quote:That's a pretty strong statement.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
...the fact that ID is completely outside the realm of science.
quote:I can't think of a single testable claim ID might make that wouldn't simply be another form of natural selection.
ID DOES start making testable claims (I have NO idea what something like that would look like, but my (our) ignorance certainly isn't a reason for dismissing the possibility)?
quote:This is exactly the assumption I'm trying to have a discussion about.
Originally posted by Dan_raven:
ID also tends to reject scientific reasoning for more basic tenets--such as God did it.
quote:When your "more basic tenet" requires unwavering belief in something that *by its very nature* can never be tested or proven, then it is NOT a more basic tenet, but rather, a more complicated one.
That said, what's our litmus test for determining when to favor scientific reasoning over more basic tenents?) [/QB]
quote:Do you? I'd love to hear what you believe would work!
(though I think there are peaceful ways to compare quality/truth of religions).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
In my mind, there is no way to "compare" the "quality" or the "truth" of religions. The very phrasing you use there would spark the ire of any fundamentalist of any religion, would it not? quote:As I came up against this very problem in my life and chose science (you could say), I can say that in my case, I chose science because it was logical. Why choose to believe in something illogical when modern science can explain the answers to my questions? Plus, science is testable. God is forever UNtestable, and I don't like that. I happen to think that if there were a God, he'd reveal himself in more obvious ways and that he WOULD be testable. After all, he supposedly loves humanity and *also* desires humanity's explicit worship. Why not demand it in a way that makes his presence totally clear? ...Unless he doesn't have that power, after all, and in that case, why bother to worship Him?
You seem to have an assumption that when science and religion disagree, choose science (hence, you complaint about "rejecting scientific reasoning for more basic tenets".
quote:Whose religion? This is the problem with religion: There are a hundred different variations, some of them WIDELY different from the others, and EVER SINGLE ONE is "the truth." If a Pagan animist wanted you to take their pantheon and their season-worship as truth because they believe it to be truth, how would you feel about that? I assure you, they are every bit as devout in their beliefs and love their gods and sacred texts every bit as much as you do!
Why is the "truth" of science elevated higher than the "truth" of religion?
Who is right? Who has the correct version of "truth?" And most importantly, *how do you know?* quote:I suppose that depends on how you look at "truth." A very popular theory that has developed out of a bunch of assumptions and models and tests is gravity. But it's still "just" a theory. Do you believe that gravity is the truth? Why or why not?
Does science even reveal truth? Or does it just find the best model of given assumptions (which could, of course, be wrong - that's how new theories arise, most often)?
quote:I hope I've explained that adequately for you, even though I have no idea whether your questions were directed at one particular person or the forum in general. Anyway, thanks for a good discussion topic!
(What I'm really after is an answer to the last 2 questions I asked, as well as WHY you think that way)
quote:Bravo on your entire post, Amka, although I happen to believe that science *can* explain your basic questions you presented. That's just my interpretation of the questions and the way they'd be explained, though.
Originally posted by Amka:
[QB] About ID:
I'm just jumping back in here and haven't been in the pluto thread, so forgive me if I get at all redundant.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Ok I see where you are trying to have a discussion here.
Originally posted by Mathematician:
However, as an example, string theory still hasn't made a falsifiable claim. By similar reasoning as above, this currently disqualifies it as being science. Yet, I'm ok with this being taught in a science classroom.
What's the difference?
The difference is that at the moment, there's no hope of ID coming out with scientifically testiable claims. In direct contrast, string theory seems much more likely to begin making these claims.
What this means is that while things like ID may have no current basis in science, that, to me, isn't an arguement for whether or not it should be taught as truth (I'm not saying whether or not it should be, because I haved no idea whether or not ID is true), though I think it SHOULDN'T be taught as science.
So, what do you think? Is science truth? Or is science the best rational approximation to truth? Or something in between? Or something more?
*EDIT* - just to be clear, I do NOT want an ID vs evolution debate, though I suppose I have NO idea where the thread will actually run
quote:You are, I presume, a mathematician, and probably aware of the paradox of the unnexpected hanging?
Originally posted by Mathematician:
Question 1: Why do people assert that it will NEVER make a falsfiable claim? Is there a *logical* reason for that? Or is it simply, "I can't think of a falsifiable claim ID can make, therefore it doesn't have one." If there's not a *logical* reason for it, why do you believe it in favor of the MORE logical, "ID may be able to make a falsifiable claim"?
quote:I don't. If science says one thing, and my faith another, I will choose faith. Every time.
Originally posted by Mathematician:
Further, I KNOW many (most?) people choose rationalism over faith, at least when forced to (i.e., when one's rational thinking and faith contradict). I know science is more logical (almost by definition).
quote:He- and don't worry about it! Just put the person you are adressing in the title in the future, or make the quote anonymous, that's my advice.
Originally posted by Mathematician:
(This was originally going to be posted in the "Pluto's not a planet anymore" topic, but it just seemed to diverge to far from topic).
(I don't mean to call out Orincoro at all, he/she just had the most recent version of this quote)
quote:Not all of them. I know plenty who are Jewish.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Well- the ID people are Christians right?
quote:This is not correct, unless by "established fact" you just mean whatever you believe to be true - in the way that sometimes Christians say it is a fact that God exists or sometimes Democrats say it is a fact that the Iraq War was wrong. But at a minimum we can say that it is not proven that the theory of evolution is true; it could be wrong - and thus I don't think it should qualify as established fact.
Evolution is a theory, and that is not "just a theory," it is also an established fact.
quote:This is the misleading argument that I originally objected to in the other thread. It is true - yes, ID isn't science (strictly speaking) because it isn't interested in falsifying a claim. But that doesn't imply scientists have no business considering it or discussing it in schools. After all, there are many things that don't involve a falsifiable claim that scientists do discuss on the job. The definition of "planet" is one example. One cannot falsify a definition of something through the scientific method, so the definition of "planet" is (strictly speaking) not science, but that does not mean scientists should be discussing the matter. There is a strong argument that such definitions, though non-scientific, are relevant to science. Similarly, I think that there is a pretty strong argument that Intelligent Design (and the entire issue of whether or not some God influences the world), though non-scientific, is relevant to science. After all if God does (or doesn't) influence the world, then that could majorly impact the way we interpret and apply scientific results.
ID cannot be science because ID is not interested in falsifying a claim.
quote:I think it would be pretty easy for ID to make falsifiable claims. But that would require them to define the nature of the Intelligent Designer and how He acts. For instance, it would have to say things like "If we pray X times, then Y will occur." Or, "in situation A, the Intelligent Designer will do B". Those would be falsifiable.
Is it possible that ID would make scientifically falsifiable claims?
quote:Oh.
Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo:
I have no problem with faith, as long as people don't do horrible things (murder, torture and soforth) because of what they believe.
quote:Would you say that the gravity is an established fact? Atomic theory? The germ theory of disease? All of these are also scientific theories, and in each case, one could argue that we don't actually have direct, incontrovertible proof. Yes, even for germ theory- sure, we can see exactly how pathogenesis for a given bacterium occurs using microscopy, but how do you know that the microscopes are reliable? You trust the physicists and engineers who built it, but they're also building off scientific principles inferred from the data. To be precisely accurate, you cannot say that *any* of these are "established facts," but we do as a shorthand, because the evidence in their favor is so extensive and strong. The same goes for the theory of evolution (and if you don't believe *that's* the case, then you really need to go review the literature).
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:This is not correct, unless by "established fact" you just mean whatever you believe to be true - in the way that sometimes Christians say it is a fact that God exists or sometimes Democrats say it is a fact that the Iraq War was wrong. But at a minimum we can say that it is not proven that the theory of evolution is true; it could be wrong - and thus I don't think it should qualify as established fact.
