posted
(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:Originally posted by Orincoro: ...the fact that ID is completely outside the realm of science.
That's a pretty strong statement.
I'd be TOTALLY willing to agree that at the moment, proponents of ID have made no scientifically falsifiable claim. I'd also be the first to point out that, at the moment, this disqualifies ID as being science (and so I agree that, at least for now, ID has no place in a science classroom).
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.
But what if someday, 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)? Likewise, what if string theory never ends up making a testable claim? This is certainly a possibility (note, I'm in no way vouching for the probability of this happening, just noting that as it's currently understood, this is possible). What if string theory makes a testable claim, but we won't have the engineering skills to actually test it for 1000 years? 10,000 years?
I guess I'm trying to point out that the lines between philosophy (or religion) and science can sometimes be very blurred. Now, I'm not suggesting we put ID in the classroom today, but I am suggesting we don't TOTALLY dismiss it until we have a better reason to do it.
Further, assuming ID stays outside the realm of science, that means science can tell us nothing about whether ID is true or false (by definition). Note that this does NOT mean that ID is true or false, rather, it just means that science can make the judgement. So, again, for the sake of argument, what if ID is true?
I guess, what I'm fundamnetally asking is this: Is science the search for truth? Or is it the search for the best rational/observational/experimental explanation at the time (or is there a difference between the two?)
Personally, I think that science is "the search for the best rational/observational/experimental explanataion at the time." What this means is that to me, science can never tell you "this is how things are". It can only say, "This is the best (logical/rational/ observational/experimental) explanation which has been come up with so far."
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: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)?
I can't think of a single testable claim ID might make that wouldn't simply be another form of natural selection.
ID as just another form of selection pressure isn't a rival to evolution.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if, for example, God was discovered to exist scientifically, then I would be okay with including checking and recording his height, weight, temperature, and blood pressure as a freshman year science lab.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
ID also tends to reject scientific reasoning for more basic tenets--such as God did it.
This is exactly the assumption I'm trying to have a discussion about.
If science is THE answer in the search for truth, then "rejecting scientific reasoning for more basic tenents" is clearly wrong.
But if that's not what science is, then we can't just immediately assume that sort of treatment is wrong (if God REALLY did do it, then there's no good reasong to favor scientific reasoning over the "more basic tenents", at least in this case. That said, what's our litmus test for determining when to favor scientific reasoning over more basic tenents?)
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science was not created to combat religion. It was created to find an alternative to religious war. You say God made the world this way. They say God made the world the other way. Both claim faith as fact. How do we determine which is correct?
We either fight it out and assume God will not let the right lose, in which case we lose free will, or we develop a methodology to test the universe and see what we can prove to be correct.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mostly agree, especially the part about science needing to be developed (though I think there are peaceful ways to compare quality/truth of religions).
Apparently, I'm having trouble being clear in exactly what I'm asking, for that I apologize.
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".
My question is why? If we agree in the possibility that science could be wrong and religion could be right, why is religion immediately thrown out when the two conflict? Why is the "truth" of science elevated higher than the "truth" of religion? 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)?
(What I'm really after is an answer to the last 2 questions I asked, as well as WHY you think that way)
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm just jumping back in here and haven't been in the pluto thread, so forgive me if I get at all redundant.
A lot of theists seem to think that "God did it" is enough explanation and this really bugs me. What about "How did God do it?"
The problem with ID or not ID is that if God exists, then we live in a universe where God is in the works. We have nothing to compare it against, no control. So of course, one can't say that because there is evolution there is not God. God is not supernatural because God and nature are part of the same existance, and that is what we live in. ID would like to seperate out what God is directly responsible for and I'm not sure that it possible.
About the nature of science:
Science can really only be "the search for the best rational/observational/experimental explanataion at the time". There is a great deal of truth that cannot be arrived at directly using scientific means, and this doesn't even begin to address the existance or non-existance of deity.
Heck, what is Truth? What is goodness? What is Love? What is humor? Beauty. Art.
What is it to be who we are?
Why are we here?
Why do we experience?
