EPISTEMOLOGY: HOW DO WE KNOW? (Revised Outline)
A) EMPIRICAL or SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1) The �true� or �fashionable� scientific method should actually
be the �via negative.� One is supposed to perform experiments to
DISPROVE the hypothesis. If one cannot disprove the hypothesis, then
the hypothesis becomes a theory. When further attempts to disprove
the theory fails, then the theory becomes a �law.� Unfortunately
not all theories or laws are established with such diligent efforts.
The so called �biogenetic law� was based on Haeckel�s fraudulent
drawings. There is a popular misconception that modern science
performs experiments to PROVE a hypothesis. Actually the opposite is
true. One is supposed to try and DISPROVE the hypothesis. The problem
with �proving� a hypothesis is that any crackpot can �prove� a
hypothesis by selecting only the evidence which supports one�s
hypothesis. A classic example is Samuel Morton�s �proof� that whites
were the most intelligent among the races because they had the biggest
cranial capacity. The trouble was that Morton chose only the skulls
which �proved� his hypothesis. Our human nature tends to select the
evidence which supports our hypothesis and ignores contrary evidence.
I should add that this �fashionable� method of �via negative� may not
be around forever. This method was popularized by philosopher of
science, Karl Popper. Evolutionists will say that Creationism is not
scientific because there is no test to disprove or �falsify� it. But
evolution also has the same problem. Karl Popper once remarked that
Darwinian evolution was a metaphysical system. His criticism of
Darwinism got him some flak, so he had to bend a little to
the �politically correct� thought police of evolution. But I don�t
think he completely recanted his criticism. Perhaps someone will come
up with a different methodology in the future.
2) Scientific knowledge is NOT absolute knowledge. It is based
on FINITE repeatable observations. A thousand observations may yield
one result. But the thousand and first observation could yield a very
different result.
3) Scientific knowledge is based on observations viewed through a
PARADIGM or MODEL (or one may even say WORLD VIEW). Thus both the
Ptolemaic model (sun goes around the earth) and the heliocentric model
(earth goes around the sun) incorporated the same observations but
interpreted the observations in a different framework (or frame of
reference). The Ptolemaic model works even today, in rough
approximations. It is ironic that the Ptolemaic model, so roundly
dismissed by us �moderns,� is still used today, while the model of the
highly praised Copernicus is NOT. For one thing Copernicus
erroneously assumed a CIRCULAR orbit. The �correct� orbit, if one
assumes a heliocentric model, is an ELIPTICAL orbit. Another example
of the uncertainty of scientific knowledge is the recent removal of
Pluto as a planet of the solar system. By a VOTE, Pluto was declared
NOT to be a planet by scientists at a meeting. Pluto was unavailable
for comment.
B) REVELATION
As Christians, we can rely on a God who is not bound by time, limited
finite observations or faulty paradigms. God�s wisdom is TIMELESS,
while human wisdom is very much TIMEBOUND. I once asked the late Dr.
Klotz, who had degrees in both science and theology , how he dealt
with the Piltdown Man during the time of the Scopes Trial. He was a
young boy at the time. He said all he had to go on was his faith.
Well, 26 years later the supposed proof for evolution was shown to be
a fraud. In fact most if not all of the evidence used at the time of
the Scopes trial cannot be used today. Every philosophical system has
ASSUMPTIONS. The problem is getting the right assumptions. The Bible
gives us a �sneak preview� into the past. The scientific method does
not really �prove� history. It cannot even �prove� Napoleon existed.
Proof of Napoleon�s existence is based on written records and not
repeatable observations. The �prehistoric� history presented by
evolutionists is just guess work and is constantly changing. I found
it amusing to read a book about the history of the Piltdown man
written before the fossil was exposed as a hoax. It made for
interesting reading. If the Piltdown man�s �history� was bogus, what
about the other fossil finds?
C) AUTHORITY
We may not admit it, but much of our knowledge comes from �experts.�
When the we hear the term �scientists say�� this is not science but
authority. We are taking it ON FAITH that the scientists are
correct. We certainly have not done the experiments ourselves. So
when we hear the �scientist say,� we should ask the following
questions:
1) Did these scientists do the experiment?
2) Did they INTERPRET the data correctly?
3) Did they cook or fake the data? e.g. Haeckel�s drawings,
Piltdown man.
4) Was there any contrary evidence that was ignored or
suppressed?
(e.g. the �Peking Man� was found in a �lower cave.� There was also
an �upper cave� which showed human habitation. Only skulls were found
in the �lower cave.� Instead of being seen as man�s ancestor, the
skulls could be seen as man�s leftover meal thrown into a garbage pit.)
5) Did they use prestige or political clout to
establish their authority?
(e.g. Uniformitarian geologists suppressing
Catastrophists.
See Terry Mortenson�s doctoral thesis).
6) Did they make a mistake, blunder in their
opinion, or lie?
(e.g. Scientific American�s denunciation of
the Wright brothers invention
as a fraud.) See Harold Evans� book THEY
MADE AMERICA.
# posted by GuyTak @ 8:59 PM
