- All good principles should have sexy names, so I shall call this one Newton’s Laser Sword on the grounds that it is much sharper and more dangerous than Occam’s Razor. In its weakest form it says that we should not dispute propositions unless they can be shown by precise logic and/or mathematics to have observable consequences. In its strongest form it demands a list of observable consequences and a formal demonstration that they are indeed consequences of the proposition claimed.
emphasis mine, because duh
The very principles of science would fail this test. Science (i.e. empiricism) essentially states that reality can best be understood (or at the very least, understood at all) through observations via the senses. But this idea can't be tested scientifically so surely it must be bunk, right? This recent "science is the end all be all" mentality is dangerous as it fails to see that truth can be found through other means. Hopefully this mentality is corrected with time.
After studying a lot of science, then some epistemology, I can say that science doesn't claim to be empirism, it's the other way around. A lot of philosophers tend to compare science to other philosophical movements, but it should not be. Science is what happens when you blindly choose to follow the path of empirism. It doesn't justify this choice, it just notices all the working predictions it can make. The general population tend to rely on science because of its past success, not because of its philosophical validity. You can discuss and compare empirism to, say, constructivism, but it won't affect science itself because it's mostly disconnected from this debate.
I completely agree, science is the blind following of empiricism. But what I often find with scientists (at least in the public sphere) is that they make a lot of philosophical claims on no basis or on many presuppsitions with this "lazer sword" as a perfect example.
Very interesting read - and sums up very well how I feel about most philosophy - though I feel that we should still strike a balance, because some phenomena are simply not quantifiable (because, mathematically, there is nothing that makes people worthwhile enough to protect technically speaking - we're just more masses of sentient protein). And even in certain circumstances, sometimes platonic philosophy can complement newtonian philosophy. Overall, an excellent read, I loved it. Though I'm debating - would it be long enough/in a valid format for #goodlongreads?