We can continue under this subtopic heading.

Interbane wrote:

DWill wrote:
I'm willing to accept Jaki's wall of separation between exact science and reasoned discourse. Science can't resolve with the kind of certainty provided by measurement questions about morality and purpose.

I don't think the separation is all that realistic. It's true in the nuts and bolts of experimentation that the results are quantitative. But a laundry list of experiments doesn't help us much without an overarching model to give us a framework for understanding the results. In some cases, the models are purely mathematical. But in other cases, the models require verbiage to piece together understanding. Much of our understanding of how the world works is through words. It's the translation of math to words where error often occurs, but that doesn't mean we refrain from translation. It also doesn't mean the translation isn't an essential part of science. If we are to discuss results, and to educate the next generation of scientists, we must have accurate wording that describes the results of science.

I'm not saying there isn't a boundary. There is reasoned discourse within science, and reasoned discourse outside of science, and the area between is slightly blurred. Where we draw the line in this grey area varies, with Jaki on one extreme and Harris on the other. My opinion is that the line is closer to Harris' side. For example, neuroscience has steadily inched into the territory that was once philosophy of the mind. Of course, there are countless false conclusions made in this progress, but in refining our understanding through trial and error, many errors are to be expected.

PS - thanks for taking the time to create threads in this forum DWill.

This gives me a chance to take a second look at that thought. Is there a distinction between exact science, which measures physical constants, and the rest of science, which either decides what to make of those constants or doesn't even work with them? A physicist might say yes, of course. It seems there isn't argument about basic units of measurement that have come to be accepted. They don't admit of more or less, Jaki said. No one seems to have a dispute to air about them, whereas back in history the phenomena these units define might have been matters of contention.

This is all about the things we can take as certain, objective fact. Even though we might feel we need to make a bow toward the provisional nature of science, we do accept some facts as certain, even if this is in the final analysis by social agreement. Jaki says that faith in the certainty about sciences that are less based in these physical facts is mistaken. According to Trascanos he doesn't say they don't have value, just that they put us in the realm of reasoned discourse--that is, argumentation. Since we can't ever be sure that we're overcoming subjective biases each of us has, there is nothing we can do to settle the problems of morality and purpose in the way that many people seem to need to. Well, we can settle them, actually, because God is above all subjective bias and since he has revealed knowledge to us, we can be sure it is the only true knowledge.

This is the move that Jaki makes. It's a familiar one and isn't made from logic or necessity.

Despite a lingering suspicion about Jaki's motive, it's useful to keep in mind the other ingredients that often go into reasoned discourse that uses support from science, a field that has grown relatively huge in our era. I take 'reasoned discourse' to entail reasoning by our own individual lights, which means that biases are still inevitably a part of it. Reasoned discourse does still occur along a quality continuum, though, where the damage of bias is better or worse controlled.

This is all about the things we can take as certain, objective fact. Even though we might feel we need to make a bow toward the provisional nature of science, we do accept some facts as certain, even if this is in the final analysis by social agreement.

We do need to make a bow toward the provisional nature of science, not only because it's the more honest position, but because there are other implications. There is no clear boundary between what Jaki says should be certain, and what should be reasoned discourse. It's a gradient, a spectrum. There is no certainty regarding anthropogenic global warming, or regarding evolution. But these findings of science are "certain enough" that they should not be lumped up with "argumentation". Global warming may be in the grey area, but even there it shows the dangers of shifting conceptual boundaries. Another point is, those things we consider certain and exact are usually neither. I'll express this in mroe detail below.

It seems there isn't argument about basic units of measurement that have come to be accepted. They don't admit of more or less, Jaki said. No one seems to have a dispute to air about them, whereas back in history the phenomena these units define might have been matters of contention.

I'd like to see Jaki's examples. Nearly every unit of measurement admits of more or less. The speed of light, for example. The rate the Earth orbits the sun. The decay of atomic particles. The only way in which they are both exact and certain is if you round up slightly, or accept the math of others, or the experimental methodology of others. Assuming there are more exact examples that I'm not considering, they are only exact to the limits of our observation. Our observation is not infinite.

I take 'reasoned discourse' to entail reasoning by our own individual lights, which means that biases are still inevitably a part of it.

In the same way that the boundary is blurred between reasoned discourse and exactness, the demarcation of our biases between science and reasoned discourse are also blurred. In an experiment where the results are exact, there is plenty of room for bias in how the experiment is performed, executed, and documented. Not even a purely mathematical result is free from bias by default. The controls on human bias don't only exist in the experimentation arena, they also exist in the arena of reasoned discourse. Experimental results are analyzed by others with a long list of potential biases as well as fallacies that could have contaminated the work. Bias does not serve as a good boundary condition either.

Thanks for articulating Jaki's perspective, he appears to have a well-formed worldview.

The title "Science Was Born of Christianity" could be improved. " What would be a better then the "was born" ?

kowalskil wrote:The title "Science Was Born of Christianity" could be improved. " What would be a better then the "was born" ?

What's your suggestion?

ant wrote:

kowalskil wrote:The title "Science Was Born of Christianity" could be improved. " What would be a better then the "was born" ?

What's your suggestion?

What about "influenced by"?

kowalskil wrote:

ant wrote:

kowalskil wrote:The title "Science Was Born of Christianity" could be improved. " What would be a better then the "was born" ?

What's your suggestion?

What about "influenced by"?

Yes. I would have to agree with that.

Thanks.