- We live in a world which has qualities that don't depend on our beliefs about it.
- Our sense perceptions are caused by the way the world is.
- We can improve the correspondence between our beliefs and the way the world is by reasoning about patterns in our sense perceptions.
Have I left out any scientific presuppositions which are not already components of these three assumptions? Have I assumed too much? I'm still finding and considering other lists of all presuppositions necessary and sufficient for scientific method, but the above represents my current thinking. Feedback requested!
Check this one out http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/03/ten-presuppositions-of-science.html
ReplyDeleteGreat list, from Craig and Moreland's 'Philosophical Foundations for A Christian Worldview'.
I hope the title doesn't put you off ;P
I think the fundamental supposition is Hume's Principle of Uniformity. One must also assume our reasoning, memory, and so on function well-enough to reason.
ReplyDelete@Michael Baldwin
ReplyDeleteI was already interested in reading through that book eventually. And half of their list roughly matches up with my starting three assumptions.
We live in a world which has qualities that don't depend on our beliefs about it.
(1) the existence of a theory-independent, external world
Our sense perceptions are caused by the way the world is.
(6) the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment
We can improve the correspondence between our beliefs and the way the world is by reasoning about patterns in our sense perceptions.
(2) the orderly nature of the external world
(3) the knowability of the external world
(9) the uniformity of nature and induction
I tend to agree with יאיר רזק that induction (or the Principle of Uniformity) is fundamental when it comes to any sort of reasoning or learning about the world.
What about the other five presuppositions?
(4) the existence of truth
I hinted pretty strongly at this in my third presupposition. Strictly speaking, I don't think truth is something that exists...though beliefs can correspond to the world in better or worse ways.
(5) the laws of logic
It's hard for me to consider this a needed presupposition. Isn't logic immune to even radical skepticism?
(10) the existence of numbers.
I haven't read much philosophy of mathematics, but my current stance is that numbers don't exist. They are "useful fiction."
(7) the adequacy of language to describe the world
(8) the existence of values used in science (e.g., "test theories fairly and report test results honestly")
Not so sure these must be taken as presuppositions, if the three assumptions I gave hold. Can't we use induction to support the adequacy of language and more specific methodology?
Specifically about 8) as provided by Craig's website...if all other presuppositions hold, that need not be a problem. After all, all tests should be repeatable and verifiable and scientific skepticism pretty much covers that aspect of it.
ReplyDelete