[Avodah] emuna and science

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:44:01PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote:
:> This is meaningless. Science only handles empirical reality.

: Not really.  Science, at least as practiced, includes extrapolating
: beyond any empirical reality based on a "sense" that as things are
: now, so they must always have been.

Science extrapolates from observed events to non-observed *empirical*
claims.

Science says nothing about how we ought to behave. Nor does it talk about
metaphysics -- although there could be implications. (Such as Aristo's
physics giving a role to intellects which is also the cornerstone of
his metaphysics.) It only addresses what physically is.

:> It has no way
:> to discuss right vs wrong, meaning, or religion. So no ma'amin could be
:> "apurely scientifically minded person" on those grounds -- but neither
:> can any moral person.

: I disagree.  We have impirical evidence for our positions (call them
: beliefs or otherwise).  It may not be rigorous proof, but it is
: evidence, and it is impirical...

There is empirical evidence that Jerws should keep Shabbos and non-Jews
shouldn't? Or why we don't eat basar bechalav? Or...

Perhaps you are thnking about beliefs about origins or historical
events. But overall, that's a minor aspect of Yahadus. The main topic
is halakhah, how to behave, what we're aiming for in life, our role in
the world.

Such questions about what *ought* to be rather than what *is* is outside
the purview of scientific method. (Science can then be used to clarify
which possibilities are closer to that ought; but that's why posqim need
to work with scientists.)

As I said "neither can any moral person" be "purely scientifically minded"
in the sense of the OP. Beause you can't base morality on science. Any
moral person is either using other methods of verifying idea than the
scientific one, or is being moral irrationally. (And thank G-d people
don't always have to make sense.)

And even in the case of miracles, our empirical evidence is not only
non-rigorous -- it is not the scientific method. So our hypothetical
"purely scientifically minded" person would reject it. But since he
already had to give up that purity to accept halakhah.... As I said,
the question doesn't add up. You can't have someone in the situation
being described.

I agree that for scientific method to work, one has to be able
to inductively build a rule out of a set of examples, and then test that
hypothesis. Which means assuming uniformism, "a 'sense' that as things are
now, so they must always have been."

In truth, as Karl Popper showed
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Falsification.2Fproblem_of_induction>,
the only thing the scientific method can prove for sure are which
hypotheses can NOT be true. Which ones experiment ruled out. As for
ascertaining what IS true, it's based on induction. Well, it may just
be we haven't yet hit the "black swan". Science can reduce the (Bayesian)
chance that an exception exists by continually failing to find it.

(R' Asher Weiss's argument against wearng techeiles is based on his
feeling that scientific method's dependence on failing to disprove a
theory means there are always other valid theories. No theory therefore
is ever proven, certainly not to the level demanded by halakhah. Quite
far from our "purely scientifically minded" individual.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
micha at aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507