Socrates and the Scientific Method

It might be objected that the Socratic dialectical approach of seeking coherence among our beliefs has been made obsolete by the scientific method of experiment. But the scientific method is dialectical too. No belief, normative or descriptive, can be tested in isolation; it can be tested only in conjunction with other beliefs. If this liquid apparently fails to boil at 100º C, I can reject my belief that water boils at 100º C, or my belief that this liquid is water, or my belief that the thermometer is working correctly, or my belief that I am awake and not hallucinating, and so forth. And if a belief does not conflict with the evidence of our senses, we may nonetheless have the same kind of reasons to reject it once we discover that it conflicts with a sufficient number of our non-perceptual beliefs. Hence, philosophical argument and scientific argument are identical in structure, and have an equal claim to objectivity. All we have, in the end, are beliefs of various sorts, with varying strengths and complex interconnections, and any given belief’s claim to be accepted or rejected depends on how well it fits into the total scheme.

 --Roderick T. Long, Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Impossibility of Illogical Thought

Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically. It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is that we could not say what an 'illogical' world would look like. It is as impossible to represent in language anything that 'contradicts logic' as it is in geometry to represent by its a coordinates a figure that contradicts the laws of space, or to give the coordinates of a point that does not exist.... In a certain sense, we cannot make mistakes in logic.... Self-evidence, which [Bertrand] Russell talked about so much, can be dispensable in logic, only because language itself prevents every logical mistake.--What makes logic a priori is the impossibility of illogical thought. --Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus   3.03, 3.031, 3.032, 5.473, 5.4731 (H/T: Roderick T. Long )      
Read more

Is He Having a Laugh?

According to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, the government is God's appointed agent on earth, and each of us owes it allegiance and obedience. If that's so--and I for one don't believe either part of that statement--I'd like some believer to explain what God had in mind when he arranged things so that one of the two major-party clowns running for president will be elected in November. Is He having a laugh?
Read more

Freedom-Saturated Language

Determinists--deniers of free will, that is--apparently don't listen to themselves or read their own words. If they did they'd see that we human beings have no escape from freedom-saturated language. Think of words like should , deliberate , presume , intend , and so on ad infinitum. It is just impossible to speak or think as though determinism were true. And that says a lot. Our freedom is self-evident. You cannot demonstrate it because to demonstrate anything both  presupposes  and requires  freedom. You confirm freedom each time you set out to disconfirm it. "Today I plan to write out my proof that we have no freedom." Nonsense!  In contrast, we are perfectly capable of getting through a day without using God-saturated language.
Read more