[MD] Scientism

[John Carl]

mark and steve:


> >> Steve:
> >> What are the areas where science does not belong in your view?
>
> Mark:
> Morality
>
> Steve:
> Why is morality the one thing that science should not try to study?
>

Steve said earlier:

I think this notion is better put as falliblism which does not make us
skeptics doubting the possiblity of knowledge or that we now know
anything. It just means that we always keep in mind that we could be
wrong about any of our beliefs in particular and are willing to be
proven wrong by new evidence and arguments.

-------

As Royce put it, the only bedrock foundation we can count on is the
existence of error.  Now, if the existence of error is the one certainty,
then ought not the underlying scope of science, be the study of error?  This
keeps science on the grounds of bedrock certainty.

And when you think about it, that is exactly what scientific endeavor is all
about.  To uncover and label error.  We don't contemplate truisms
scientifically.  Once we have ways of measuring the earth, we no longer
debate the existence of its roundness.  At least no scientifically.  It is
in those areas where there is doubt and controversy - possible error - that
science studies and hypothesizes and tests.

The proper scope of science is the study of error.   The study of error is
the study of morality.

John