These are not such superfluous questions, really. Sure, a person can go their whole life without touching on them at all, but these questions are what drive us to grow and improve both as societies and as individuals. And science can't really address them.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A good scientific theory will have predictive power. That is the problem with ID as a scientific explanation. God did it tells me nothing about what will happen in the future.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: That said, what's our litmus test for determining when to favor scientific reasoning over more basic tenents?) [/QB]
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.
The reason for selecting scientific *reasoning* over religious teachings: Science is more logical (in most cases, including the evolution/ID debate). The difference is right there in the way you posed your question. 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 think the real problem with the great evolution/ID debate is that evolution doesn't *need* to be taught to children. Neither does ID (nor should it be, in public schools). That level of scientific instruction can be saved for higher schooling, if it's going to cause such angst among the population. Just let people learn about it when they are capable of learning about biology en masse. It all falls into place and makes sense once you can take evolutionary theory in a complete biology course - and you can decide for yourself at that age whether you believe it's total bunk, or you believe that it's directed and designed by God, or whether there is no God at all. All of this kind of thinking is better left to mature minds, in my opinion, mostly because PARENTS are so protective of what goes into their children's ears (which is not a bad thing).
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:(though I think there are peaceful ways to compare quality/truth of religions).
Do you? I'd love to hear what you believe would work! 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?
Very many religious people, and particularly those who feel strongly enough about it to wage wars over it, are COMPLETELY CONVINCED that their view is the most quality and the only true one.
I'd think a comparison of whose deeply personal beliefs are the most quality and true would only cause WORSE wars.
I'm not trying to be facetious with this reply - I really would like to know your ideas, and I think your point of view is interesting.
quote: 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".
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?
It is also logical that if God exists and gives all good things to men, then he gives scientific knowlege to them because he wants us to know these things and wants us to do good with this knowledge. Yet scientific processes often seem to reveal a universe that does not rely on an intelligent being to keep it ticking.
quote: Why is the "truth" of science elevated higher than the "truth" of religion?
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! Who is right? Who has the correct version of "truth?" And most importantly, *how do you know?*
With science, there may be doubts and variations on theories, but at least any scientist is free to set up a range of experiments and *test* and *observe* those theories in action, and come to a logical conclusion about which is the truth. With religion, there is no such opportunity - at least, not at present, and not ever in the past. For somebody like me, that answers the entire question right there!
Besides; this question assumes that every person is religious or is able to reconcile some kind of belief in a deity of some sort. Many people in this world do not hold *any* religious beliefs, and have no desire to do so. Why is your take on the world - a take that involves the planning or interference of a conscious deity - truer than mine?
quote: 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)?
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?
quote:(What I'm really after is an answer to the last 2 questions I asked, as well as WHY you think that way)
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!
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far, more or less *edit* thanks Libbie! */edit* every post can be summarized as follows:
ID has no predictive power, it's not science. Further, we choose science over religion because it's more logical.
I'm trying to get you to question your assumptions, and so far, everyone has simply repeated their assumptions.
I know most (all?) rational people think that ID fails to make a falsifiable claim (if it had predictive power, it would be falsifiable, so the "no predictive power" argument is simply swept up in the bigger "not falsifiable" claim)
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"?
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). But this isn't a reason to choose science over religion. In otherwords, stating we should choose something (science) based on a property(logic/rationalism) it has is foolish in and of itself. There must be a reason WHY that property is more desirable.
Question 2: what makes that property more desirable? Why do we value logic over faith?
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.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm just jumping back in here and haven't been in the pluto thread, so forgive me if I get at all redundant.
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. Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science means a lot of different things to different people. However, 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. Instead of saying what was observed, these conclusions often discuss what might occur in the future, what certain evidence means to us, or how we should act. Medicine is a prominent example - it tells us how we should act, given what science tells us. The science part of it is based in real observations, but the "should" part of it is based in non-scientific assumptions about right and wrong, such as "it is good to live longer at the expense of not eating Big Macs." While many people put this under the umbrella of science, I think it is dangerous to do so, because there is no reason to give these conclusions the same special authority that direct scientific observations have. A reasonable person should NOT disagree with the evidence that the earth is flat, given that he can repeatably observet that fact over and over if he wants. But a reasonable person CAN disagree with the evidence that they should not eat three Big Macs a day - because while they can definitely observe that doing such a thing would result in less healthiness, there is no way to scientifically show that the value of that health is greater than the value of getting to eat those Big Macs. Science cannot measure value. Thus it would be a mistake to give "Do not eat Big Macs" the same weight of scientific authority that we give to "the world is round". They are in different categories.
