[leonardoeloy]

> Public policy and morality should be the domain of reason, evidence, freedom, experience, and compassion.

What if scientists don't understand reason? Do they see science is subject to reason, considering that the matter of science is something of which can only be described through a reasoning process? There is no science without reason; there is reason without science.

It is also interesting to see the continual replication nature of philosophical mistakes, even though they have been refuted by decades. The author confuses vaccine for polio as a scientific breakthrough, where that's just the effect. The scientific breakthrough is the study of pathology, which only happens in a total abstract world (the definition of science) -- that's _the_ cause. It's like proclaiming the end of murder just by enacting a law stating murder is over. Reminds me of the mistakes made by Comte's positivism (or Bush's "Mission Accomplished"), the obvious Kant confusion (form over matter), and, why not?, the devilish conclusions made by Heidegger (won't describe them here on purpose and would love to hear otherwise).

[undershirt]

> There is no science without reason; there is reason without science.

I heard this stated as “you can’t validate the scientific method using the scientific method.”

[LfLxfxxLxfxx]

> What if scientists don't understand reason?

They do.

> Do they see science is subject to reason

Yes, the scientific method is a specific kind of probabilistic reasoning that works remarkably well in practice: you make a guess about how the world works, you design an experiment, and either reject the theory or not. You can only reject a theory, but never confirm it with absolute certainty. Theories that disagree with experiment are rubbish. Theories that pass the test of many experiments are believed to be true only with very high probability. Theories that can't be tested are outside the realm of science.

[svieira]

Which means that as a scientist (aka natural philosopher) one must take _as a given_ that:

* Happenings that are observed in the external world are related (cause and effect exist) * The principle of sufficient reason applies to all effects (there must be a cause sufficient to explain the effects in all cases) * Everything is not unique (there are categories and kinds - "all chairs" is a valid statement describing something that exists in reality) * What is observed is related to reality (the external world is knowable)

There's much more that a natural philosopher must take for granted, just as there are many physical facts that biology takes for granted. One cannot prove these using the scientific method, because the scientific method presupposes these principles.

[LfLxfxxLxfxx]

There are no proofs in science. It's probabilistic reasoning, which is the best we can do when studying nature.

Yes, it presupposes the principles you mentioned.

[1123581321]

The question being asked is what creates, sustains and strengthens the right presuppositions in an individual.