The Philosophy of Science and Hebrew studies
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:47 am
Dear list-members,
I did not see the comments of Jason Hare on my previous post before the thread was closed. But I would like to address the issue he raised from the point of view of the Philosophy of Science.
Any scientific endeavor includes an amount of subjectivity, often a great amount, because all persons believe in something and have their own preferences and prejudices. A good researcher realizes this, and he or she strives hard not to let his or her subjectivity influence the interpretation of the data. This means that I, who believe that the Tanakh and the New Testamet is one unit that is inspired by God, must strive hard not to let this color my interpretations. And it means that Jason, who believes that the books of the Tanakh comes from many different human sources must be equally careful with his preferences and prejudices.
The Philosophy of science points to the fact that there are only two ways two acquire scientific knowledge, either by induction or by deduction. If we use deduction, we form a theory, and we ask what this theory predicts. Then we look at the world in order to see if the predictions are true. If the predictions are not correct, the theory is falsified. If they are correct, we have not proven the theory, only made it a little more likely. This is so, because there are many other theories that can explain why the predictions were correct.
When we use induction, we look at many different data in order to see if there is a certain pattern. When we find a pattern, we draw a conclusion and make a rule. However, the Problem of Induction tells us that induction cannot prove anything, because we have not considered all existing data. So our conclusion and our rule can be wrong. (Hebrew grammar is based on induction, and therefore is not certain). G. Harding made the following correct observation in the book: “’Scientific Creationism—Marketing Deception as Truth, p. 162:
"There is a widespread belief among the public that the statements of science are provable. Scientists and philosophers now agree this is wrong. No scientific statement is ever fully proved. Science is made up of statements that may be proved false but that have not, in fact, been proved false by the most rigorous tests."
Then I ask: Is the question, “Can we trust the Bible?” a legitimate scientific question? Absolutely! This is so, because this question can be treated in a scientific way—by the help of induction. How can this be done? By taking parts of the Bible and compare them with our knowledge of the world.
A starting point can be Genesis chapter 1: making a careful translation of the text and comparing it with what we see in the sedimentary rocks. “But this is not science but religion,” someone may say, "because the creation account is not history.” Such a saying is a good example of how prejudices can disturb data, because the judgement of the meaning of Genesis 1 is decided without any research.
The next point in a scientific research will be to make a careful translation of Genesis 6-9 about the worldwide flood and compare this account with what we find on the surface of the earth. Again, this is a legitimate scientific approach, and in my book I present 728 photos of phenomena from all continents that corroborate a worldwide flood.
Please note the word “corroborate,” which indicates that no result obtained by induction is the truth and nothing but the truth. However, my book is a scientific work, based on linguistics and geology. And the questions that are asked are legitimate scientific questions.
As a conclusion I would like to say that my book does not represent creationism. Most of the data that are presented are based on my own research and cannot be found in any other publication.
Best regards,
Rolf
I did not see the comments of Jason Hare on my previous post before the thread was closed. But I would like to address the issue he raised from the point of view of the Philosophy of Science.
Any scientific endeavor includes an amount of subjectivity, often a great amount, because all persons believe in something and have their own preferences and prejudices. A good researcher realizes this, and he or she strives hard not to let his or her subjectivity influence the interpretation of the data. This means that I, who believe that the Tanakh and the New Testamet is one unit that is inspired by God, must strive hard not to let this color my interpretations. And it means that Jason, who believes that the books of the Tanakh comes from many different human sources must be equally careful with his preferences and prejudices.
The Philosophy of science points to the fact that there are only two ways two acquire scientific knowledge, either by induction or by deduction. If we use deduction, we form a theory, and we ask what this theory predicts. Then we look at the world in order to see if the predictions are true. If the predictions are not correct, the theory is falsified. If they are correct, we have not proven the theory, only made it a little more likely. This is so, because there are many other theories that can explain why the predictions were correct.
When we use induction, we look at many different data in order to see if there is a certain pattern. When we find a pattern, we draw a conclusion and make a rule. However, the Problem of Induction tells us that induction cannot prove anything, because we have not considered all existing data. So our conclusion and our rule can be wrong. (Hebrew grammar is based on induction, and therefore is not certain). G. Harding made the following correct observation in the book: “’Scientific Creationism—Marketing Deception as Truth, p. 162:
"There is a widespread belief among the public that the statements of science are provable. Scientists and philosophers now agree this is wrong. No scientific statement is ever fully proved. Science is made up of statements that may be proved false but that have not, in fact, been proved false by the most rigorous tests."
Then I ask: Is the question, “Can we trust the Bible?” a legitimate scientific question? Absolutely! This is so, because this question can be treated in a scientific way—by the help of induction. How can this be done? By taking parts of the Bible and compare them with our knowledge of the world.
A starting point can be Genesis chapter 1: making a careful translation of the text and comparing it with what we see in the sedimentary rocks. “But this is not science but religion,” someone may say, "because the creation account is not history.” Such a saying is a good example of how prejudices can disturb data, because the judgement of the meaning of Genesis 1 is decided without any research.
The next point in a scientific research will be to make a careful translation of Genesis 6-9 about the worldwide flood and compare this account with what we find on the surface of the earth. Again, this is a legitimate scientific approach, and in my book I present 728 photos of phenomena from all continents that corroborate a worldwide flood.
Please note the word “corroborate,” which indicates that no result obtained by induction is the truth and nothing but the truth. However, my book is a scientific work, based on linguistics and geology. And the questions that are asked are legitimate scientific questions.
As a conclusion I would like to say that my book does not represent creationism. Most of the data that are presented are based on my own research and cannot be found in any other publication.
Best regards,
Rolf