Contemporary Analytic Epistemology

The argument that I am supporting is that scientific epistemological and ontological limitations difficult the complementary relationship between faith and science.

In modern days, people have argued that the advances of science will allow people to understand all the phenomena that are now attributed to the super natural world; therefore, affirming that science can have a significant impact either supporting or disapproving the traditional Christian faith (1). However, this assertion is not taking in account the ontological limits that do not allow science to accomplish a full understanding of the part of reality that goes beyond the natural world. In this way, it is important to explore situations where science cannot act alone to explain

In contemporary analytic epistemology, when an individual believes in a proposition as a truth and has a justification for it, this proposition can be considered as true knowledge (2). In this way, justification is a key step that can be accomplished in different ways, either scientifically as extra-scientifically. This last one, also known as an empirical knowledge, is acquired through senses, intuition, revelation, and experience (3). Sometimes, science can measure and define this empirical knowledge; however, science alone cannot achieve a total understanding of it. For instance, pain is known through the experience of the affected person and despite it can be tested by means of scientific procedures, each patient understands it in a unique way. Following the principles of analytical knowledge, the claim of the patient can or cannot have a clear justification for the doctor; therefore, it can or cannot even be considered true extra-scientific knowledge. However, the usual procedure for the doctor is to believe the claims of the patient and provide an adequate treatment (practical benefit) for his

For instance, without the experience of changes in temperature, the invention of the thermometer would have been more difficult. Thus, without such extra scientific knowledge, it is hard to see how science could even get started. However, since science operates merely on a propositional level, scientific knowledge is not able to provide extra-scientific knowledge. Following the example of the patient in pain, science can formulate and deal with items such as conjectures, hypotheses, theories and predictions about the condition that a patient is suffering; however, the patient cannot experience the pain just through facts. Consequently, one may see that extra-scientific knowledge can be classified as true knowledge and support the foundations of science, but science alone cannot provide any empirical knowledge.

Also, presuppositions, which are basic for the starting of science, are at ultimate instance based on empirical knowledge (do not offer a scientific justification). There can be no science without scientists making various very general suppositions that, because of their special nature, could be called presuppositions. One shall single out the two main presuppositions. First, the principles of logic such as modus ponens (4). The truth of these principles, however, cannot be proved based on arguments that only have premises