EPTWhat I adressed is that you are not using the "scientific method", you're just using intuition, which is fine, really, but it's not an "educated guess". Maybe you do have a PhD in scientific history, but I really doubt so. So when you claim with confidence that science will manage to attain what I held as absolute mysteries (the concepts of eternity, infinity, the shape of the universe, and such), you are NOT using the "scientific method', you are using simple LOGIC and not even rigorous logic as it is probably a result of your INTUITION since you probably did not do the necessary research to make such claims.
By the way... so if, you agree that the "scientific method" is really just a set of methods, I wonder, do you really believe that those sciences share a common vague modus operandi, a real method? Because I came to see that what we call a "scientific method" does not apply for sociology, or psychology, and very loosely to astronomy, meteorology, or sismology.
So, if you ever wanted to use a "scientific method" to determine if you need a bulletproof vest to leave your home safely, wouldn't you use psychology and sociology? But then again, if you believe there truly is a scientific method, those aren't sciences! So, do you not believe that those two are sciences? And if they're not, then we already see two disciplines (or at least sociology, psychology being sometimes a joke, I think) who do a pretty good job at giving us some decent informations about the world, without being sciences!
2) I still see scientific studies on the subject, at least I recall seeing a few in the past years...
3) A) You ARE trusting science blindly, as I highly doubt that you are well versed not only on botanics, but in physics, chemistry, mathematics, sociology, psychology, astrology, and so on. You claim that you have seen results, but what kind of results? Has science made life better? This is a complex question, so if your answer is immediately "no", you are being faithful.
Did religion mainly aim to explain physical phenomenons? No. Religion mostly tries to give a meaning to life. Did religion make life better? It did sometimes, I guess. Can we diabolize it? We could, but we would be forced to diabolize science, you know, after seeing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Painlevé's filmed experiments on living beings, the unit 751 of Kizu, gas chambers, and the list goes on.
Again, when you answer to such questions, you are likely yo have a readymade idea that does not really follow the rigorous "scientific method".
"But there is evidence science works!" Well, peasants thought that cathedrals were a good evidence that their king had a divine right to rule. "Things in general" is not evidence. Maybe you are well versed in many sciences, but does that mean that science in general is flawless? And does that mean that any individual trusting science necessarily has an extensive knowledge of what he supports?
B) Science can explain many things, and as you said it is the best tool to analyze the way the world works. However, is it the best tool to determine what's right from what's wrong? Will science give me an answer if I ask something like "should I have sex with my children"?
You could either refer to:
- Psychology, but then there is no "scientific method", it's just a term that regroups the immense variety of methods used by all sciences
- Or else psychology isn't a science, and you refer to any other sciences, that will basically say that it's OK as long as I don't generate a pregnancy.
Other more metaphysical questions like "What should I do?" or "Who should I be?" can obviously not be answered by science; thus my position, saying that science has its own domain of studies, and is not a general way to attain truth. Thinking that science provides answers for everything is a faithful and in my opinion foolish thinking.
And NO, believing in god does not stop people from looking from truth. It DOES NOT make you believe in fairies, it is in fact not contradictory with science in general. I've seen deist scientists. Rousseau, one of the most brilliant thinkers of his time, much more rigorous and philosophical than Voltaire who was mainly an ideologist, was a deist for example. And he probably looked more for answers than anyone here!
4) Science has a logical approach of things, like philosophy and many other things. I don't really see your point, as science has nothing to do with logical assumptions which fill our everyday lives. Don't confuse science and logic, and don't think science has the monopoly of logic.
5) Science does not give better results than everything else. In fact, science has nothing to do with the most valuable pieces of knowledge I have. Science has contributed very little into directly shaping me, in comparison with other things like tradition, philosophy, or even litterature.
And I believe it is the same for you. What taught you not to rape people in the streets? Your parents, probably...
And no, you can't be empirically sure of what you're seeing, since you could be blind and still know there is a pillar in front of you. You can however be empirically sure that you see what you see. Whether it is true or not, it cannot be answered, and it does not really matter apart from showing that we have an axiomatic perception of things.
To deathly rat: philosophy is the critical, rational, systematic and rigorous analysis of questions regarding life, language, humanity, morality, using the definition of concepts which are afterward used as common tools which can in turn be used as a ground for a common reflexion, as long as those participating are aware of said concepts. There is no universal method though, as philosophy gave birth to many schools, which had their own way to proceed.
I already adressed above the reasons why science isn't the universal answer for any question in the world. Science only gives factual answers in the concerned domains (physics, chemistry, biology, etc) and does not adress (should not adress) ethical or metaphysical questions among which is the existance of God, the purpose of life, the notions of good and evil, or any complex question that doesn't lie on immediate facts but on a variety of concepts. However, philosophy and science don't exclude each other and, as said earlier, there have been many scientists who were also philosophers, and the other way around.
When you say that the difference between philosophy and science are empirical observations... well, most of modern science is based on empirical observations. Plato did define the concept of a world of ideas, but this was about 2300 years ago. What philosophers do is arrange those concepts in categories, or develop ideological ideas that have little to do with experience. But ideologies are usually easily identified and rarely shown as absolute truths.
