[MD] Alternatives to the Scientific Method

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron [repeat mailing] --


> I think faith and belief are commonly held to mean roughly
> the same thing.  I think what is trying to be said is that science
> has faith in their method based on evidence as proof of their
> beliefs, much the same way a christian scientist would base
> evidence of miracles on objective truths.what is being called
> into question is the interpretation of the data.

What may be troubling you, Ron, is whether "evidence of the proof" is Truth.

For the scientist, Truth is a hypothesis that has proven to be universally 
reliable by empirical testing and that fits into a rational theory of 
things.  Einstein's theory of relativity is such an example.  Scientific 
method is itself testable by the fact that it can be falsified by new data. 
In other words, Truth is relative to what we know now.  What is true today
may not be true tomorrow, if anomalies are discovered in the hypothesis.  
This is what happened when the particle theory of Einstein was equivocated
by quantum physics experiments showing that a particle could behave as 
an energy wave under certain conditions.

I think Science retro-fits empirical observations to conform to man's 
reason.  So that despite the fact that scientific evidence is tested and 
subject to falsification, it must also be "rational".  For the scientist, 
therefore, there is no such thing as "irrational" truth, which may explain 
Ian's claim that the methodology is "faith-based".   Reason is based on 
relational logic, which is the subjective (intellectual) perspective of 
objective knowledge, a metaphysical dichotomy that has been ignored by 
Science.  For that reason, I do not define scientific "facts" or "verified 
hyoptheses" as Truth.  I do not believe that man has access to any kind of 
Truth but relational knowledge, and I reject the notion that ultimate 
reality is relational.

> What you have been saying has got me to thinking a lot about
> faith and belief, and the concept of Essence and it's relational value.

I'm pleased to hear that.  By the way, Richard Schain, a neurologist, has 
some interesting things to say about the issue of subjectivity in Science. 
I'm repeating his essay calling for a "radical metaphysics" in this week's 
Values Page at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm.   I think you might find it 
enlightening.  When you've read that, click on "A New Theory of the 
Universe" -- the 8th item on the left side of the archives listing at the bottom
of this page, and you'll get another neuoscience perspective by Robert Lanza.
I'd like to know what you think of these two extraordinary essays.

Thanks, Ron.

-- Ham