Evolution is a theory, and that is not "just a theory," it is also an established fact.
quote:*sigh* And we already told you in the other thread that terminology IS scientific, even if it's technically "not falsifiable." The word "planet" doesn't have to be falsifiable because it doesn't make ANY claims about reality at all. It's just a word with a definition reached by consensus, chosen to best facilitate communication, not for any other reason. Raw data isn't falsifiable either, but it's certainly scientific, because it too does not make any claims beyond "this is what we observed." The data itself does not suggest a conclusion; that is for the researcher to infer BASED on the data (and those conclusions, incidentally, must be falsifiable). ID, on the other hand, does present a claim- that an intelligent designer is responsible for the creation of life. It is claims that must pass the falsifiability criterion in order to be considered scientifically valid. Note that "scientifically valid" is not the same thing as "accurate"- the geocentric model of the world was scientifically valid, because it was possible to disprove it. That it was actually disproved just means that it was incorrect. ID, on the other hand, doesn't even enter the realm of science because there is no way to disprove it at all.
This is the misleading argument that I originally objected to in the other thread. It is true - yes, ID isn't science (strictly speaking) because it isn't interested in falsifying a claim. But that doesn't imply scientists have no business considering it or discussing it in schools. After all, there are many things that don't involve a falsifiable claim that scientists do discuss on the job. The definition of "planet" is one example. One cannot falsify a definition of something through the scientific method, so the definition of "planet" is (strictly speaking) not science, but that does not mean scientists should be discussing the matter. There is a strong argument that such definitions, though non-scientific, are relevant to science. Similarly, I think that there is a pretty strong argument that Intelligent Design (and the entire issue of whether or not some God influences the world), though non-scientific, is relevant to science. After all if God does (or doesn't) influence the world, then that could majorly impact the way we interpret and apply scientific results.
quote:I think I could accept those hypotheses as falsifiable, but they are based on the assumptions that (a) an Intelligent Designer will actually respond in a predictable, repeatable fashion, and (b) that we can actually come to some sort of agreement about what X, Y, A, and B are. Good luck with that one. In any case, proponents of Intelligent Design have NOT proposed any such falsifiable hypotheses, instead sticking to the tired argument that "if we can't demonstrate exactly how every tiny step of ______ occurs, then the entire theory MUST be wrong." Because, y'know, there are gaps in human knowledge of every single scientific theory we use. There is absolutely nothing we understand down to the most minute detail. Does that make any of the theories I mentioned at the beginning of my post invalid or wrong? What about basic physics? Chemistry? Meteorology? Geology? If we accept the ID argument against evolution, all of those disciplines go out the window.
quote:I think it would be pretty easy for ID to make falsifiable claims. But that would require them to define the nature of the Intelligent Designer and how He acts. For instance, it would have to say things like "If we pray X times, then Y will occur." Or, "in situation A, the Intelligent Designer will do B". Those would be falsifiable.
Is it possible that ID would make scientifically falsifiable claims?
quote:Well this begs the whole question of what is "real", which is another debate entirely. If you believe with all your heart you were "touched by God" in answer to some prayer, does that mean it is true? I'm sure for many that is where faith comes in. However, all the faith in the world (IMO) will not make such a thing "True" or "Real" if in fact you were simply chemically or emotionally unbalanced and "God" had nothing to do with what you felt.
As far as the "Do you take reasoning and logic, or do you take a simple, that'll do catch all to shut up all the intelligent questioning", I take the the most accurate description of reality. If that can be discovered by science, wonderful. If not, I'm willing to have it provided by another source.
quote:I could be wrong, but I believe that all of science agrees that evolution happened or is happening (or both). The debate lies in the specific processes of evolution - the specific flavor, if you will. Just as all of science agrees that it is gravity that holds us to the Earth, so gravity's influence is considered to be real. In the same way, evolution is considered to be factual, even if not every scientist agrees on just how it happened or is happening.
This is not correct, unless by "established fact" you just mean whatever you believe to be true - in the way that sometimes Christians say it is a fact that God exists or sometimes Democrats say it is a fact that the Iraq War was wrong. But at a minimum we can say that it is not proven that the theory of evolution is true; it could be wrong - and thus I don't think it should qualify as established fact.
quote:I have to say, this statement is very confusing to me. If scientists are interested in considering and discussing science, and ID is not science, then why should scientists consider it or discuss it in schools?
It is true - yes, ID isn't science (strictly speaking) because it isn't interested in falsifying a claim. But that doesn't imply scientists have no business considering it or discussing it in schools.
quote:I see your point here. However, we've already proven the world to be a mighty predictable place, with enough science and math applied and over a large enough sampling of any given variable. Isn't it logical that intelligent control over it would cause almost total unpredictability?
Similarly, I think that there is a pretty strong argument that Intelligent Design (and the entire issue of whether or not some God influences the world), though non-scientific, is relevant to science. After all if God does (or doesn't) influence the world, then that could majorly impact the way we interpret and apply scientific results.
quote:True - but then, of course, those claims would be put to the test and proven wrong (because as all religious folks know, the Lord works in mysterious ways). And that would end ID's chances of being indoctrinated into public education.
I think it would be pretty easy for ID to make falsifiable claims. But that would require them to define the nature of the Intelligent Designer and how He acts. For instance, it would have to say things like "If we pray X times, then Y will occur." Or, "in situation A, the Intelligent Designer will do B". Those would be falsifiable.
quote:I would say they are scientific theories, not established facts - because they each make predictions about the future that could reasonably turn out to be false.
Would you say that the gravity is an established fact? Atomic theory? The germ theory of disease?
quote:"Planet" is just a word. But if you say "the proposed definition of 'planet' is better than the old definition of 'planet'", then that is a claim about reality, and is not falsifiable.
The word "planet" doesn't have to be falsifiable because it doesn't make ANY claims about reality at all.
quote:Raw data is scientific insofar as it is used in the scientific method to test falsifiable theories. It is not scientific outside that. For instance, I'm getting data as I check the clock right now - but that does not mean I am doing science.
Raw data isn't falsifiable either, but it's certainly scientific, because it too does not make any claims beyond "this is what we observed."
quote:Well, yeah, I doubt they will agree to these - which is probably why they will have a hard time ever making a science out of ID. If they reject (a) then they are rejecting a foundational assumption of science - they'd be arguing that the universe does not operate in a predictable, repeatable fashion. (Which would be a non-scientific argument, although I think it most certainly would be an argument relevant to science.)
think I could accept those hypotheses as falsifiable, but they are based on the assumptions that (a) an Intelligent Designer will actually respond in a predictable, repeatable fashion, and (b) that we can actually come to some sort of agreement about what X, Y, A, and B are.
quote:That's an interesting viewpoint, pooka!
Originally posted by pooka:
I believe in God, but I grant science is as good of an investment as anything the government spends its money on. I don't know that I've ever proclaimed that I believe in ID, since I associate it not with a scientific theory but with a political movement. I feel the same about "Darwinism". There is no truth in science, only the presentation of evidence that does or does not withstand scrutiny, or which is a fruitful field for further inquiry. In a sense, the laws of natural selection themselves apply to the academic ecology.
quote:Then we're actually in agreement here. To be honest, I was a bit uncomfortable with referring to evolution as "established fact," myself, because of exactly what you say. You cannot prove something to be true- you can only state that, based on current evidence, it has not been proven *false.* In cases like atomic theory, germ theory, and evolutionary theory, though, the current evidence in their favor is so strong that there's no real need to reaffirm their "theoryhood" every time they come up.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I would say they are scientific theories, not established facts - because they each make predictions about the future that could reasonably turn out to be false.