So, to answer the question, I think Science consists of whatever we can observe through the scientific method, and the things we can directly conclude from those observations, without requiring other non-scientific assumptions. Everything else may still be relate to science, and may be something scientists and science students should be concerned with, but I would not call it science, strictly speaking.
Frankly, I think making such a distinction more clear would dissolve the need for I.D. After all, I think the real reason it has been proposed is that some groups are worried there is no God in the scientific models. But the real truth is, the parts of the scientific models that address whether or not there is a God involved are totally nonscientific assumptions. They are based on things like Occam's Razor, which is a nonscientific assumption. And thus Science in no way should be taken as saying God doesn't exist. If religious groups and others remembered this, I think they would be less threatened by science. But as it is now, science is lumped in with all sorts of nonscientific ideas, like Occam's Razor - until it has become a sort of religion. It is this, the religion of science, that scares fundamentalists. And it bothers me too, because science should not be a religion. It should be a well-defined, rock-solid set of observable conclusions - separate from the less-solid extrapolations we could derive from those conclusions.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the thread in general- How bouts we don't take eleven of my words completely out of their original context and argue about them? One way or the other, and I haven't read the thread yet so I dunno, I don't appreciate being called out in a seperate thread that I may or may not notice for a day or two (im a busy starving student after all). If you wanna critique me personally, do it where I can see it and not look like a jerk for ignoring you. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
Ok I see where you are trying to have a discussion here.
Science, I think, does not attempt to merely supply us with the most convenient or workable answers to practical questions. There is a large practical aspect to science, but that is not the end all. The original formulators of science had to distinguish between logical deduction and falsifiable claims which are proved or disproved by experiment. Early scientists realized that a closer knowledge of the world could be attained by asserting human influence and experiment into an observation in order to understand a process.
For example, Greeks at one time believed that flies formed spontaneously from food, but early scientists, working under the early principles of scientific method in the ionian tradition, covered food with cloth and observed that flies where not able to land on it. Further experiments confirmed that flies lay eggs on food as it rots, thus: more flies.
ID is the conjecture, that flies arise spontaneously from food. It sidesteps science by claiming, as part of its proof no less, that it is unverifiable by the scientific method. It claims to be working within the scientific method, but in its present formulation, it is divorced completely from science. M theorists look VERY hard for ways of falsifying string theory, such as the measurement of gravitational forces for fast moving objects, believing that they may one day prove or disprove the existance of their 11 dimensional model.
In our scientific tradition, ID is not a theory. Evolution is a theory, and that is not "just a theory," it is also an established fact. Scientific thought now takes the theory of evolution through natural selection as a postulate, not provable in the same way that 2+2=4, but as reliable as fact. The day that postulate is outmoded, though it likely never will be, it will be revised and that will be in the best interest of science.
ID cannot be science because ID is not interested in falsifying a claim. ID is VERY interested in falsifying all falsifications of its own claims. ID is interested in obfuscation, misdirection, and a religious, creationist agenda. Science is disinterested in the outcome of experimentation because the outcome of the experiment is a confirmation either of the increased validity, or falsehood of a claim (in my usage, disinterested is to mean "not directly invested"). Either way in experimentation, science always wins, and it can never lie (people do, but not science as a whole, or at least never for long).
ID itself is a tenuous attempt by a religious group to confuse the definitions of "fact," "theory," and truth. Mainly they wish to equate a scientific theory with a complete philosophy which is inimical to scientific thought. A complete philosophy, like for instance Christianity as it has existed since the time of Augustine (see "On Christian Doctrine" for the Platonic influence on Christian thought), is one which claims itself to be self-evident. Christianity and by extension ID, claims that its existance is proof of its validity, and that its inherent validity is justification for faith in all its tenets. This is not intended to be a Christian bashing rant, because I got that information from a central Christian writer who most Christians do not read, Augustine of Hippo.
