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?
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).
As far as your specific example, that ones a bit easier. First, mathematicians have an agreed upon definition of 2. Likewise, they have a definition of 4. There is no ambiguity in asking what 2 is because we've nailed it down - said THIS THING is 2 and nothing else is.
Second, mathematics is based on logic. While formal logic has a firm foundational setting, it is still inescapably tied with "naive" or "intuitive" logic. But, mathematics recognizes this....
In the same way that mathematics has its own axioms, logic does as well. Things like "for any statement P, (P or P) implies P", and other "self-evident" statements. The way all mathematics works is really with an implied "assuming these axioms of mathematics and these axioms for allowable deductions..."
Thus, 2+2 = 4 not because of some lucky definition, but because we're starting (with faith, if you will), with a collection of "allowable starting points (math axioms)" as well as "rules of deduction I can apply to any mathematical statement (logic axioms)". Then 2+2 = 4 is a neccesary consequence of following the allowable logical deductions.
But the thing is, the axioms, and even the foundational logic, are faith based at the core. We're blindly accepting these statements as being true, just so we can make some progress. In fact, some fields of math/logic look at what happens if we replace some of these "usual" axioms with others, and the results are often quite mind-bending.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
And the reason they spend so much energy on defining them is because "agreed upon definitions are essential in philosophy."
Tres didn't say that philosophers agree on definitions. He said that agreement is essential.
quote: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.
Then try silence. Especially when your rudeness exposes your ignorance of the subject.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rivka wrote: But because [ID] claims "God did it, and science can prove that He did"
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."
quote: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.
There's a lot here to reply to.
I don't think you have made (or can make) any useful distinction as a rule between these two 'categories' you describe. What I mean is that for any given published conclusion in science there is no reliable earmark to tell you whether or not it is this special-authority type of conclusion.
Your attempt to draw this distinction stems from a deep flaw in your entire understanding of what science is and what it does.
The type of science you relegate to "assumptions," "extrapolations or extensions" is a deeply important and extremely powerful component of science. It's how we knew the moon wasn't made of green cheese before Apollo 11. It's how we know evolution is a fact, and how we know so much about how it worked 500 million years ago. It's how we know anything about anything when the exact specific attribute isn't necessarily physically present and measurable (which is most of the time, if you're studying anything remotely interesting).
I've read enough of your posts to know that you find this aspect extremely difficult to grasp and even harder to accept. Science proceeds by firmly established logical footsteps from knowns to conjectures -- but when the logical footsteps are clear and solid enough, the conjectures are really as good as knowns.
By 'as good as,' of course I mean that (a) practical predictions can be made against them, and (b) further conjectures can be built on top of them.
Are flaws ever found in this superstructure of conjecture? Of course. Nature constantly surprises. (For this reason, among others, I am shy about making claims of truth, certainly in the context of Mathematician's initial inquiry here.)
Indulge me an illustration. When I was a kid, my grandfather built for us a toy, that resembled a box. A solid wooden box, about 28 inches long, 15 inches wide, and 5 inches tall. It was featureless except for two round holes -- one on each long side -- and two or three levers and knobs positioned apparently at random. The box came with a ball, a plain red rubber ball a little bigger than a ping-pong ball.
My grandfather dropped the ball into one hole.
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:I wrote: no such "categorization" exists in science
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.
It's just that these distinctions are not the ones that Tres thinks they are.
They are, however, extremely important to observe and identify, and often not easy to do so. I think the current climate change debate is an excellent example of the tremendous complications inherent to drawing such distinctions. And yet, in the case of climate change, many are using science to push social and political agendas. If their science is right, they are probably right to do so. But it puts a tremendous burden on officials and voters to sort out some very difficult questions.
Tres points at one valid distinction, which is buried in between "assumptions" and "extrapolations or extensions" -- to wit: "biases and opinions." Scientific journals and scientists work hard to detect and eliminate pure bias.
I'm not aware of any panel that has claimed to arrive at a scientific conclusion about when a fetus becomes a person. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if there were something of the sort somewhere. But I imagine most responsible scientists would examine such a claim very carefully. Did it, first of all, create a defensible definition for 'personhood'? Such a definition could not be scientific, but only philosophical (or religious, or semantic, you choose). But once established as a premise, certainly an answer of sorts could be arrived at.
Then you could say: "if you agree with the premise, then these scientific facts support the conclusion that a fetus becomes a person at moment X."
(The facts might be such things as measurements of brain waves, evidence of dreaming or desire or pain or consciousness, etc.)
Ironically, the "evidence" in such an argument could very well be precisely and only the sorts of "objective, repeatable, measureable experiments, and ... anything which directly follows from those observations" that Tres prefers as "authoritative" science. And yet the conclusion could only be considered scientific in the very narrowest sense -- that is, conditional upon acceptance of a totally non-scientific premise (definition of a person).
Of course, science reporting being what it is, a headline could well appear claiming "Scientists Agree Life Begins at Birth" (or Conception). But a full critique of science journalism is another topic. Suffice it to say that the firestorm of debate that would follow such a headline would be almost entirely misguided.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
I wished, and do wish, to point out that philosophers don't START at the assumption of an agreed upon understanding, they simply use that as their essentially unatainable goal. The universal understanding is transcendental, it is never complete, and it never starts complete, even if you think you are writing from a common understanding.