Would you say that the gravity is an established fact? Atomic theory? The germ theory of disease?
quote:No, it's not a claim about reality. In this case, the use of the word "better" is misleading. The new definition of "planet" is not "better" at explaining anything about the nature of reality. The only thing it's "better" at than the old definition (and even this is debateable) is that it more clearly delineates between orbiting bodies that share some similarities and Kuiper bodies. But it doesn't say anything about *why* or *how* these bodies have similarities; nor does it make any claims that these similarites are, in fact, at all important in the grand scheme of things. The definition exists only because scientists find it a more convenient one to use. It is most emphatically not a claim about some universal truth- an alien culture could happily use some other definition of "planet" and both our scientists and theirs would be perfectly justified.
quote:"Planet" is just a word. But if you say "the proposed definition of 'planet' is better than the old definition of 'planet'", then that is a claim about reality, and is not falsifiable.
The word "planet" doesn't have to be falsifiable because it doesn't make ANY claims about reality at all.
quote:I think we're talking past each other here. I am saying that data is scientific in the sense that it has a role in scientific inquiry. And furthermore, by "data," I am referring specifically to observations taken in a systematic fashion, with appropriate controls. This encompasses both experimental data and observational data, such as information about population biology or geological analysis of a volcano. When I read the luminescence of bacteria expressing beta-galactosidase, I am most definitely "doing science," even if I haven't reached the point where I can say anything definitive about my results yet.
quote:Raw data is scientific insofar as it is used in the scientific method to test falsifiable theories. It is not scientific outside that. For instance, I'm getting data as I check the clock right now - but that does not mean I am doing science.
Raw data isn't falsifiable either, but it's certainly scientific, because it too does not make any claims beyond "this is what we observed."
quote:They can certainly argue that, and there are certainly epistemologies that do. But they run up against the fact that every aspect of modern human technology is founded upon the assumption that the universe is predictable. It's possible to make an academic case against a predictable universe even under these circumstances, but given the massive success of science so far, there's no reason for anyone to accept it in any practical fashion.
quote:Well, yeah, I doubt they will agree to these - which is probably why they will have a hard time ever making a science out of ID. If they reject (a) then they are rejecting a foundational assumption of science - they'd be arguing that the universe does not operate in a predictable, repeatable fashion. (Which would be a non-scientific argument, although I think it most certainly would be an argument relevant to science.)
think I could accept those hypotheses as falsifiable, but they are based on the assumptions that (a) an Intelligent Designer will actually respond in a predictable, repeatable fashion, and (b) that we can actually come to some sort of agreement about what X, Y, A, and B are.
That may be the real problem here. Perhaps the argument that religious groups really should be making is that science itself is based on mistaken assumptions. Perhaps they should be arguing that the world is inherently unpredictable.
quote:Actually, I think you could. To wit, you would study the correlation between the success of a culture (measured by a purely Darwinian standard of survival versus non-survival; that way you get no issues of what 'success' is defined as, because whatever the definition, no culture which doesn't exist can have it) and its use of the scientific method. I think it's pretty clear that you don't really need to do the study; tanks and machine guns will win over faith and connection with nature every time.
Here's the issue. Can you USE the scientific method to somehow show the scientific method is best?
quote:Tres, your unwillingness to understand or listen to the scientific definition of these words is causing problems in the conversation.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:This is not correct, unless by "established fact" you just mean whatever you believe to be true - in the way that sometimes Christians say it is a fact that God exists or sometimes Democrats say it is a fact that the Iraq War was wrong. But at a minimum we can say that it is not proven that the theory of evolution is true; it could be wrong - and thus I don't think it should qualify as established fact.
Evolution is a theory, and that is not "just a theory," it is also an established fact.
quote:And how is the "power of prayer" to be tested scientifically? When prayer is a traditional process evolved out a complex set of social conventions and historical occurences? For instance,the languages we employ in prayer are all different, and are affected by history, which is why we include gramatical and vocabulary usages which are not in common use, only in prayer. All these variables would be impossible to control- and a control group would be impossible to construct, because prayer is not a thing to be measured, it is a vague concept which is different for different people and cultures.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I think it would be pretty easy for ID to make falsifiable claims. But that would require them to define the nature of the Intelligent Designer and how He acts. For instance, it would have to say things like "If we pray X times, then Y will occur." Or, "in situation A, the Intelligent Designer will do B". Those would be falsifiable.
Is it possible that ID would make scientifically falsifiable claims?
quote:Sorry for the triple post- this thought simply leads me to ask why we don't all become Nhialists. (sp?)
Originally posted by Mathematician:
If not, why accept it to begin with? It seems, with a touch of irony perhaps, that our trust of logic depends on faith. Note that if we can't use the scientific method to prove the scientific method works best, then more or less everyone's reasons for following logic more than faith become worthless. This debate hinges on this one assumption - that logic is somehow better than faith at gleaning truth.
To give my own partial answer, I think it's something (culturally?) ingrained in us. I imagine every response to the question (which actually answers the question) will be an appeal to reason, not to faith. We simply are used to using logic to communicate our views, perhaps for the precision of it, perhaps for some (many?) other reasons.
quote:For my part, it's because even the most "speculative" claims of ID, if true, actually wind up being another form of evolutionary pressure. If God's out there tinkering with genes, that doesn't disprove the theory of natural selection any more than our ability to breed dogs for long tails does. The only thing that "breaks" this argument is that if God is deliberately and randomly interfering with what appear to us to be scientific mechanisms to the extent that the mechanisms themselves do not function in the way they appear to function -- and if that's the case, then observational science is impossible anyway and falsification is moot.
Why do people assert that it will NEVER make a falsfiable claim?
quote:Science is not true, not is it the best rational approximation of truth. Rather, science is the best means for discovering certain kinds of truth about the world. It is not the only means of discovering truth, nor is it suitable for some of the most important truths we need to discover.
Is science truth? Or is science the best rational approximation to truth? Or something in between?
quote:Specifically, science cannot define the word "better." Science isn't really in the business of definitions at all, now that I think of it.
Science does not tell us whether the outcome of X people dying is better or worse than the outcome of X people not dying.
quote:To generate a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis from ID theory, we would have to identify not what types of things are commonly caused by intelligence but we would have to identify features of a universe which could not be caused by an intelligent being.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
quote:In a sense, it is, if you can find that something that completely violates the hypothesis: a billion-year-old human fossil, the remains of an angel... stuff like that.
Is natural selection a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis?
quote:I disagree. I think that if a model fails to hold true in any instance, then it is wrong (not true). It may be a useful close approximation, but close approximations are still wrong. Einstein was wrong - but he was close. And thus his theories are not fact - they are just useful theories.
My point is to show that questions in science, and FACTS yes FACTS in science, can be proved outdated or innacurate, but they are rarely proved wrong. Newton was not wrong in his calculations, he was ignorant of subtler forces in the universe. Einstein was not WRONG in his theory of general relativity, he may also have been ignorant of yet subtler shades of reality in the 11 dimensional space model. Some theorists believe that the next century will bring proof that Einstein's equations are not accurate in special situations having to do with fast moving objects, but Einstein will not have been proved WRONG, and relativity will still be an established fact. The existance of vacuum energy, if it can be proved, will add a new understanding of the Einstein model which will force an adjustment to our ideas of relativity, but they will not be WRONG.
quote:This is not true. Agreed upon definitions are essential in philosophy - probably more so than any other discipline except math. That is why philosophers spend so much time arguing over definitions. If they can't generate agreement, they can't move forward - and often they don't.
Edit: to Mathematician, yes you are right to say that agreed upon definitions are key in science, that is absolutely vital. I think of how this applies to my argument: agreed upon definitions are NOT necessary in philosophy, and in fact many philosophers center their arguments around the nature of definitional conventions.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by "ID people" but please note that I am not a believer in the Intelligent Design theory.
On the reverse side, ID people like you claim that these theories are never "proved true," as you stated in your post.
