Interpretation vs. Observation
Channel: Tom Facchine
File Size: 2.84MB
people need to differentiate between scientific observation and scientific interpretation, there's a difference between observation and interpretation. Okay, we use certain tools, certain measurements, certain methods to observe things about the material world, okay? We can call those things fact, no problem. But then we try to make a story out of it, we try to develop a theory to explain how all of the facts fit together, or at least how most of the facts fit together. And we need to be able to realize when one is happening, and when the other is happening, because people these days, they act as if science if there is just one thing as science, really, it's multiple sciences, but they act as
if science can speak. And then say one thing, and that's just the truth, right? In reality, there are observations being made, and those observations are often true. And then there are interpretations that are being made. And those interpretations can be amended, they can be changed, that can be proven to be completely wrong. Tomorrow, it can happen. And so we need to not elevate science, or the sciences to a level past what they're designed to be used for. Right people ask all the time, well, there's no scientific proof for God, or where's the scientific proof? For God? It's a very stupid question. How could there be scientific proof for God, when, by definition, science
observes the material world, and makes observations about the material world and tries to identify and uncover patterns and laws about the material world and how the material world behaves? Is God part of the material world? Can you observe God? Can you measure God? Of course not. And if we want to say, well, I observe order, and I observe this and I observe complexity, and then I'm going to interpret that there is a God, that's interpretation. Okay, we can have a discussion about interpretation. But if you're looking for 100%, scientific proof about something that is beyond the material realm, you're misusing a tool, okay? Imagine if you had a hammer, you tried to screw in a
screw with a hammer, you'd end up ruining your hole or stripping the screw, right? Or if you had a saw, and you wanted to hammer in a nail with a saw, or you wanted to build an entire building with just one tool, a hammer, a nail, or whatever, it's not possible. And usually, you're gonna end up breaking a tool if you try to use it in the wrong way. Right? The sciences are tools, they have certain assumptions, metaphysical assumptions, by the way behind them that are meant to gain or produce certain knowledge about the material world. When we keep them within their proper role and proper scope. They're actually quite useful when we misappropriate them or misuse them. We put them
at an elevated status beyond what they're designed to be able to know. Then we run into all sorts of absurdities.