Quote:
Quote by: ryanatau  I am interested in how people will respond to two problems: 1) the demarcation problem or what separates science from non-science (e.g. astrology); and 2) the problem of induction. |
Neither of these are problems. They're misunderstandings of science & logic.
Non-science is anything without a definite answer. "Was that baseball game a
good game?" Isn't a scientific question. It's too subjective. Any parameters we invent will be different from person to person nor do we have any justification for them. Is a high scoring game a good game? Is a game in which a player is injured a good game? Is an important game a good game?
Far too subjective.
Any question with a definite
yes,
no or specific answer is a scientific question. "Was a game played on June 3rd 2004?" "Was so and so in attendance?" "What was the final score?" These are questions we can employ the scientific method to answer.
Science is a tool for understanding the natural world. That's all. We don't need science to tell us what our morals are (but science can help us understand why we developed morality). Simply because a tool cannot perform a function it was never intended for doesn't negate the value of that tool. A hammer is useless for welding bits of metal together... does that mean we should "doubt" hammers and not use them to hammer nails? Certainly not.
As for induction? It's not a problem in the slightest.
Consistant observations are just that. Consistant. So long as we enjoy a consensus, we can make determinations about our world. The argument you've presented is just another in a long line of "Science is a religion" arguments which all end the same way: the anti-science crowd always has to radically re-define faith, broadening it to make it encompass any sort of belief. This arguemnt is useless because it posits believing a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father existed is on an even level with 1+1=2 which is asinine.