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:This is not true. Agreed upon definitions are essential in philosophy - probably more so than any other discipline except math. That is why philosophers spend so much time arguing over definitions. If they can't generate agreement, they can't move forward - and often they don't.
Edit: to Mathematician, yes you are right to say that agreed upon definitions are key in science, that is absolutely vital. I think of how this applies to my argument: agreed upon definitions are NOT necessary in philosophy, and in fact many philosophers center their arguments around the nature of definitional conventions.
I also believe, though, that in philosophy (and in science, which is a specialized part of philosophy) it is also important to have CORRECT definitions. They must be agreed upon AND correct. Otherwise, we could agree that Republican means "supported the Iraq War" and conclude that OSC is a Republican, when he isn't. For this reason, I don't think it is usually productive to simply agree upon a popular definition for something, if it is not correct.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
quote:I certainly wasn't suggesting nihilism. I was suggesting that faith and logic are intertwined in a fundamental way. Sure, logic is great, but to get things started in any sort of meaningful way, we need faith (faith that we are not just brains in a vat, for example).
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Sorry for the triple post- this thought simply leads me to ask why we don't all become Nhialists. (sp?)
Originally posted by Mathematician:
If not, why accept it to begin with? It seems, with a touch of irony perhaps, that our trust of logic depends on faith. Note that if we can't use the scientific method to prove the scientific method works best, then more or less everyone's reasons for following logic more than faith become worthless. This debate hinges on this one assumption - that logic is somehow better than faith at gleaning truth.
To give my own partial answer, I think it's something (culturally?) ingrained in us. I imagine every response to the question (which actually answers the question) will be an appeal to reason, not to faith. We simply are used to using logic to communicate our views, perhaps for the precision of it, perhaps for some (many?) other reasons.
If you want to know what 2+2=, then you have to trust that 2 is 2 and that is all there is to it (no pun intended!). If you go down that road- what if two isn't really two man? Then you're just begging the listener not to hear anything you say, because you've reached down into the core of it all and just said, trust ABSOLUTELY nothing. In this case science and religion and EVERYTHING is useless- so what's the point?
quote:And the reason they spend so much energy on defining them is because "agreed upon definitions are essential in philosophy."
If you believe that philosophers rely on a common set of definitions you are wrong wrong, oh so very wrong. Read a little Emmanuel Kant, Augustine, Nietzsche, every one of them spends terrific energry speaking to the universal application of certain words, and trying to define them: beautiful, agreeable, good, true, all have a different view.
quote:Then try silence. Especially when your rudeness exposes your ignorance of the subject.
Not that I expected you to actually know anything about this, much less understand anything you didn't already think you knew. Oh well. I suppose my definitions of "intelligent debate" and "knowledge" are different from yours. But I guess everyone is entitled to his own opinion, even really stupid ones. Forgive me for being rude, its hard to think of anything nice to say.
quote:This isn't quite accurate. ID claims, "(a) Something purposeful (OK, call it God) did it, (b) science hasn't proven that it/he didn't, (c) many of the gaps/unknowns/conundrums in current evolutionary knowledge cannot (ever) be solved within science, and thus explanations invoking a designer must be invoked, and (d) the claim presented in (c) requires no scientific proof because it is patently self-obvious."
Rivka wrote:
But because [ID] claims "God did it, and science can prove that He did"
quote:There's a lot here to reply to.
Tresopax wrote:
I think the sort of "Science" we should focus on is the sort of science that has a special authority - that we can trust as being true. For instance, a bunch of scientists may get together and declare that a fetus is not a yet a person, and to some this may be "science" speaking, but that does not mean we should drop our own opinions on the issue just because they say it. Such a declaration does not have that special authority, because it is really just a bunch of opinions that happen to be related to science. However, other scientific declarations DO have the authority to make us give up any beliefs to the contrary. For instance, if scientists observe that the moon is not made of green cheese, we should accept that truth. If experiments show that heavy objects fall the same speed as light objects, we should accept that truth. It is the latter category that I think we should call Science - the things that have a special authority, that force us to accept them as being true no matter how much we may not want it to be true.
I think this category of evidence is limited only to (1) that which we can observe in objective, repeatable, measureable experiments, and (2) anything which directly follows from those observations. And the reason this has a special authority is because it is really just observation. If we doubt it, we can try it for ourselves. And if we still doubt it afterwards, we can try it again and again. If the results are always the same, you must accept it, or deny your senses. This is the sort of "Science" that I think is rock solid. You cannot dispute it, as long as the experiments continue to support it. And if your religion disagrees with it, you should probably reject your religion - because that would mean you religion conflicts with what you can repeatably observe to be true.
I'd contrast this to a whole bunch of other sorts of conclusions that may be related to or based in part on scientific results, but are also based on other assumptions. These are extrapolations or extensions, where people take their own biases and opinions, and look at scientific results through that lens.
quote:I hasten to add that of course there are valid distinctions and categorizations between real or trusted science and junk science, non-science, philosophy, superstition, religion, wishful thinking, politics, advertising, and fraud.
I wrote:
no such "categorization" exists in science
quote:Because the disagreement is the source of so much insite in philosophy, and especially in my own field of interest lately- literary criticism. A philosopher or a critic can spend an entire treatise attempting to identify the meaning of a single word, in a single context. He does not expect others to agree, nor probably does he hope to absolutely prove some point, but merely to build a universal understanding around one concept, in one usage. That universal understanding, though most believe you can't achieve it, is the goal for some, and the end of the world for others.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
How on earth do you think citing philosophers spending terrific energy trying to define terms somehow refutes what Tres said, when he himself commented on the how much energy they spend trying to define terms.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
quote:Ok, so I oversimplified.
Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
quote:This isn't quite accurate. ID claims, "(a) Something purposeful (OK, call it God) did it, (b) science hasn't proven that it/he didn't, (c) many of the gaps/unknowns/conundrums in current evolutionary knowledge cannot (ever) be solved within science, and thus explanations invoking a designer must be invoked, and (d) the claim presented in (c) requires no scientific proof because it is patently self-obvious."
Rivka wrote:
But because [ID] claims "God did it, and science can prove that He did"
quote:Not to be picky, but you may have hit on a pet peeve of mine. If you were NOT referencing Godel's proofs in stating that you can't prove yourself to be conistent, ignore the rest.
Originally posted by Avin:
Of course it's somewhat hard to assert my own consistency in this (after all I cannot prove myself to be consistent!) but I currently hold the beliefs I do ...
quote:In defense of myself, there are reasons why I argue in the way I do. I often take positions that walk a fine line between two established viewpoints, or approach a familiar position in an unfamiliar way, by challenging certain assumptions that may be very widely accepted but that I don't think are well justified. Several things result from this:
edit: What tires me in dealing with Tres in most discussions is that your attempts to appeal to different aspects of the issue, to get him to start applying some of his own ideas and seeing if they work, bounce off like he's made of some kind of very powerful rubber compound. Anything you ask for, any consequence of his position you point out is met with "I just don't believe that," which is frustrating to someone who would be willing to consider the point and see where it leads. He may actually be attempting to do this, but each of his responses comes out as a restatement of the original idea, starting with a flat dismissal of a point he ought to consider a little more carefully. "That's not true," is a common leader, even when the point is highly debatable and often subjective.
quote:I don't think this contradicts me - I don't think the things I've said imply that definitions are not important or not useful. They are important! I just don't think the discussion of which definitions are best should be considered doing science, even when the terms are scientific.
However, if he does agree with me, then he has contradicted himself by saying that common definitions are important goals and useful tools for thought and dialogue in any discipline.
quote:I would say the experimenting you did and the "theory" you generated about what the inside looked like was all experimentation and conclusions that directly followed from that experimentation. And as long as you are just testing a theory, and don't claim your model of the inside of that box is a "fact", I don't think you are making any unscientific leaps. This is because it the model you came up with is consistent with (not falsified by) all the little tests you did on the box. The extrapolations or assumptions are more like "Why does this box have the shape it does?" or "Will my theory always hold true?" or "Is it good to play with the box?" etc - they might rely on parts of my theory, but the logic for them depends also on other assumptions that don't stem from our experimentation.
