Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] SCIENCE, was: repost of full question

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] SCIENCE, was: repost of full question
  • Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:32:32 +0200

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page