I mean what i said, in the context in which I said it, that ID is COMPLETELY outside the realm of science. It is not within the realm of science because people say it is. It is not in the realm of science because people want it to be. And it is not in the realm of science, most importantly, because it is about as like science as Bible study. Study the bible if you want, believe in it, believe in intelligent design, but do not couch a religious doctrine as a scientific principle, and demand that people listen simply because you say it is valid. It is not valid.
The day an ID argument puts itself on the line and offers a falsifiable claim, then it will be at least related to the scientific process, and it will likely be proved wrong if the experiment is practical. But here's the thing about that: ID is never going to offer a falsifiable claim because that is inimical to ID. Theories are theories because they are both strong and not overstated. They are simple ideas, which are made into powerful principles over time. ID is a top-heavy, over-stated and completely un-maneagable claim, and there's the kicker- it can't be proved wrong, ever; so it isn't science. If you can't get a chance at proving something wrong, then you can't be sure it isn't completely divorced from reality, a figment of the imagination.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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"?
You are, I presume, a mathematician, and probably aware of the paradox of the unnexpected hanging?
A judge tells a condemned man his sentence is death. There are two stipulations
1. You will die this week, by saturday. 2. You will not know when you wake on that day, that it is the day that you will die.
The man, deduces from this that he cannot die. First of all, if he wakes up on saturday, and he has not yet died, then he must die that day, but he will know that is going to die, thus he cannot die saturday. The same logic applies to all the preceding days, and he confidently rests knowing he cannot possibly die.
He awakes on saturday morning, and the balif comes to his house and he is hanged.
Why did he die? :Spoilers: Because he followed a logical train of thought based on a pare of contradictory claims. The judge was in error, as his two claims were in conflict, and therefore neither of them is valid. He dies anyway, but it is an unpredictable event.
One may see that you can go backwards and claim that because the man does NOT know that he is fated to die on saturday, the stipulations of the judge turned out to be correct. However they are not correct, and their coincidence with what happens is random.
ID, in this way, makes claims which appear to agree with the truth, but do so only because they are constructed to appear so. They are neither predictive nor useful, nor more true than the judge's contradictory stipulations. They may appear to be correct in the end, but that appearance is coincidental, and occurs because the construction of the theory intentionally thwarts falsification.
If that made any sense- I am not an expert on logic, so I suggest further reading on this paradox for more insight than I can hope to offer.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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).
I don't. If science says one thing, and my faith another, I will choose faith. Every time.
However, I don't believe that they actually contradict one another nearly as much as some people think they do. Nor do they need to be reconciled as much as some (other) people think. They are separate spheres, and while they certainly overlap (for instance, I consider studying science a small way to get insight into the mind of God, as it were), they are not all that often in conflict. IMO, natch.
That said, I think ID is absolute nonsense. Not because it claims "God did it" -- I believe that to be 100% true. But because it claims "God did it, and science can prove that He did." I am entirely unconvinced that He works that way. To the contrary, I believe it is an essential part of the world He created that we have the freedom not to believe in Him. And unquestionable scientific proof would deprive us of that essential freedom of choice.
Is it possible that ID would make scientifically falsifiable claims? I think it does. However, to the best of my knowledge, the claims depend on a complete lack of understanding of how statistics works. Not a single one bears much scrutiny.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, that may be the simpler route to the solution: why the heck would a christian care if the christian faith culd be proved by science? That is essentially what ID tries to do.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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)
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. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science and faith are both ways in which man tries to make sense out of the things he experiences.
I agree with Rivka that it is impossible for mankind to prove (or disprove) the existence of God (or Jehovah or Allah or whatever name you choose to give to the being that supposedly created everything)
Religion tends to explain things that have (or had) no other plausible explanation. A long time ago, when loads of things that have now been scientifically analysed were still 'a mystery'. The earlier polytheistic religions personified such phenomenons (love, death, war, weather etc.) giving the people the feeling that they had some level of control over these things; by praying and offering to the god(dess) in question.
The monotheistic religions have simplified this in the sense that there's now only one deity, who is responsible for any and all things that come to pass. Praying to him for guidance can soothe your worries no matter what the nature of your problem.
Science is just doing the same; trying to find explanations. But they deviated from the premise that there absolutely has to be some sort of supernatural being that watches over us.