Three weeks later my sister and I got the ball to fall out the other hole. Of course we immediately put it in the first hole again, and so on. After a few transits of the box, I could describe the innards of the box exactly: here a dead end, here a ramp, here a door, here a counterweight, here a revolving door, etc. I think I could almost diagram the inside of the box today, even though I never saw it or opened it.
Into which "category" did these conclusions fall: "objective, repeatable, measureable experiments, and ... anything which directly follows from those observations," or "assumptions," "extrapolations or extensions"? Clearly both (I think you would agree). In actuality, no such "categorization" exists in science.
quote:Do you see how this admission undermines the point you originally tried to explore in the other thread?
Tres:
I just don't think the discussion of which definitions are best should be considered doing science, even when the terms are scientific.
quote:I thought you might misinterpret this point. Let me be more explicit.
The extrapolations or assumptions are more like "Why does this box have the shape it does?" or "Will my theory always hold true?" or "Is it good to play with the box?" etc.
code:There must have been 50 or more operations of that sort in arriving at the solution, and none of them make any sense whatever without extrapolation and assumption."I can hear the ball rolling. It appears to roll
about halfway, and encounter an obstacle." (Observation)
"Maybe the maze turns to the left at that point." (Extrapolation)
"Let's tilt the box to the left and see if we hear
it roll some more." (Assumption [that we will be
able to detect additional progress by the ball, if
it occurs])
Tilt box. (Experiment)
quote:This is precisely what we are talking about here. I do claim -- within certain limits that I can define very precisely -- that my model IS fact. Just as I can claim, in the above example, if I do hear the ball roll to the left, that my extrapolation and assumption about the direction of the maze was correct. The entire solution is built out of 50 individual 'proven' (or disproven) conjectures, and the whole is confirmed when the ball exits the box.
as long as you are just testing a theory, and don't claim your model of the inside of that box is a "fact...
quote:Some people (and some scientists even) believe/state that "science" does make those claims. I agreee with you that it doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that the people who are making the objections are not making it up out of nothing.
Some people think science says 'there is no god,' or 'everything in the universe is matter' -- and accepting that science makes these claims (which it doesn't), people object that science arrogates to itself a definition of 'Truth.'
quote:I don't see how this undermines my original point in the other thread, namely that science (and scientists) are concerned with more than just doing science, in the strict sense.
We all agree that discussions of definitions are not part of doing science as such -- that is, not uniquely or even distinctly part of the defining nature of science (as opposed to religion, philosophy, shoemaking, etc.).
ALL endeavors include discussions of definitions. The fact that scientists engaged in a protracted 'discussion of definitions' therefore does not at all belie scientists' earlier claims used to exclude ID from public-school classrooms.
quote:I would not consider those assumptions or extrapolations, though, because you are not assuming them to be true without testing them. Instead, they are a hypothesis, which is a part of the scientific method. If you test it, and keep it as your working theory as long as no test falsifies it, then I think that is all doing science.
"I can hear the ball rolling. It appears to rollabout halfway, and encounter an obstacle." (Observation)"Maybe the maze turns to the left at that point." (Extrapolation)"Let's tilt the box to the left and see if we hear it roll some more." (Assumption [that we will be able to detect additional progress by the ball, if it occurs])Tilt box. (Experiment)
quote:Then that is a point where I think you have left the boundries of what science can actually say.
This is precisely what we are talking about here. I do claim -- within certain limits that I can define very precisely -- that my model IS fact.
quote:I don't think evolution, as a whole, is known to be a fact, within those domains or anywhere. It is just the preferred model that currently fits all (or at least the vast majority of) the known data. It could one day be falsified, and thus turn out to be false. Couldn't it?
What is the domain within which evolution is known to be a fact? The domain of biological nature, as revealed in life forms, genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, geology, etc. Within the aggregate of those domains, evolution is acknowledged to be absolutely fact, with a pretty comprehensive and fine-grained understanding of its mechanisms (although this is constantly under development and refinement).
quote:Why do you say science doesn't produce truth? I would say science is only useful insofar as we believe scientific theories are true.
Science produces facts, not truth, which are only useful or even meaningful in particular contexts, contexts that necessarily exclude significant areas of discourse (such as faith).
quote:From a strict epistemological view, you really cannot. If my belief system happens to preclude being forced or re-evaluation due to any form of reason, then really I can only change it by my own choice. And although I am not above reconsidering beliefs I hold based on rational argument from my own assumptions and by showing I am inconsistent about something, you will not be able to convince me that my beliefs are wrong using rational argument based on any external assumptions, such as your own.
How do you satisfy these questions of conflicting beliefs?
quote:Your own. If you are believing in inconsistent things, then that means you are believing things that you believe are wrong.
And really, if I refused to listen to your logic at all, who are you to say that I am wrong? Logic cannot dictate right and wrong. I have stated that I try to be self-consistent; but if I decided to deliberately believe in inconsistent thoughts, by what standard could you argue against me?
quote:The trouble with that is that I can teach Christianity without mentioning Hinduism, but by teaching Christianity I am still nevertheless probably calling Hinduism wrong, even if I am not specifically saying it.
Did you ever notice, you can teach Evolution without mentioning Religion or ID.
quote:(Um, yes. And also concerned with eating, and going to the bathroom, and wondering whether it will rain on their picnic.)
Tres:
I don't see how this undermines my original point in the other thread, namely that science (and scientists) are concerned with more than just doing science, in the strict sense.
quote:I don't mean to answer to Avin, but I can offer my own view point on it.
Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Avin- A personal question, if that's all right. You identify yourself as a Young Earth Creationist, but also "believe in evolution." We've established in this thread that it is certainly possible to believe that God directed evolution, and that theistic evolution does not any in any way contradict current science. However, I'm a little confused how one would reconcile Young-Earth creationism with evolution... if the Earth has only existed for a few thousand years, there really hasn't been enough time for evolution to do it's thing. Please correct me if I'm confused about your beliefs; I'm honestly curious here. :)
quote:Then you are wrong. Hypotheses and 'working theories' are assumptions -- and the expression I listed as an extrapolation is most definitely an extrapolation.
quote:I would not consider those assumptions or extrapolations, though, because you are not assuming them to be true without testing them. Instead, they are a hypothesis, which is a part of the scientific method. If you test it, and keep it as your working theory as long as no test falsifies it, then I think that is all doing science.
quote:
"I can hear the ball rolling. It appears to rollabout halfway, and encounter an obstacle." (Observation)"Maybe the maze turns to the left at that point." (Extrapolation)"Let's tilt the box to the left and see if we hear it roll some more." (Assumption [that we will be able to detect additional progress by the ball, if it occurs])Tilt box. (Experiment)
quote:I guess you would disagree that a working assumption is an assumption?*** Again, I was simply pointing out that there is a vital role for assumptions in science, which you originally denied.
I think an assumption would be if you heard the ball rolling and thus concluded that it must turn left at that point, and assumed that to be true without testing it.
quote:This phrasing suggests a common misconception, that the falsification of a hypothesis is somehow always possible in the distant future, even if it tests true at present.
Tres wrote:
If you test it, and keep it as your working theory as long as no test falsifies it....
quote:...this:
I believe X, and so far X seems to be true, but if X is falsified, I don't yet have any alternative in mind...
quote:There are other logical/deductive forms that can produce similarly positive results.
The answer can only be X, Y or Z. Y and Z have been falsified, therefore it must be X.
quote:In terms of observational science, I agree. But when it comes to experimental science, I disagree with this. I agree that given certain beginning assumptions, sometimes one can arrive at the conclusion "X is the only possibility", but I think the assumptions can ALWAYS be questioned.
Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
On the other hand, and this is very important, there are lots of logical/deductive constructs that allow an experimenter to formulate closed-end hypotheses; that is, instead of:
quote:...this:
I believe X, and so far X seems to be true, but if X is falsified, I don't yet have any alternative in mind...
quote:There are other logical/deductive forms that can produce similarly positive results.
The answer can only be X, Y or Z. Y and Z have been falsified, therefore it must be X.
quote:I think you should read up on evolutionary theory, starting with Darwin and ending with Gould.
Tres wrote:
I don't think evolution, as a whole, is known to be a fact, within those domains or anywhere. It is just the preferred model that currently fits all (or at least the vast majority of) the known data. It could one day be falsified, and thus turn out to be false. Couldn't it?
quote:I think I explained more about this point of view in a later post than the one you quoted. I was probably using somewhat sloppy language, but the main idea is that I feel the word 'truth' conveys an absolutism that is rarely applicable in science.
Why do you say science doesn't produce truth?
quote:So if I believe a theory that says gravity is powered by chamomile tea, it becomes a useful theory? :-)
I would say science is only useful insofar as we believe scientific theories are true.
quote:(I'm glad you're asking some of this, it is making me think.)
I'm also not sure what you mean by a fact that is not truth. Don't facts have to be true?
quote:Yes, I foresaw this objection, and I agree. I was simply trying to open Tres's eyes to robust deductive structures used in science that are alternatives to the simple one that is so often cited by evolution skeptics ("it's only considered valid because it happens to fit the known data and hasn't [yet] been falsified").
Mathematician wrote:
I agree that given certain beginning assumptions, sometimes one can arrive at the conclusion "X is the only possibility", but I think the assumptions can ALWAYS be questioned.
quote:Even along these lines, there is a still an issue. Even if we agree on our initial assumptions to begin with, science can merely say "the only SCIENTIFIC theory meeting these assumptions/data/etc can be X", it can not (by definition), rule out non-scientific "theories (answers/explanations)".
Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
quote:Yes, I foresaw this objection, and I agree. I was simply trying to open Tres's eyes to robust deductive structures used in science that are alternatives to the simple one that is so often cited by evolution skeptics ("it's only considered valid because it happens to fit the known data and hasn't [yet] been falsified").
Mathematician wrote:
I agree that given certain beginning assumptions, sometimes one can arrive at the conclusion "X is the only possibility", but I think the assumptions can ALWAYS be questioned.
quote:This is not where I thought you were going with this. (I thought we were talking about the inherent uncertainties of various deductive models.)
...it can not (by definition), rule out non-scientific "theories (answers/explanations)".
Thus, science may be able to say "really guys, the only reasonable scientific theory for life the universe and everything is evolution", but it MUST say "even though I've ruled out every scientific theory but evolution, evolution could still possibly be wrong (though we obviously believe that chance to be small enough to neglect)"
quote:Personally I disagree that this is the reason why science was developed. I would agree that this is a contributing reason why scientific methology became so prevalent and modernistic thinking took root, but I sharply disagree that this was the purpose in mind for most science leading up to the Enlightenment.
I do not limit those believers to Christians. Whether its Muslims, Hindus, or Aztecs, some people in most religions will be violent in spreading their beliefs. Science took form as an answer to that self destructive tendancy.
quote:Agreed, although personally I don't much care too much for categories of knowledge.
I know that you could teach Creationism without mentioning Evolution. Then again, Creationism doesn't claim to be science. It is religion.
quote:When I say I believe in evolution, you'll perhaps have to qualify that. I believe in the process of evolution occuring throughout history (no distinction between macro and micro evolution, as some creationists like to maintain), I just have a shorter history to apply that in. Since I accept on faith first that God created various kinds of life on earth roughly 6,000 years ago, then evolution must have taken over from there. I take no issue with scientific findings that rely on evolution in the present, but the dating of various events, such as fossils, geological strata, or the light from distant stars I am forced to submit can be dated differently. Mathematician has mentioned some ideas on this already; while I am not confident in any one theory about this, I am suitably conviced that no one issue is completely unresolvable under my assumptions.
Avin- A personal question, if that's all right. You identify yourself as a Young Earth Creationist, but also "believe in evolution." We've established in this thread that it is certainly possible to believe that God directed evolution, and that theistic evolution does not any in any way contradict current science. However, I'm a little confused how one would reconcile Young-Earth creationism with evolution... if the Earth has only existed for a few thousand years, there really hasn't been enough time for evolution to do it's thing. Please correct me if I'm confused about your beliefs; I'm honestly curious here.
quote:It would behoove you, for the sake of your relationship with others, or at least me, to keep in mind what is intended as an assumption for the sake of argument, and what is believed to be a common assumption. When you are reading someone else's argument, you can be perfectly justified in finding fault with it if it is not sound, however your serial offense IMO, is managing to simply not accept VERY basic assumptions so that no-one is able to argue with you. Notice that I don't hold you responsible for the existance of God in this thread, though I don't believe in God. If I were to follow what I believe is your strategy, I would merely dismiss your entire line of inquiry, ignoring all its other glaring faults, because I don't take the existance of God as a believable premise and therefore find the idea of ID absurd to the nth degree. Truth is, I don't believe in God, and so even if I could be convinced that your argument made ANY sense or that ID had anything to do with science, I STILL wouldn't pay it any mind because its based on a premise I don't believe. It happens to be a premise that it is not allowed to argue on this forum, iirc.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
Secondly, people often try to refute my position starting from assumptions that I don't agree with. In such cases, I have to say "I just don't believe that" because I don't. Please notice that I always at least try to give some explanation/reason why I don't believe it. But if I don't believe that shared definitions are unimportant to philosophers then I'm not going to go down a length path of discussion that is entirely built upon that assumption. If you want to convince me of your viewpoint, you need to start with assumptions I do believe in, or show me why I should accept the assumptions that I reject.
quote:But there is an issue here. Science will go on as before, because any scientist isn't going to waste time on a theory that is completely non-useful, unprovable, and not really a theory at all. What is at stake is education, and the fight by a religious group to mandate religious teachings in a public institution. This is a violation of the first ammendment, imo, and so it is a rights issue as well. It is really not a science issue, because science doesn't, and never will take this debate seriously as anything but an attack on education and rights.
Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
So yes, there is a very general obligation on the scientific community to humbly allow that we don't know every dam-q thing, and that the universe undoubtedly has surprises in store for us. But that doesn't change one whit the characterization of what is practically considered the consensus body of knowledge, how it is taught, or the direction that scientists take in doing original research.
In other words, the "issue" you cite is indeed "small enough to neglect" (by a wide margin), and is thus no issue.
Edit: typo
-- is that science, and science educators in particular, underestimate the degree of offense given religious familes and their children in science curricula. It is quite emotional. As long as that is the case, no amount of logic and education will clear up the dispute.quote:That does not contradict (3).
Your original point was that:
(1) during the ID debates, scientists claimed that the business of science and scientists was only that which could be proven via the scientific method (I am paraphrasing),
(2) a debate (undertaken by scientists) about the definition of the word 'planet' did not fall into that category,
(3) therefore the business of science and scientists must include a larger range of activities, including not just that which can be proven via the scientific method, but also the defining of terms, and perhaps other things,
(4) and therefore those scientists cited in (1) used an erroneous argument to disqualify discussions of ID from science.
Several of us replied with the news that can't have seemed anything but blindingly obvious to everyone but you, namely that the defining of terms (along with deciding what to eat for lunch and complaining about the weather) is something that everybody does all the time, is not a part of science per se, and whether a scientist engages in the defining of terms has no bearing whatever on how we may interpret what is the rightful domain of science and scientists.
