Maybe science is relative truth, and conditional. One cannot demand that science produce absolute truth after Einstein's transcending implications of the general and special theories of relativity brought physics to the door of an ocean of temporal change. Science need correspond subject to predicate, word to object, probabilities for predictive behavior etc to create practical functioning truths. Science or knowledge need be accurate, functional and practical to work or to have credibility. It is a use-truth describing appearance and content so far as possible with verification rather than an inference or intuition about deeper explanations. Science is a mechanics rather than a faith.
I think no other century has or will develop philosophical logic and epistemology so much as did the 20th. In the 20th century linguistic philosophy developed through the Vienna Circle and with the rise of symbolic logic started by Frege continuing on to Strawson, Quine and Kripke it was possible to comprehend the nature of meaning and meaning of epistemology along with subjective ideas about it. Prior to the 20th century philosophical advance the history of philosophy might be found best in a few giants from pre-Socratic philosophers to the Attic philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, early scientific philosophers like Pythagoras and Democritus to theologian greats such as Augustine and Confucius on to Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, G.W.F. Hegel, David Hume, Bishop Berkeley, Immanuel Kant and a few others.
Science before the rise of observational and experimental methods of verification in the field of cosmology was in a sense metaphysics. If people such as Parmenides and Heraclitus didn't have much accurate technical knowledge of the cosmos they could make logic-based inferences some of which resonate with more modern thought such as the spinning bucket paradigm of Newton and gravity. If five theories explaining the origin of matter and energy equally share claim to validity it might be fair to call the paradigm one of metaphysics-even though the individuals are excellent particle physicists. Metaphysics is about conjecture of explaining cosmology theoretically without directly confirming or validating tests. Science alternatively looks to tangible, material avenues of advance of confirmation.
As I mentioned above though, science need only confirm it's theories on reasonable logical grounds rather than exhaustively and exclusively of any other explanation. Conditional and relative truths that are logically consistent with their premises may be the best of scientific certainty about reality that is possible. The epistemological grounds of knowledge; human knowledge, is not absolute or infallible and is immersed within a physical media of being it cannot view from outside as a flying fish might regard the ocean in which it swims.
The Lord Jesus Christ transcended what is seemingly impossible for humans. The savior could love those that persecuted him, while humanity finds it quite challenging to actually love those that do so. Christians may employ metaphysical paradigmata themselves these days in reinterpreting the Old Testament in light of the shifting sands of temporal knowledge while knowing that God is greater than they.
I think no other century has or will develop philosophical logic and epistemology so much as did the 20th. In the 20th century linguistic philosophy developed through the Vienna Circle and with the rise of symbolic logic started by Frege continuing on to Strawson, Quine and Kripke it was possible to comprehend the nature of meaning and meaning of epistemology along with subjective ideas about it. Prior to the 20th century philosophical advance the history of philosophy might be found best in a few giants from pre-Socratic philosophers to the Attic philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, early scientific philosophers like Pythagoras and Democritus to theologian greats such as Augustine and Confucius on to Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, G.W.F. Hegel, David Hume, Bishop Berkeley, Immanuel Kant and a few others.
Science before the rise of observational and experimental methods of verification in the field of cosmology was in a sense metaphysics. If people such as Parmenides and Heraclitus didn't have much accurate technical knowledge of the cosmos they could make logic-based inferences some of which resonate with more modern thought such as the spinning bucket paradigm of Newton and gravity. If five theories explaining the origin of matter and energy equally share claim to validity it might be fair to call the paradigm one of metaphysics-even though the individuals are excellent particle physicists. Metaphysics is about conjecture of explaining cosmology theoretically without directly confirming or validating tests. Science alternatively looks to tangible, material avenues of advance of confirmation.
As I mentioned above though, science need only confirm it's theories on reasonable logical grounds rather than exhaustively and exclusively of any other explanation. Conditional and relative truths that are logically consistent with their premises may be the best of scientific certainty about reality that is possible. The epistemological grounds of knowledge; human knowledge, is not absolute or infallible and is immersed within a physical media of being it cannot view from outside as a flying fish might regard the ocean in which it swims.
The Lord Jesus Christ transcended what is seemingly impossible for humans. The savior could love those that persecuted him, while humanity finds it quite challenging to actually love those that do so. Christians may employ metaphysical paradigmata themselves these days in reinterpreting the Old Testament in light of the shifting sands of temporal knowledge while knowing that God is greater than they.
No comments:
Post a Comment