[b-hebrew] SCIENCE, was: repost of full question
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Thu Apr 24 02:32:32 EDT 2008
Dear Yohanan,
Your definition of science is fine, and the same is true with your
presentation of the scientific method (the Hypothetic deductive
method). But what does science mean in practical work, and what are
the value of the conclusions drawn? In other words, how shall we look
at the results of scientific research?
PROOFS
In the philosophical sense of the word, only things that can be seen
or directly detected by one of our senses can be proven. Thus, a
creator (god) cannot be proven, and most (yes, I say "most") of what
normally are viewed as " scientific facts" or "proven by science"
both inside that natural sciences and the humanistic sciences, are
not *proven* in the philosophical sense of the word. This should lead
us to have a humble and not a dogmatic view of science.
EVIDENCE
A good example of a non-philosophical use of "proof" is the court
case. In a case there may be no confession, no witnesses, and no hard
data showing explicitly that the accused one is guilty. But on the
basis of indirect evidence the verdict of the court may be: "The
court finds it proven that NN is guilty..." We all know that many
such verdicts are wrong.
PARADIGMS AND AXIOMS
As for ancient history and ancient chronology, philosophical proofs
are excluded. But how shall we look at the evidence in the form of
ancient artifacts and ancient writings? This evidence must be
interpreted, and what is this interpretation based upon? It is based
upon axioms and the current paradigm. What does that mean? In
biology, historical geology, and other sciences the paradigm (model)
on the basis of which data are interpreted, is organic evolution.
Paradigms such as evolution are per definition unproven and
unprovable, yet they to a great extent color the interpretations of
the data. The same is true with different axioms (unproven
assumptions) that are used as tools for interpretations. In many
cases the paradigm and the axioms play a greater role as a basis for
the conclusions than the data themselves. I am not saying that the
methodology used in biology and historical geology is wrong, or that
it is wrong to use paradigms and axioms. What I am saying is that we
should always be aware what we are doing and what our foundations are
- we are not dealing with facts -, and we should never be dogmatic.
In studies of the Hebrew Bible, one paradigm is the "Deuteronomistic
historical work," suggested by M. Noth in 1943. Noth's view was that
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings originally were a
literal entity, written a few decades after the destruction of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II. In Noth's view, the language,
chronology, and ideology of the books indicated that the same person
was the author. Noth presented this as a hypothesis, and it is of
course pure speculation. But in many teaching institutions today, The
Deueronomistic historical work is viewed as fact and has become a
paradigm. Exactly the same is true with the Documentary hypothesis
(regarding the J, and E. and P sources). This is again pure
speculation, yet it is often treated as fact. I am not saying that
that teachers should abandon the use of the traditional paradigms and
axioms, but rather that they should teach the students the real
nature or what they are working with (or better, show the students
how they can find this out by themselves).
As for the Neo-Babylonian and Persien chronology, the paradigm for
several hundred years has been that the chronology of Claudius
Ptolemy is correct (I have a book from 1814 showing this). When
cuneiform tablets dated in the reigns of particular kings started to
be discovered i the middle of the 19th century, these were
interpreted in the light of the work of Ptolemy. Thus, we got the
circular situation that the tablets were interpreted in the light of
the chronology of Ptolemy and the chronology of Ptolemy was confirmed
by the same tablets. This circular situation still holds. I am not
saying that we should abandon the traditional chronology, but that we
should keep in mind that this chronology is not proven, it builds on
paradigms and axioms, and that there may be weaknesses with it.
OUR HORIZON OF UNDERSTANDING
In addition to the great role played by paradigms and axioms, all of
us have a horizon of understanding, which includes our preferences
and prejudices, our motives, and moral, religious, and political
views. When a scientist works with his or her data, his/her horizon
of understanding is at work as well, and it often colors the
conclusions drawn. We cannot avoid this subjectivity, but we should
always keep in mind that it is at work and try as much as possible to
avoid biased conclusions.
DOGMATISM
A basic attribute of a good student and a good scientist is a
critical mind. The very essence of science is skepticism and
criticism, and that is the opposite of dogmatism. The Hypothetic
deductive method that Yohanan described above, cannot prove anything,
It can only falsify and not confirm; at most it can show what is
likely (Cf. Karl Popper "The Logic of Scientific Discovery"). I am
not so much concerned with how science is defined, but I am very much
concerned with how the results of scientific research are viewed.
Claims such as "this is scientifically proven", and "this is
impossible", and "this is true because all authorities believe so"
betray a mind that has not really grasped what science is and what
science can and cannot do. So a humble mind is much better that a
dogmatic one.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>Hello Karl and Bill;
>
>In every text book that own, from Anthropological, to Psychological, to
>Biological, defines science as "....systematic knowledge of he physical or
>material world that is gained through observation and experimentation.....".
>
>
>The Scientifc Method is even as follows:
>
>1) Establish a question.
>2) Gathr information and resources.
>3) Form a hypothesis.
>4) Test hypothesis from experiment and collect data.
>5) Analyze the data.
>6) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a startin point for a
>new hypothesis.
>
>Yo*h*anan bin-Dawidh
>The Unirsity of Texas at Arlington
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list