Personally, I think it really unlikely that there is a god out there somewhere, since the scientific answers appear to me to be far more logical and/or plausible (and therefor more believable). However, I must stress that I'm an agnostic, and I am still willing to admit the possibility of the existence of God.
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:Evolution is a theory, and that is not "just a theory," it is also an established fact.
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:ID cannot be science because ID is not interested in falsifying a claim.
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:Is it possible that ID would make scientifically falsifiable claims?
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Oh.
Darn.
Sorry guys, no lynchings today. Be careful when dousing your torches, ok? Don't forget about the potluck tomorrow night!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evolution is a theory, and that is not "just a theory," it is also an established fact.
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.
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).
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.
*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.
quote:
quote:Is it possible that ID would make scientifically falsifiable claims?
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.
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
The thing about science vs religion is this:
Science can provide specific answers to specific questions, and if you doubt the answers, you can check them out for yourself and subsequently either confirm them for yourself or discover an error and add to scientific knowledge.
In religion, very little (if anything) is actually verifiable by an unbiased party. Almost nothing is repeatable or testable. There is really only one way that you can "find out for yourself" anything at all, and it is couched in such extremely subjective language that basically religious "truth" is indistinguishable from simply what you want to believe (from an outside observer's standpoint).
So, in regards to this question, "Is science the search for truth? Or is it the search for the best rational/observational/experimental explanation at the time (or is there a difference between the two?)" I'll take option number 3. I think reason, observation and experimentation are essential tools in the search for truth. I'm willing to accept that these tools can only give us "provisional truth", and that further observation, experimentation, and reason will likely always (as far as we humans are concerned) yield more precise truths. So in science, there is no difference between the two.
Religion can also be said to be the search for truth, but I'm not sure to what degree it could be said to fit the second definition. Clearly observation and (hopefully) reason play a role in one accepting religious truth, but I'm not sure to what degree experimentation plays a role. That probably differs from person to person, but I'm relatively confident that no religious experiments give replicable results regardless of who is doing the experiment.
Maybe it would be more precise to say that Science is the search for universal truth and Religion is the search for personal truth.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
What often gets overlooked in this ongoing debate is the rights of the nonreligious children in schools. It's fine to discuss ID in broad, nondenominational terms that will suit the needs of the religious students. What about the atheists? More families are choosing to raise their children without religion all the time. Do these kids not have a right to be free from indoctrination in public schools?
Sorry, that is a tad off the topic, so I'll reel it back in with this thought: If evolution itself is broadly accepted as factual by science (just not the specific processes), then what's wrong with presenting the idea of evolution in schools without any assertion that evolution *must* lack intelligent control or design? When I was learning about evolution in school, I just applied my own beliefs to it and said, "Wow, this sure is interesting. God must control this process according to His big plan! Neat!" Why can't children be encouraged to apply their beliefs to what science considers a fact?
quote: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.
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?
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.
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.
Unless God allowed himself to be proven via scientific process just to stop this debate. Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you say that the gravity is an established fact? Atomic theory? The germ theory of disease?
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.
quote:The word "planet" doesn't have to be falsifiable because it doesn't make ANY claims about reality at all.
"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.
Terms are scientific when being used in the scientific method. But arguing over which definition of terms is better is not scientific - that's semantics.
quote: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."
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.
quote: 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.
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.)
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.
The irony is that if Intelligent Design succeeded and became scientific, it would probably be the biggest threat to established religion that there is. After all, that would mean we would be able to test the nature of God - and determine what dogma is wrong.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, Tarrsk, and KarlEd, I really admire your posts here and I hope to meet you and shake your hands one day.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
That's an interesting viewpoint, pooka!
From my point of view, there is no truth in religion because there is *no* presentation of evidence that does or does not withstand scrutiny; and at least science provides testable, observable *understanding,* which I don't find in any religion.
I suppose the entire crux of this problem is how an individual defines truth. Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you say that the gravity is an established fact? Atomic theory? The germ theory of disease?
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.
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.
quote:
quote:The word "planet" doesn't have to be falsifiable because it doesn't make ANY claims about reality at all.
"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.
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.
