Does your inner skeptic emerge when someone makes a claim that cannot be validated? That snake oil salesman who says his elixir brings world peace will never put one over on you, right? But what about when someone tells you animals possess consciousness? There is definitely a potential for truth in that statement, but how can it be proven?
Despite our desire to accept things at face value, we've been programmed all through life to question what cannot be observed. Scientific proof has long been thought the only viable way mankind truly knows how and if something exists; without empirical validation, an entity is merely speculative at best.
Skeptics believe that to rely upon any other way of knowing -- emotions, reason, language, perception -- is to grasp at straws, because tangibility (either literal or figurative) is the key component to being. The problem with this stringency, however, is how man's sense perception and communicative abilities are refuted as equally feasible where knowledge is concerned; the empirical principle simply cannot fathom the idea of existence without hard evidence.
But here's the kicker: Science doesn't require proof, just evidence. This may seem a trivial difference that speaks more to semantics, but these two words are football fields apart when it comes to tangibility. From the teleological perspective, for example, nature is a representation of God; therefore, God must intrinsically exist as He, too, is a product of His own creation. Confusing, yes, but Kanazawa clears it all up with one simple statement:
The struggle for acceptance mental awareness and perception have endured speaks to man's philosophical roots. Such skepticism of philosophy -- and later psychology -- as being unworthy of scientific validity brought to light one of the most important debates that continues to play out now in the 21st century. Modern psychology developed from what many believed were unsubstantiated philosophical claims, compelling truth-seekers to ask why evidence is the only way to earn scientific validity.
Their query resonated long and loudly throughout the 19th century and eventually culminated in the Enlightenment, a critical period in man's spiritual evolution when people began questioning conventional scientific principles in earnest. Modern psychology cut its teeth during this volatile yet illuminating time.
Science may appear to be the antithesis of philosophy, but they do intersect. When great thinkers espouse certain anecdotal beliefs, scientists challenge that idea to be true and/or provable. The problem with philosophy from a scientific perspective, however, is it's not a verifiable discipline; philosophical contemplation is grounded within truth and wisdom, not a tangible commodity where a skeptical finger can be pointed.
Despite our desire to accept things at face value, we've been programmed all through life to question what cannot be observed. Scientific proof has long been thought the only viable way mankind truly knows how and if something exists; without empirical validation, an entity is merely speculative at best.
Skeptics believe that to rely upon any other way of knowing -- emotions, reason, language, perception -- is to grasp at straws, because tangibility (either literal or figurative) is the key component to being. The problem with this stringency, however, is how man's sense perception and communicative abilities are refuted as equally feasible where knowledge is concerned; the empirical principle simply cannot fathom the idea of existence without hard evidence.
For example, whose burden is it to prove whether God exists or not? Is it any easier to find evidence of His tangible presence than to explain the Big Bang theory? The argument has been approached from a number of philosophical and scientific perspectives, yet the lack of any definitive answer in what is arguably man's most scientifically developed period gives strong incentive to be skeptical.
But here's the kicker: Science doesn't require proof, just evidence. This may seem a trivial difference that speaks more to semantics, but these two words are football fields apart when it comes to tangibility. From the teleological perspective, for example, nature is a representation of God; therefore, God must intrinsically exist as He, too, is a product of His own creation. Confusing, yes, but Kanazawa clears it all up with one simple statement:
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
The struggle for acceptance mental awareness and perception have endured speaks to man's philosophical roots. Such skepticism of philosophy -- and later psychology -- as being unworthy of scientific validity brought to light one of the most important debates that continues to play out now in the 21st century. Modern psychology developed from what many believed were unsubstantiated philosophical claims, compelling truth-seekers to ask why evidence is the only way to earn scientific validity.
Their query resonated long and loudly throughout the 19th century and eventually culminated in the Enlightenment, a critical period in man's spiritual evolution when people began questioning conventional scientific principles in earnest. Modern psychology cut its teeth during this volatile yet illuminating time.
Science may appear to be the antithesis of philosophy, but they do intersect. When great thinkers espouse certain anecdotal beliefs, scientists challenge that idea to be true and/or provable. The problem with philosophy from a scientific perspective, however, is it's not a verifiable discipline; philosophical contemplation is grounded within truth and wisdom, not a tangible commodity where a skeptical finger can be pointed.
The debate over scientific empiricism and what value it may hold in relation to man's knowledge / understanding of the world sparked quite a lively debate among some of history's most outspoken theorists. This historical chasm served as the beginning of an original quest for truth, which ultimately spawned the dispute between appearance and reality. Scientific philosopher Poincare aptly addressed this dichotomy by saying "science is built of facts the way a house is built of brick: but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house."
No comments:
Post a Comment