|
Logical positivism became unstuck on the question of verifiability. For instance the truth or falsehood of facts in the past, history and how can these facts be verified, is problematic and problems such as these mean that logical positivism collapses into scepticism, the view that knowledge is impossible. Karl Popper argued that all knowledge is tentative. A scientific or philosophical theory is never true but only useful in pragmatic terms and it must be possible, in principle, for it to be disproved - the falsifiability principle. A scientific theory is never true but is always only the best stab at the truth given the present state of knowledge of the appropriate facts and will probably be disproved when more facts become available. Therefore the narrow empiricist view of what can and cannot be known, that which is 'seen' and 'unseen' becomes blurred. Scientific theories begin with foundational assumptions, sometimes facts that seem self-evident. In 1905 Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity using the assumption that the speed of light in free space is a constant. This assumption was not demonstrated experimentally until 1917 but once it was regarded as if it were true a large number of anomalies, anomalies within other theoretical frameworks, made sense. Scientific progress within a given theoretical framework happens as the theory is 'fine-tuned' as new facts are incorporated. A scientific revolution usually involves the foundational assumptions of an old theory being found to be false or inaccurate and a fresh start being made using different assumptions. Years ago I spent some time in a Biodynamic community founded on the ideas of Rudolph Steiner. Biodynamics is a form of organic farming and I used to mill locally grown organic wheat and rye into quality flour. The grain was grown by two local mainstream organic farmers who did, to a limited degree, experiment with biodynamic preparations. One such preparation was said to 'draw down the star forces'. When I questioned a leading member of the commune as to the nature of these 'star forces' and how they improved crop yields his response was that only Steiner knew such things. It was acceptable to experiment with these preparations but the theoretical understanding as to how these worked was known only to Steiner who received this knowledge 'from above' or something as he was some sort of higher being. Evidence of the existence of the 'star forces' could only be observed in the increased yield of the crops. The results of the experiments by the local farmers were equivocal. Steiner's Anthroposophy provides explanations for many areas of life but all such explanations derive from foundational assumptions that are beyond questioning let alone examination. Philosophical materialism begins with the assumption that everything in existence is composed of matter and then seeks to find materialistic explanations for everything. This assumption is usually expressed in pseudo-scientific terms - that 'all the laws of the universe reduce to the laws of physics'. Of course there are a range of physical laws which describe different aspects of material reality. Quantum mechanics describes material reality at the level of the very small. There are two schools of thought here. One entails the necessity of an observing non-material mind and that the manner of observation will influence the nature of the observed entities. Most physicists hold to this view. A minority viewpoint holds that an objective reality can exist independent of any observing mind, a materialistic and quasi-deterministic reality, but this model has so many loose ends that few physicists regard it as likely. However both models are mathematically cohesive and the materialistic model is more mathematically elegant. Both are possibly true. The response of materialist philosophers is to discount the majority physics viewpoint out of hand in an attempt to create a theoretical model of reality that is entirely materialistic. But that nothing exists but matter is still an unproven assumption. Unproven assumptions are the norm in theories. And the following occurs to me…. Why should the assumption that 'God exists', as a part of a foundational theory of life, be considered absurd, ridiculous … or delusional?
Brendan Burke MA(Phil) |