Let me use another example, one from biology. The term "species" is commonly defined as "a group of organisms that can interbreed to form viable offspring." However, in reality, life is far more fluid than this simple definition. Evolution being what it is, you can have a large population of organisms in which the group on one side of the populated range is readily distinguishable from the group on the other side, but each group can breed perfectly well with the groups immediately surrounding it. In one particular instance (a bird in the Western United States, I believe), it was demonstrated that even though each subpopulation of this bird could breed with their immediate neighbors, a bird from the most northern borders of the range and a bird from the south cannot. In this case, how do you define which birds should belong in the same "species"? Ultimately, you have to realize that it doesn't matter at all, because the term "species" is a human construct that we use as a matter of convenience. Evolution doesn't deal in discrete kinds, but instead in genetic continuums of populations. Does this make the word "species" non-scientific? No, because the fact of the matter is, in most situations, species are isolated enough that the traditional definition works just fine. We simply acknowledge that our definition is flawed, and make note of the problems whenever it is necessary.
quote:
quote: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."
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.
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:
quote: 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.
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.)
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.
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
(sorry about the delay in getting back to you...had a 5 hour math test today, spent lots of time studying for it)
I don't want to get into the debate about the role of definitions in science. Clearly, agreed upon definitions are needed for ALL forms of communicating. As a mathematician, I especially understand this.
One thing, though. After a bit of introspection, I found that, at least to me (and I'd bet to most of you as well), there's something inherently more satisfying to an answer provided by science, as opposed to faith. I suppose it's the mathematician in me coming out - I want to understand everything at it's core.
That said, I have another dilemna about the logic vs faith debate.
Many of you have indirectly referenced the scientific method as the best way to test "truth", or "reality", or some other (hopefully) less ambiguous term.
Here's the issue. Can you USE the scientific method to somehow show the scientific method is best?
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.
Unfortunately, ths answer doesn't help answer anything in the faith vs logic debate.
Maybe we just choose logic over faith because it's more ubiquitous and easier (to communicate, to be satisfied with, etc)?
I don't know. Maybe I'm just rambling (yay for 5 hour tests!) I'm gonna let my brain rest now. Again, thanks for all the wonderful responses!
PS (I'll take your advice Orincoro, thanks for understanding!)
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's the issue. Can you USE the scientific method to somehow show the scientific method is best?
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evolution is a theory, and that is not "just a theory," it is also an established fact.
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.
Tres, your unwillingness to understand or listen to the scientific definition of these words is causing problems in the conversation.
Let me put an established fact into some relief: The "luminiferous ether" was a scientific fact depended upon by newton when he devised his theories of the nature of light, and of universal gravitation. He used it as the basis of his theories and it worked very well, it agreed with hundreds of years of observation as well as his own calculations. It was fact to Newton and it aided him in envisioning the universe. It does not exist and never did. Einstein's general relativity proved the needlessness of luminiferous ether, as did experiments having to do with the dual nature of light. When we discovered a different nature of the universe, Newton's observations and the ether's usefullness as a concept did NOT become invalid, they became outdated.
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.
On the reverse side, ID people like you claim that these theories are never "proved true," as you stated in your post. This is ridiculous. Plain and simple, you have no concept of the difference between ID and the Theory of Evolution by natural selection. The past centuries have seen mountains of evidence collect in favor of modern theories of evolution; this is why those theories are modern, because they explain old discoveries and predict new evidence which is subsequently found. From darwin's day to today, we have added genetics, DNA, radio-carbon dating, and myriad other techniques to our toolkit for understanding evolution; it is no longer Darwinism, but a modern understanding of evolution which is NOT based on a conjecture but on concrete evidence. That evidence is not arranged in such a way as to favor an evolutionary model; more interest is taken by science in those elements of the current model which are inconsistent, as is the way with science.
If evolution has not yet met your standards for being proved "true," though I will stress that scientists don't get a rat's tail about proving it true, then it NEVER will. We cannot prove that pie is a transcendental number by writing it out forever- because it would take FOREVER. We prove it, in a way which is satisfactory to us, by an advanced series of deductions. Pie is a postulate, and I suppose you would argue that this means it is not a fact. In this case, NOTHING is a fact, and we have to teach EVERY possibility to EVERYTHING.
