אמונה (טפילה) ב'סייענטיסטן

הלכה ואגדה, מוסר וחסידות
רעאגיר
באניצער אוואטאר
זאל_זיין
ידיד השטיבל
ידיד השטיבל
הודעות: 254
זיך רעגיסטרירט: דינסטאג אקטאבער 15, 2013 5:20 pm
האט שוין געלייקט: 45 מאל
האט שוין באקומען לייקס: 77 מאל

אמונה (טפילה) ב'סייענטיסטן

שליחה דורך זאל_זיין »

די ווייניגער אפן צו די גאס די קאמיוניטי איז די מער איז איינגעכאפט די קרענק פון גלייבן יעדעס ווארט מזעט אדער הערט פון א סייענטיסט
סאיז דא אסאך פסיכאלאגישע סיבות.
איינס די מער דאס קינד איז אוועקגענומען פון עני גוישע אינפלאענטסעס מיינט מען אז מפארלירט עפעס גליקן און מבאהאלט דאס פון עים
צווייטענס אן ענגליש רעדענדער איז שטארק ארויפגעקוקט באט אין די אנדערע חדרים ווי ענגליש איז מאמע לשון איז דאס נישט אזוי
ועוד וואס כוועל לאזן פאר דעם עולם צו דיסקאטירן


דאס איז א גאנץ פיינע עסעי פון א סאליד בעל השקפה ווי ער צילייגט דעם ענין
ליינט און האט א הנאה

[left]Beyond The Reach Of Scientists – Part 1





I spoke about this during Shalosh Seudos this past week. The following is excerpted from an actual online conversation I had with a group of inquisitive frum teenagers. It is edited for the sake of clarity.

If the truth that the world was created by a muchrach hametzius is so mathematically and logically obvious – and clearly it is – why do the scientists still struggle to find “alternative” explanations like the Big Bang and things? Why don’t they just say “The world was created?”And if they’re going to come up with an answer, why do they have to come up with something as dumb as evolution? Can’t so many intelligent men find any better theory?

Yes, they can. But they won’t, and not because of science but because of their self-created philosophy. The practitioners of science have accepted upon themselves to comply with a set of rules called the Philosophy of Science. This philosophy, no better and no more truthful than any other secular philosophy, forms the basis for what scientists consider “scientific.”

Because of their commitment to this philosophy, scientists are involved in finding “scientific fact”, which is not the same as “truth”, or even plain “fact.” This is because scientists – not science – have agreed to restrict “scientific proof” to things that fulfill their own self-imposed criteria, which limits the type of truth they will find. Example: If an experiment cannot be reproduced in the laboratory, it is not considered scientifically proven.

Now while I understand the need for such restrictions in order to weed out charlatans, it also weeds out much truth. So that if you have a miraculous event, witnessed by millions of people, such as Kabbalas HaTorah, and documented meticulously, that is still not considered “proof” in the practice of “science.”

There are many methods of reaching truth that are not considered “scientific”. Philosophical, logical, and intuitive thinking are not “scientific proof”.

Consider the following example of confusing “scientific proof” with “truth.”

You have 100 impeccable witnesses stating that the defendant stabbed his victim to death, his fingerprints are on the knife, there are 100 contradictions in his own testimony, and he has been convicted in the past of committing the exact same type of murders, 30 times.

None of that constitutes “scientific proof.” So “scientifically”, the defendant would be found “Not guilty”.

Ironically, there is no scientific proof that the scientific method of proof is the most valid method of proof.

Science finds truth to an extent. But only to an extent. The problem is that often, philosophy, logic, and intuition also play a role in the quest for truth. And there, scientists are not trained, and worse, they are trained not to be interested. The “scientific method” of determining truth can sometimes find truth, but it can not find all the truth there is to find – nor does it claim to. It is based on theory and falsification thereof, which is a very incomplete methodology if your goal is simply to find the truth.

The practice of science is analogous to the practice of law. You can have irrefutable evidence that the defendant committed the crime, but he will be found innocent because the evidence was obtained without a warrant. And with science, too, there is a need for these self-imposed restrictions to maintain long term control over how science is practiced, but the price to pay is legitimately proven conclusions falling through the cracks. Because of the limiting parameters of what the law will admit into evidence, the practice of law does not always result in justice, and so too because of the limiting parameters of what scientists will admit into evidence the practice of science does not always result in truth.

