From: djdaneh@pbhyc.pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Science and (not vs.) religion (was Re: God does exist!)
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:35:22 GMT
Reply-To: djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Oct.12.02.21.51.1992.19778@geneva.rutgers.edu> baillie@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Stephen Baillie) writes:

>If a person was to stick to what I understand as the "scientific method"
>then they must, if they are honest with themselves, be prepared to
>accept the possibility of any and every new theory being correct.
>Note the word "possibility".  When confronted by a new theory (or 
>evidence which suggests a different interpretation) they must decide
>for themselves the merit of the new thing.  In most cases this involves
>a comparison of conflicting hypotheses.

You are close, but not quite on the mark of scientific method.

Scientific method is essentially an iterative technique of elimination.  The
procedure is (roughly):
	Ask a question about the nature of the physical world, usually
		in the form of "Why does this phenomenon occur?"
A:	Propose possible explanations for the phenomenon (hypotheses)
	Derive necessary consequences of the explanations
	Design tests which will allow the scientist to look for those
		consequences under controlled conditions
	Eliminate those explanations which conflict with the observed
		results, i.e., those whose necessary consequences are
		disconsonant with observed reality
	Refine the definition of the phenomenon as the new observations
		may require
	Return to step A:

There are two consequences of this:

First, one need not consider hypotheses whose gross necessary consequences are 
in conflict with already-observed phenomena.  Thus, in the example Stephen
gives, it is not necessary (except possibly as an exercise) for a scientist to
entertain the hypothesis that "the Earth is flat," for there has already been
a sufficient accumulation of observed phenomena disconsonant with the necessary 
consequences of a flat Earth.  [Note that scientific method presumes that, while
other individual practitioners may err, one may trust the accumulated evidence
of numerous other scientists' observations.  This is necessary, because 
otherwise every scientist would have to perform every experiment himself,
effectively starting from scratch.  Scientific education includes a limited
recapitulation of the history of science, partly as training for the scientific 
method and partly to provide an experiential basis for the principles being
taught, but -- for reasons of time and money both -- nobody can possibly 
duplicate all the significant experiments in her/his own field.]

Second, the definition (in scientific method) of a _hypothesis_ is a strictly
limited one.  A conjecture seeking to explain phenomena is only considered a
hypothesis, by scientific standards, if some testable consequences can be
derived from the hypothesis.  In other words, a hypothesis in scientific method 
must be _disconfirmable_:  it must be possible to demonstrate that certain
phenomena must necessarily result under certain circumstances if the hypothesis
is true, and it must equally be possible (at least in theory) to create or
observe those circumstances.  No hypothesis should ever be finally accepted as
_true_; it takes only one repeatable experiment disconfirming some necessary
consequence of the hypothesis to disconfirm it.

Thus,


>Hypothesis A : There is no God.
>Hypothesis B : There is a God.

are not hypotheses under scientific method, because no phenomena can be derived
from either which will allow the hypotheses to be tested.

An example of a hypothesis regarding God which can be tested, is "God grants
all prayers."  I can then pray for a million dollars, in cash, to appear in my
pocket at 10:00 this morning.  When no cash appears in my pocket at 10:00, I
have disconfirmed this hypothesis.

Note that this does _not_ disconfirm the hypothesis that God exists, or that
God grants prayer at all.  Indeed, it does not even disconfirm the nonhypothesis
-- which is not a hypothesis because not disconfirmable -- that "God _answers_
all prayers," since the uncomfortable feeling I have that this is an 
inappropriate thing to pray for, combined with the nonappearance of the million
dollars, may be interpreted as an answer.

The hypothesis can be qualified and made more rigorous:  for example, stricter
definitions of prayer may be inserted, and some definition of reasonableness in
what will be granted.  As long as the hypothesis produces necessary consequences
which can be observed, it is a proper hypothesis under scientific method.

As you can see, this:

>The scientific approach to these (obviously contradictory) hypotheses
>is to examine the evidence, considering of course how much various sources
>(our own observations, the reports of others, the contents of the bible)
>can be relied upon, and attempt to form a conclusion.

is not really true.  This is the _scholarly_ approach to the (non-)hypotheses
Stephen proposes.  This is not a put-down, and scholarship is a valid 
discipline, and more appropriate to many fields of endeavor than scientific 
method.  For example, literature:  while one can derive disconfirmable
hypotheses about literature ("Seven out of ten people prefer Dashiell Hammett
to James Joyce"), they aren't very interesting and don't come anywhere near the
heart of what makes literature worth studying.

Similarly with theology and philosophy.  One can come up with all sorts of
disconfirmable, but trivial, hypotheses like the ones I gave above.  But the
fundamental questions of theology and philosophy (Is there a God?  What is
Reality?  Why is there something instead of nothing?  For that matter, is there
something and not nothing?  What is the good life?  etc.) are essentially
intractable to scientific method but must be approached by other methods,
such as scholarship and intuition.



		Until the philosophy that holds one race superior and another 
								inferior
		Is finally and permanently discretited and abandoned
		Everywhere is war
			-- Haile Selassie via Bob Marley

		FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY
			-- Sinnead O'Connor

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.