There are not "two sides" to this debate, nor are there "two theories." One is a theory, and the other is a belief that religious zealots and misinformed people would like us to believe is as valid, in a scientific discussion, as science.
As to your mention of the argument over the definiton of planet. This is barely answerable because it is so laughable. Look at the very good answers I and others gave in that thread- I have a hard time believing that you think an argument over a disciplinary jargon makes science less credible as a field. Give me a big break from that Kit Kat bar you've been choking on.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it possible that ID would make scientifically falsifiable claims?
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.
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.
ID preserves itself this way because it claims that the complexity and personal nature of the human relationship with a divine being is untestable. I happen to agree for different reasons, but then we are all in agreement that ID is never going to offer a falsifiable claim- not because it WON'T, but because even if it tried, the falsification of a theory of prayer or divine intervention is untestable. When you are talking about something that is specifically believed to conform to laws that we explicity cannot know, and which is NOT tied to the laws we DO have experience with, the "theory" has absolutely no connection with experimentation or observation.
What we are talking about are things you cannot experience in a common way, for example 2+2=4 is not a metaphysical argument, it is a fact. But "the sky is beautiful today," though you could take a survey and make it look very scientific, is not a scientific claim, it is outside any possible common experience, it deals with too many factors and it is philisophical.
Now I whole heartedly believe in the study of philosophy to understand human thought and our relationship to nature, but I do not pretend that Nietzsche is a scientist when he talks about the "eternally varied harmony of being," or some such philisophical caveat. He doesn't attempt to prove things in a way that can be reproduced by someone else with a completely different personality or even a different language, which is why many still believe that we should read philosophy in its original language, but we make no such arguments about science.
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. This practice goes back millenia in philosophical traditions, and it helps to focus the creative energies, and the expressive capabilities of poets, musicians, writers, orators, and scientists. This is part of why ID is not science, it depends on a variable definition of words and concepts according to how they are needed to function, and it is an invitation to philosophical debate, and not to scientific research. The work of ID "theory" is going to be done in the abstract, just as the work of the Christian philosophers and the greeks were done in monasteries and libraries, disconnected from the tangible world, of a purpose, to encourage investigation of the metaphysical and the intangible. This is all fine, but this is clearly not the same thing as science. There are philosophical questions about science, there is a philosophy OF science, but science does not continually redefine its own relationship with the subject, and scientific philosophy does not change the outcome of a repeatable experiment. The philosophy of science is practical, because we already have an impractical philosophy of life, and we call that religion. (again, not bashing, but simply using the appropriate terms: practical vs. impractical has to do with the ability to experiment in this usage).
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.
Sorry for the triple post- this thought simply leads me to ask why we don't all become Nhialists. (sp?)
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?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is more broadly known in philosophic circles as the "Evil Deceiver" argument, and is the one that so vexed Descartes that he was reduced to one first principle: "I think, therefore I am".
To be fair, there are those philosophers that believe he leaped to an unwarranted conclusion, and that his statement of self would more properly read something like "I think I think, therefore I think I am."
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do people assert that it will NEVER make a falsfiable claim?
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going all the way back to the beginning:
quote:Is science truth? Or is science the best rational approximation to truth? Or something in between?
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.
For example, science can never tell us what we should do. It can tell us what we should do if we desire a particular outcome. But the selection of which outcomes are desired ultimately depend on something science cannot apply to.
An outcome is either desirable because we know it will lead to some other outcome we find desirable or because it is desirable in and of itself. Science cannot define the outcomes in the second group.
For example, science can tell us that if we rotate crops, we will produce more food. Science can also tell us that if we don't produce more food, X number of people will die who would have otherwise lived.
Science does not tell us whether the outcome of X people dying is better or worse than the outcome of X people not dying.
Sure, you could come up with scientific predictions that the death of X people will cause the population to dip below the sustainable level for a given group, leading to that group's extinction. But then we've simply moved to a new outcome that is called good or bad based on a non-scientific principle.
This is not a criticism of science. It is a recognition of its place in the world.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Science does not tell us whether the outcome of X people dying is better or worse than the outcome of X people not dying.