Several posts later you say "I just don't think the discussion of which definitions are best should be considered doing science, even when the terms are scientific," which directly contradicts step (3) in my version of your argument above.
quote:If that is how you take the term, then let me clarify: I don't think assumptions that aren't entailed by the results of testing, experimentation and observation should be considered science. Hypotheses and 'working theories' are a part of science though, because they are being tested, and are only considered true in a tentative way - they should not be considered 'fact' but rather as not yet proven false.
Then you are wrong. Hypotheses and 'working theories' are assumptions -- and the expression I listed as an extrapolation is most definitely an extrapolation.
quote:Actually, you are right. I was wrong on that point. Scientific theories can be useful even if you don't think they are definitely true.
Science is useful in a number of different ways.
(1) Science as engineering has practical utility: we can build bridges, and they (usually) don't fall down.
(2) Life sciences including evolution, genetics, not to mention medicine, give us information about how the natural world works, and how we (as uniquely intelligent and uniquely destructive creatures) impact it and each other. This guides our behavior, if we let it, for good or ill.
(3) Scientific theories that are 'agreed' to be factual -- where there is strong consensus -- where you might say "we believe it's true" -- these have a special utility: they can be treated as axiomatic in the development of additional theories.
quote:That is a serial offense of mine, but I disagree with you on its usefulness. I believe major differences in viewpoint stem from very basic assumptions, and so it is very basic assumptions that I like to discuss. But I don't just reject very basic assumptions without a reason given - if I were to reject the existence of God, I'd say why, and expect people to buy my point only insofar as they argeed with my reason.
When you are reading someone else's argument, you can be perfectly justified in finding fault with it if it is not sound, however your serial offense IMO, is managing to simply not accept VERY basic assumptions so that no-one is able to argue with you.
quote:So... since I believe everyone on this board (and probably everyone not on this board) would agree with that... of what special import is this point again? Maybe if we can start from scratch with this agreed basis, we can make some headway.
Tres wrote:
that is my main point: The business of scientists includes MORE than just doing science.
quote:You are the one that started to use the term 'assumption,' not I. I merely clarified for you its meaning in a scientific context.
If that is how you take the term, then let me clarify: I don't think assumptions that aren't entailed by the results of testing, experimentation and observation should be considered science.
quote:This is wrong. There are billions of scientific discoveries, assertions, and conclusions that are positive, not tentative, and billions more -- perhaps an infinity -- that are far more than tentative.
Hypotheses and 'working theories' are a part of science though, because they are being tested, and are only considered true in a tentative way - they should not be considered 'fact' but rather as not yet proven false.
quote:This is a nice statement of some of the key issues embroiled in this debate, and it provides a really good segue.
Of course, after something is tested millions of times there comes a point when it takes very little faith to jump from 'not yet proven false' to 'true as far as I'm concerned.' I do think that that leap is a leap beyond science, even if it is a very very small leap.
quote:I hope so - I like it when everyone agrees.
So... since I believe everyone on this board (and probably everyone not on this board) would agree with that... of what special import is this point again?
Just because everyone agrees on it, doesn't mean it isn't important to point out or remember. quote:Name one scientific theory or model that is not tentative - that could not possibly turn out to be false. Even gravity might no longer work tomorrow.
This is wrong. There are billions of scientific discoveries, assertions, and conclusions that are positive, not tentative, and billions more -- perhaps an infinity -- that are far more than tentative.
quote:Part of my trouble with this is I don't think all people realize this. I think many simply think "true as far as science is concerned" means it is actually true, certain, proven fact.
I wonder if this is really a fundamental aspect of how science is misunderstood by many including Tresopax. 'True as far as science is concerned' does NOT mean 'science says this is true', and it especially does not mean 'science says this is true (and it should be accepted as true by all people of all faiths and replace all related truths wherever they are).'
quote:This is a more modern view of science than the "science only makes falsifiable claims" view that I often see Hatrackers assert.
There are other standards for telling science from pseudoscience besides complete falsifiability. In a 1981 court case regarding creation science, the following criteria were used:
(1) Explanation of existing results in terms of exceptionless natural laws.
(2) Ability to predict further results.
(3) Experimental testability to some extent.
(4) Tentativeness of central assumptions.
quote:Help me get this straight.
Tres wrote:
On the specific case of Intelligent Design, [the agreement that the business of scientists includes more than just doing science] refutes the argument that "ID is no business of scientists solely because it is not science"
quote:I agree that this is an important distinction to maintain. For example, when scientists engage in political or social advocacy (e.g. climate change).
...it allows us to split scientific discussions into two areas - to distinguish between science itself and other claims that scientists make that are not directly supported by science itself.
quote:No fair picking on gravity!
Name one scientific theory or model that is not tentative - that could not possibly turn out to be false. Even gravity might no longer work tomorrow.
Nobody knows what gravity is.quote:Many of your comments in these threads have given me the impression that you think Science itself (with a capital S) promotes that philosophy. It does not (IMO).
I think many simply think "true as far as science is concerned" means it is actually true, certain, proven fact.
quote:That's an interesting statement that kind of made me think. I don't know why fundamentalist Christians would want to be excused. Like it or not, evolutionary theory and its many extensions (genetics for example) are useful and actually work. I don't see why one could not learn the mechanisms of evolution while disagreeing with some of it's conclusions, such as man evolved from chimps if that's against your religion. Your explaination is better to you than the scientific one, so you might as well keep it. You don't need to completely agree with all the conclusions of such a theory for it to be useful to you.
Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
I've sometimes wondered if accommodation should be offered Fundamentalist Christian pupils, so that they can remove themselves from biology without penalty. But I don't think this works for lots of reasons, one being that if biology is being taught right, they'd have to be excused from pretty much the whole course. And that would disqualify them from many college programs, including pre-med. I don't think they would accept that.
quote:Um, I do. It's curvature of the spacetime metric.
No fair picking on gravity! Nobody knows what gravity is.
quote:But there is a complex number i.
Sure, there's no real number i,
quote:I'm not sure why my sentence is being misinterpreted by you. I flat out stated that i is not a real number. Which it is not. Although i exists in the COMPLEX number plane, you can't point it out to me on the REAL number line. I never said or implied that i did not exist.
But there is a complex number i.
I'm always weirded out by the notion some people seem to have that the reals exist but the imaginaries don't.
quote:Don't have time to respond in detail right now (oh, the perils of posting at work!), but, with all respect, it does not. At least, not in the way you're implying. It does perhaps refute the idea that "ID is no business of scientists," the first half of your statement, but since nobody said that to start with, I fail to see the relevance. If anything, scientists should be quite concerned with ID (IMO, anyway), and the political situation currently playing out, because it could have severe and dangerous ramifications for the future of biological research in this country. As for the second half ("...because it is not science"), it does not refute that at all. ID is not science because it claims explanatory power and yet cannot be falsified. Period.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
Why is this point important? On the specific case of Intelligent Design, it refutes the argument that "ID is no business of scientists solely because it is not science" - an argument that I have heard made many times.
quote:Well, you were making an analogy with someone who might deny that evolution occurred, and yet still use it in science. So I assumed you meant that you might (or actually do) deny that i is a number, and yet still use it in math.
I'm not sure why my sentence is being misinterpreted by you. I flat out stated that i is not a real number. Which it is not. Although i exists in the COMPLEX number plane, you can't point it out to me on the REAL number line. I never said or implied that i did not exist.
quote:I'd gather from this you don't know what gravity is. The spacetime metric is a function acting on two vectors with certain properties. An equation cannot be curved, at least in the general relativistic sense. What can be curved is the manifold on which all these equations live.
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Um, I do. It's curvature of the spacetime metric.
No fair picking on gravity! Nobody knows what gravity is.
quote:Me too.
Originally posted by Desineer:
quote:But there is a complex number i.
