The scientific investigation into the origin of the natural world, Origins Science, and pre-historic events in the natural world, Pre-Historic Science, is a vast and fascinating one. The volume of research into the fundamental question: ‘how did we/the universe come to exist?’ indicates that this is the most vexing question facing the human race.
The fundamental methodology of Pre-Historic/Origins Science is reviewed to see if there is any room for improvement that will enable progress towards describing reality as accurately as possible.
This review covers several areas and draws several conclusions. The first is that Pre-historic Science is different to Normal Science because most of the proposed unique past events have not and cannot be observed and conventional experiments cannot be conducted to replicate the proposed events. Second, this difference causes the assumption of naturalism to be unjustified in, and only in, Pre-Historic/Origins Science. Third, it is found that perfect scientific freedom requires the comparison of natural and supernatural pre historic/origins theories so that we can discover the theory that explains the most and/or discover if any violations of the regularities of nature are contained in any of the theories. Fourthly, it is found that Pre-Historic/Origins Science will be improved by moving towards an interdisciplinary endeavour with Philosophy. And finally, it is found that pre-historic/origins theories will need to be published in journals specifically for Pre-Historic/Origins Science/Philosophy so that we have clarity to achieve the continuous improvement review cycle. With all of these elements in place I propose that we will progress towards the goal of Science and Philosophy, to describe reality as accurately as possible.
Statement by Dr Harriet Hall, MD, (www.skepdoc.info/contact), 18 Nov 2020
"I will point out a flaw: the logical fallacy of special pleading. I don't see any dogma. The NAS merely describes the reality: we are material beings living in a material natural world. Supernatural influences could only be observed if they produced changes in the natural world, in which case they would become part of the natural world and would be natural phenomena that could be investigated using the scientific method. Religion has dogma and has the most comprehensive explanation for everything: God did it. But that's a cop-out that actually explains nothing. There is simply no way that supernatural explanations could be investigated and scientifically falsified. Science has a plausible explanation for the origin of the Universe and for why there is something rather than nothing, based on evidence from quantum physics. Physicists Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger have written books about it, arguing that "nothingness" is unstable. In short, I see no problem that needs fixing."
Statement by Dr. Robert A. Delfino, Associate Professor of Philosophy, St. John’s University, New York, 21 Nov 2020.
“Phil Andrews rightly argues that the assumption of naturalism in origins science would be dogmatic and incompatible with the free inquiry necessary for science. After all, if we assume naturalism in origins science then the general answer to our inquiry has been decided in advance of any investigation. That is, naturalism would be the general answer and all that remains would be to work out the details. But this would be the logical fallacy of begging the question, since the initial assumption rules out any causal explanations of the existence of the universe that are supernatural. Andrews is also correct that an interdisciplinary approach is needed for origins science. However, I would argue that such an approach must include philosophy, and especially the philosophical science of metaphysics, which specifically investigates things insofar as they exist and searches for a cause of their existence. Unfortunately, scientists like Krauss think that quantum fluctuations in “nothing,” conceived of as a vacuum with unstable quantum energy and no matter, is a scientific explanation that addresses the question “Why does the universe exist?” But it does not. It is rather a possible explanation of how something that already existed (the quantum vacuum) changed into something else (the physical universe). But the question of existence, properly speaking, is not about change. Indeed, we can still ask “Why does the quantum vacuum exist at all?” Such existential questions are the province of metaphysics and cannot be tested by the methods of modern science. So, at the very least, what we need is interdisciplinary work between modern scientists and philosophers who specialize in metaphysics to properly address origins questions. But I would go further and argue that we need a broader notion of science, since the more narrow view of science that emerged in the modern period cannot handle some of the most important intellectual questions that deserve a rigorous inquiry based on empirical evidence and rational argument. A broader conception of the genus science would respect the autonomy of the different kinds of sciences within it (natural sciences, philosophical sciences, etc.) while also preventing these sciences from overstepping their bounds.”
Your support and contributions will enable us to answer more questions and one day publish The Journal of Pre-Historic and Origins Science.
Copyright © 2021 Origins Science - All Rights Reserved.