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 can take things to which you've applied definitions and weigh their effectiveness, but the actual definitions themselves have to come from premises that are at root culturally axiomatic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is an enormous problem with comparing intelligent design to super string theory. Super string theory has a rigorous mathematical definition, where as ID has at best a very ambiguous definition. So when we are talking about super string theory, it is at least very clearly defined what we are talking about. That kind of rigorous definition is the first essential step in creation a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis.
Before we can even begin to discuss whether ID has the potential to ever generate a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis, we have to agree on some sort of rigorous definition of ID and that is non trivial.
Consider the following description of intelligent design from the center for science and culture.
quote: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.
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.
Most of the dictionary definitions of intelligence or intelligent are very circular but consider for a moment the following definition.
Intelligent: possessing the ability to act in a purposeful manner in order to obtain a preconceived result.
Given what we know about intelligent beings (assuming that humans are an example of intelligent beings), intelligent beings are capable of acting randomly and without purpose. So although intelligent beings are capable of applying knowledge to in a purposeful manner, they often don't. That means that there can not be features of the Universe which could have been caused by random processes but which could not have been caused by an intelligent designer. This makes it impossible to develop a postulate which could disprove ID theory.
Furthermore, before we could begin to postulate something based on ID, we would have to dramatically narrow its scope. Which features of the Universe are we talking about? How do we quantify "best explained".
Whats more, ID theory does not specify that all features of the universe were intelligently designed. That means that even if we could identify some feature of the Universe which could not have been designed by an intelligent being, it could never preclude the possibility that some other feature(s) of the Universe was designed by an intelligent being.
This is why I disagree fundamentally with Mathematicians postulate that ID theory could concievably at some future point produce a scientifically falsifiable claim. The theory, in its current use, is simply so imprecisely defined that it can never produce a testible hypothesis.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is quite interesting rabit, I hadn't considered the nature of intelligence in ID until now.
This reminds me of one of my favorite books, CONTACT, by Carl Sagan, in which he actually alludes to intelligent design, but in a totally other context from evolution.
:Spoilers, though its a good book so read it anyway!:
In the novel, Ellie meets a representative of an intergalactic community of highly intelligent races who tells her about a race of beings who have dissapeared from the universe, but who were so powerful that they could subtly change the nature of mathematical values and physical laws. For instance, the alien alludes to the presence of messages contained within the value for Pi, as well as many other constants of the universe. The alien suggests that this superpowerful race constructed an intergalactic system of communication and transportation which still exists, and that this race redesigned the universe to allow it to continue on after they were gone.
This is an alien race which believes in an intelligent design based on falsifiable claims, which they are attempting to investigate, that an intelligent race, billions of years in the past, redesigned the universe. Pretty neat idea!
:end of spoilers:
It occurs to me that this ID argument is so flawed mainly because it springs from a religious movement with all the wrong intentions in trying to turn the science classroom into a religious front (mainly then, political and not academic or scientific reasons). A theory of ID, in its proper context, would have to be the result of a long and exaustive search for raw evidence that would probably last millenia, and scour the known and unknown universe for possible clues, including the existance or non-existance of other races, and their ideas about these concepts. The problem with ID today is that it springs from a completed philosophy, and not from a searching impulse or a need to explore. Quite the opposite, ID wants to shut down discussion and research by explaining things using the terminology of the inexplicable. This is unnacceptable to me, not because I think ID is not something people may come to believe in 100,000 years, but because it is only really trying to stop people from learning things, and growing in knowledge- it will turn the search for knowledge into the search for wording, or faith, and those searches are already going on elsewhere, where they belong.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Is natural selection a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis?
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.
That's one of the reasons the Paluxi Tracks were such a big to the "Creation Science" folks. Turns out they were dinosaur tracks after all, but the search does continue for the "deal-breaker" in evolutionary theory, something so absurd that you'd just have to junk the theory entirely in order to explain it.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote:On the reverse side, ID people like you claim that these theories are never "proved true," as you stated in your post.
I'm not sure what you mean by "ID people" but please note that I am not a believer in the Intelligent Design theory.
Also, people have been saying scientific theories are never proved true long before Intelligent Design was ever around. Karl Popper made a major point of it when he proposed his falsification criteria for defining science. I simply agree with his argument.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