Sure, there's no real number i,
I'm always weirded out by the notion some people seem to have that the reals exist but the imaginaries don't.
quote:Sure they would like to know what it is, but the point is that when you start getting to the heavy math subjects, it's really just that - heavy math.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
But KoM, aren't scientists interested in the extistance of gravitons as a possible element in the eventuall testing of M theory? I am so an amatuer/hobby reader, but I think scientists would at least care to know what gravity "is" if it is indeed something like a particle or a wave, right?
edit: although, there we are still talking about how it behaves and not what it is.. but aren't you at least curious about what it is? The lady or the graviton?
quote:Sorry about the slightly imprecise language. That said, you can have a manifold without a metric, and the metric is what determines the curvature of the manifold. And the Einstein field equations directly govern the metric tensor, so really it's facts about the metric (and not about the points) that determines the effects of gravitation.
I'd gather from this you don't know what gravity is. The spacetime metric is a function acting on two vectors with certain properties. An equation cannot be curved, at least in the general relativistic sense. What can be curved is the manifold on which all these equations live.
quote:I think this view is profoundly mistaken. For one thing, there's no strong distinction to be drawn between theoretical input and experimental output. This distinction is basically a function of what the experimenter takes for granted, rather than any fundamental difference between measurable and non-measurable things. So for instance, a physicist using electron diffraction to measure a crystal will treat the position of the electrons as 'known' input, whereas another physicist studying the behavior of electrons will treat the same data as the unkown quantity to be measured.
Let me just chime in and say that Mathematician is quite right about gravity; redefining it as 'curvature of the spacetime metric' is just playing with words. Even if you actually understand the equations, you're still only playing with numbers. You have gained something in your ability to describe what gravity does, which is why playing with numbers is a useful activity, but you haven't said anything about what it is. Nor does a scientist care; the proper aim is to get your ICBM to hit the right place, never mind the philosophical claptrap. There's a reason 'metaphysics' is an insult.
quote:I agree, obviously, that we should be tentative. But I think mathematical models, just like any other inferences we make from evidence, should be treated as our best guess about how the world is.
I guess to summarize, especially with mathematics intensive fields, until you can observe something, the best you can say is "this math models what I'm seeing better than any other math I've ever seen", or in some good cases, "this is the best possible mathematical model matching all of the assumptions". One cannot say "this mathematical model works perfectly and therefore this is how the universe really is."
quote:This is another good example of what I'm talking about. If the EM field is a real, physical field and not just a mathematical construct, then its presence at every point of space explains why charges move the way they do. If it's not a real field, then there's nothing out there in the world telling the charges what to do. So why do opposite ones attract rather than repel?
Or to use your photon example, photon is just short hand for a "packet of light", which is just a ripple in an electromagnetic field. Do electromagnetic fields REALLY exist? Or are they just convenient mathematical structures for accurately predicting behavior?
quote:For future reference, don't try to read to much into my analogies. They are usually hastily constructed to make a superficial point, start taking them too deeply or broadly and they'll stop making any sort of sense. My main error was talking about the way I use i and then introducing a hypothetical person that has a problem with the existence of the number-for clarity I probably should have just kept the whole analogy hypothetical.
Originally posted by Destineer:
Well, you were making an analogy with someone who might deny that evolution occurred, and yet still use it in science. So I assumed you meant that you might (or actually do) deny that i is a number, and yet still use it in math.
If that's not what you're saying, the analogy seems less than apt.
quote:Oy, gevalt. Please don't cite Schroeder -- to quote my father (a mathematical physicist and an Orthodox Jew), his book are "bad physics and bad Torah."
Originally posted by Mathematician:
I have read books/articles by Gerald Schroeder and by some other guy (I don't remember his name) which address this.
quote:Totally irrelevant. I refer you back to the example I mentioned, of making an ICBM hit the right spot. Technology forms an independent test of science; if your lightbulb works, your science is right enough. It can get better, so that for example you are able to get a radio to work without losing the lightbulb. But the distinction between 'known input' and 'experimental result' is irrelevant; the question is whether you can make a better killing machine.
So for instance, a physicist using electron diffraction to measure a crystal will treat the position of the electrons as 'known' input, whereas another physicist studying the behavior of electrons will treat the same data as the unkown quantity to be measured.
quote:What about science with no known technological application, like high-energy particle physics or cosmology? How does your standard of rightness (or 'right enoughness') apply to these situations?
Technology forms an independent test of science; if your lightbulb works, your science is right enough.
quote:Thanks for the heads up about Schroeder. I knew he was bad at physics, but I had no idea he screwed up the "Torah" side. What do you know about this Nachmanides guy Schroeder seems to quote a lot?
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Oy, gevalt. Please don't cite Schroeder -- to quote my father (a mathematical physicist and an Orthodox Jew), his book are "bad physics and bad Torah."
Originally posted by Mathematician:
I have read books/articles by Gerald Schroeder and by some other guy (I don't remember his name) which address this.
As for "the other guy," I suspect you are talking about Larry Keleman, whose books are great (and you should hear him in person!) I also recommend Nosson Slifkin's books, although I disagree with him on a fair number of details.
quote:Particle physics has applications to fusion power, cancer cures, and breaking up radioactive waste. Further, it makes predictions about what our detectors are going to show; and those detectors can be checked elsewhere, against the usual technological 'right enough' standard. It's all a web, but ultimately it refers back to lightbulbs.
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:What about science with no known technological application, like high-energy particle physics or cosmology? How does your standard of rightness (or 'right enoughness') apply to these situations?
Technology forms an independent test of science; if your lightbulb works, your science is right enough.
quote:That's stretching the word 'theory' into utter meaninglessness, and I won't go there.
Also, I would maintain that even in the ICBM case, your criterion of success is theory-dependent. How is it that you assert that the ICBM hit the right target? Well, you have a theory of motion that tells you what it is for a missile to collide with a target, and a theory of optics that tells you how the collision is visible to the naked eye.
quote:Yes, although that's not what I call them.
just so we're on the same page, "5 books of Moses" is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy?
quote:That is debated, actually. Traditional possibilities:
I guess what I'm really asking is about Deuteronomy. As Moses dies in it, he probably didn't write all of it ;-).
quote:Acronym for Torah (5 books), Nevi'im (Prophets), and Kesuvim (Writings). Essentially what a Christian would call the "Old Testament."
Also, what's "Tanach"?
quote:Yup.
Finally, when saying Ramban's commentary "is one of the 5 or so most basic commentaries on the text", what exactly do you mean by basic? Basic meaning one of the 5 or so standard starting places when looking up Torah commentary?
quote:Was it by any chance Aviezer? I haven't read that one, but as I recall my father considers it "not terrible." (Other people I know are more effusive.
Originally posted by Mathematician:
As far as the other 2 guys you mentioned, I don't THINK that's them, but I really don't remember.
)
quote:I agree, but I'd already been thinking that KoM's answer to 'the nature of science' ("Nor does a scientist care; the proper aim is to get your ICBM to hit the right place, never mind the philosophical claptrap") threatened to stretch (or constrain) the word 'science' to utter meaninglessness.
That's stretching the word 'theory' into utter meaninglessness, and I won't go there.
quote:Not all particle physics has such applications. I doubt Higgs bosons or top quarks will be used in radiation therapy or fusion any time soon.
Particle physics has applications to fusion power, cancer cures, and breaking up radioactive waste.
quote:Really? How do you check the performance of a neutrino detector, for instance, except by detecting neutrinos with it?
Further, it makes predictions about what our detectors are going to show; and those detectors can be checked elsewhere, against the usual technological 'right enough' standard.
quote:Newtonian mechanics isn't a theory? Because that's what explains collisions. Geometric optics isn't a theory? Because that's what explains how the eye works.
That's stretching the word 'theory' into utter meaninglessness, and I won't go there.