|
|
I realized soon after posting the short essay yesterday that some might wonder just what was logically impaired in the sentence I quoted from Hofstadter/Dennett. I will take a moment and explain it, in case the shortsighted authors' blunder does not appear obvious enough.
The sentence was: "How could the science that had worked so well for so many things turn out to be so wrong?" In context, it was prompted by their thoughts regarding whether or not extrasensory perception could be proven to exist. The sentence presents a statement and a question. Hofstadter/Dennett are referring to "science" as a collective entity, the sum of all scientific disciplines: 1) ...science [has] worked so well for so many things... 2) How could [that same science] turn out to be so wrong? The statement (1) stands on its own, and is quite sound. The question (2) is the problem, for the following reasons: 1) If science is correct about X, Y, and Z, it is not unreasonable to imagine that it could possibly be incorrect about A. 2) Their sentence as a whole implies that since science has produced many positive results, it's incredible to think that it could be wrong about something... even if that something happens to be outside of science's purview. 3) Science is a collection of different disciplines, all allegedly guided by the scientific method to draw their conclusions. To the best of my knowledge, all scientists in the world have not signed off on some consensus to validate nor invalidate extrasensory perception. 4) A scientist or scientists could potentially pursue extrasensory perception with the scientific method if they desired. But their results, for or against, are the findings of one or more studies, and are not the embodiment of all science. 5) Therefore science as a whole has absolutely nothing to say about the subject the authors are pondering, namely the possible validity of extrasensory perception. But that's not what Doug and Dan would like you to think. |