So proofs like Kabbalas HaTorah are inadmissible to the practice of science but science does not claim – and certainly has produced no evidence – that non-scientific proofs aren’t irrefutable. And a conclusion like Creation by a supernatural Muchrach Hametzius, which is not falsifiable is not scientifically admissible, but at the same time science does not claim that the proofs that lead to such a conclusion are in any form or manner refutable.

The problem is that this “philosophy of science” has backed the scientific community into a corner. Because if the correct and proven answer to a question – such as “How was the world created” or “How did human beings come into existence?” – is inadmissible to science, then by definition science is not capable of accepting the correct answer. In such a case, obviously, science should not be bothering with the question, since it doesn’t pay to ask a question if an answer you will not accept may be the correct one.

But they continue in their futile efforts to find the answers to questions whose real answers they are not allowed to accept, and so they come up with ridiculous answers like evolution. Not that they have a choice. For the scientific community, the choices are either stop asking the question, or don’t expect a normal answer. If the correct answer is not in the realm of science then neither should be the question.

As long as they keep asking the question and using their self-imposed limitations of what they can accept as an answer, they are going to continue running around in circles, coming up with the wrong answers. Imagine having a rule that in your practice of mathematics, you will not accept any answer less than 3, for whatever self-imposed philosophical reason. Then try to figure out how much is 1 + 1. Have fun. That’s the scientist trying to figure out how the world got here.

Or, as one honest scientist put it: It is like trying to find a “scientific” reason for the faces formed on Mt. Rushmore, because “design” is not scientifically admissible.[1]

Evolution would never even have been considered as a possibility, since it is clear that the world had a Designer. The fact that evolution is still around, merely shows that science, when bound to the “philosophy” of science, is an incomplete method of seeking truth.

So why don’t the scientists just change their philosophy to accept all truth?

You mean to accept miracles as part of nature? Yeah, right. Imagine a guy who puts on his shirt in the morning. When he starts buttoning it, from the bottom, he accidentally buttons the first button in the wrong hole. Not noticing his error, he simply continues buttoning each subsequent button in the subsequent wrong hole. Everything goes smoothly until he reaches the top of his shirt and he sees his collar is lopsided. The only way for him to undo his mistake is to unbutton the entire shirt and start over.

That’s the scientist who realizes that, at the end of the trail of scientific investigation of natural laws there lies a supernatural Being unbound to any of those laws Who willed the universe into existence miraculously, that without theology you cannot explain how the universe became. Asking him to accept that is asking him to accept an entirely new scientific paradigm for which they are unprepared, untrained, and spent their lives trying to avoid.

Scientists worked all their lives and built their discipline and its infrastructure assuming that the natural world is in fact natural. To do a 180 now and rethink the basis of their entire discipline is not going to happen.

But don’t many scientists believe in G-d and the Torah? So those scientists already accept the concept of miracles?

It’s not a problem for them to incorporate Brias HaOlam and miracles into their personal beliefs. What you’re asking them to do here is different – to accept Hashem and Brias HaOlam and miracles as fact from a scientific perspective. You’re not asking them to change their own beliefs but to change the parameters of science. That, they’re not going to do. They’ve locked themselves out of such thinking long ago and they’re not going to reengineer their entire discipline.

OK, so the philosophy of “science” won’t allow them to admit any evidence or accept any ideas unless they fit their self-imposed parameters. So then let them just say that the question of how the world got here is not within the realm of science and stop coming up with nonsensical theories like evolution?

That’s exactly what they should do. But that’s the paradox they’ve created for themselves: Because they refuse to acknowledge anything outside of the narrow parameters of observable nature and falsifiable theories, how can they determine what lies in the realm of science and what lies in the realm of the miraculous? In order to know what questions they should not ask, they first have to establish that the answers to those questions lie in the realm of the miraculous. But how do they know that something was miraculously performed like Brias HaOlam if they are not willing to accept evidence of miracles?

Do they claim to have any proof that there can’t exist realms outside of the narrow self-imposed bounds of what the science industry will accept?

Nope. Not at all. Nobody ever said that something that can’t be reproduced in a laboratory can’t be proven. It’s just not compliant with the self-imposed regulations of the scientific community[/left]

דער אשכול פארמאגט 46 תגובות

איר דארפט זיין א רעגיסטרירטער מעמבער און איינגעשריבן צו זען די תגובות.


רעגיסטרירן איינשרייבן
 
רעאגיר