillies heel of the essentialist atheist is exposed -
> personally this kills me as I can't tell God bothering nutjobs
> what I think of them anymore with any real conviction.

[Platt]:
> To defend their faith, some scientists and many of their
> acolytes mock, demonize and marginalize competing views,
> using highly emotive language and implying that all
> "intelligent" people must agree with them.

[Gav]:
> Ham, I think that by asking that question you miss your own
> opportunity to even try and come up with something,
> would you like to join Ian out on his limb and see if
> anything springs to mind?

[Ian]:
> Ham, I'd never seen you as one of these all or nothing people.
> You are being very unscientific, by in any meaning of the word.

See, this is why I'm reluctant to engage in discussions that are off the 
philosophy track.  Ron makes some absurd allegation about the scientific 
method never having been tested, and suddenly I'm expected to come up with 
an alternative to two centuries of scientific progress.

All this hysteria stems from the notion that Science, not Philosophy, holds 
the key to the truth about reality.
The notion is founded on the fallacy that Faith has been superseded by 
empirical knowledge, and that scientists are somehow to blame for holding 
back on us.  Now just because we (even some scientists) have awakened to the 
fact that subjectivity plays a role in creating our reality, the philosopher 
is supposed to turn the scientist's methodology upside down because it 
hasn't provided the solution to problems Philosophy can't solve?  How 
ridiculous!

No, I'm not going to redesign the most rational and reliable system ever 
devised for investigating the physical world.  I don't believe the answers 
we're seeking are to be found by observing and testing matter -- whether 
it's macro, micro, or sub-quantum data.  As I've said before, the riddle of 
the universe and its creation is beyond man's finite reach.  I've also 
stated my belief that there's a logical reason for this, and I'll say it 
again:  If man had access to absolute knowledge, he would lose his autonomy 
as a free agent.  Individual freedom is a higher prize than anything Science 
will ever discover or prove.

The aim of Science is utilitarian.  Its purpose is to discover and validate 
empirical knowledge that can lead to a healthier, more efficient, more 
productive world.  The "test" of its success can be measured by the results 
of the last two centuries.  Do we not all live better, longer, and more 
efficiently as a direct result of Science's contributions?  Whatever became 
of the old adage 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'?

More knowledge about "complex systems", probability statistics, quarks and 
neutrinos, and the evolution of the universe is not what we need to learn 
the meaning of life and our relation to the primary source.  We need the 
wisdom of intuitive reflection that can only come from the study of 
Philosophy.

But as SA is sure to remind me, "That's YOUR view."

Thanks all,
Ham