I suppose, now that you mention it, Tres saying that common understandings are essential to philosophy is not the same thing as saying that these understandings, these common definitions are actually PRESENT in a dialogue, however that is the impression I got, and that is the direction his post seemed to lead. If that's wrong, he or I or both of us should do a better job of being clear about this distinction, because its the basis of the disagreement. 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. His interest in debunking astronomy based on the haggling over jargon tells me that he doesn't appreciate this important aspect of dialogue. Could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Yeah, I'm rude, I don't feel a need to apologize- especially when its your pot calling my kettle, so please stop trying to referee my side of any discussion.
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.
Given these respones, which are not entirely rude on the face of them, but which do no justice to the discussion, I get frustrated, and my rudeness looks like rudeness. Often though, especially now, I feel I am returning the feeling in kind, even if Tres doesn't come out and say: "Your being a complete jackass," which I am perfectly willing to do.
Edit yet again: Though I hate to play drive-by poster troll, I am moving to my new apartment this morning and won't be on for the weekend, so if I don't answer your plaintive calls for my appearance at trial, forgive me once again.
quote:Rivka wrote: But because [ID] claims "God did it, and science can prove that He did"
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."
Ok, so I oversimplified. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a great thread, Mathematician, and unfortunately there is too much going on for me to pick something to respond to.
But I agree with your line of reasoning completely. And to answer one of your questions above, I don't value reason above faith, in all cases. 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, that of a Young-Earth Creationist, precisely because I value certain propositions to a higher degree than I value the scientific theories that have been made to explain the evidence we see. In my mind, as long as I can see that under my system there may be a reasonable explanation for the same evidence, then I am satisfied. I didn't always think this way - I shared the prevalent view in this thread that logic was indeed superior or that the Bible spoke to different things than faith, but actually started into the same line of questioning while pursuing my Math degree. I came to the conclusion that to take additional items on faith that the scientific world does not was perfectly acceptable to me as long as I did not get inconsistent results, much like I was adding the Continuum Hypothesis to ZFC or some such thing.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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 ...
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.
If so....
When applying mathematical theorems like this to life, you have to be REALLY careful. Godel's incompleteness theorems (like all theorems), have that pesky hypothesis part. Mainly, Godel proved that his incompleteness theorems hold if
1) The system can be modeled as formal logic
2) The system has an "effective algorithm" for determining whether or not a random string of characters really is allowable sentence, formula, etc, according to the rules of the formal logic.
3) The system is strong enough to develope multiplication.
The big thing is that NO ONE is certain whether thought processes as a whole CAN be modeled in the language of formal logic. If not, it's entirely possible that consistency CAN be proved.
I think 2) is satisfied in most peoples minds (you can tell whether or not your thoughts are coherent), but this is of course debatable.
Finally, 3) may not be satisfied. Sure, you can multiply, but that doesn't mean you can DEVELOPE multiplication in the formal language.
(Interesting aside - Presburger Arithmetic satisfies 1) and 2), but for 3), instead only allows for addition/subtractoin. Presburger proved his own arithmetic was both complete and consistent)
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm aware of those restrictions to the theorem, since I have rigorously seen his proof applied in a Type theory system, doing parts of it as exercises myself. I wasn't making the assertion that my internal reference was equivalent to an axiomatic system (conditions 2 and 3 are a bit more straightforward) but I was merely referencing the seemingly obvious philosophical notion that a person cannot know that his thoughts are consistent: they can only discover an inconsistency and perhaps revise their thoughts as a result. So the specific formal logical proofs used to demonstrate the incompleteness of a system does not apply directly but it has the same intuitive result.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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:
Firstly, people seem to constantly equate the very specific position I take with other more common positions that sound sort of like it. For instance, in this thread it has been suggested that I agree with ID when I don't, that I intend to "debunk astronomy" when I am doing the reverse, that I think definitions are not useful to science when I think they are essential to science, etc. As a result, I feel the need to restate my position to attempt to make it clear exactly what I am and am not arguing.
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.
Thirdly, often people make points that I DO agree with, but then I realize that I can improve my position in some way by taking their argument into account. This is another reason I may have to restate my position - in order to revise it to fit some new information, rather than reject it.
I don't flatly dismiss your arguments though. I may state that I flat out disagree with it, but that does not mean I didn't consider it or that I have no reason for disagreeing. I don't think any of this is rude. Even if you do find it rude, though, I still don't think that justifies making invalid ad hominem arguments against my position. For one thing, I have had several philosophy professors whose judgement in grading would be called into question if I truly know as little about these issues as you have tried to suggest I do - certainly my Philosophy of Science professor!
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres: I just don't think the discussion of which definitions are best should be considered doing science, even when the terms are scientific.
Do you see how this admission undermines the point you originally tried to explore in the other thread?
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: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.
I thought you might misinterpret this point. Let me be more explicit.
The "experiment and conclusions" I and my sisters did were FULL of extrapolations and assumptions, every step of the way. There is no possible way we could have solved the puzzle without them.
A simple part of it might go like this:
code:
"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)
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.
quote:as long as you are just testing a theory, and don't claim your model of the inside of that box is a "fact...
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.
My mental model for the inside of the box IS fact, provided you understand that it is fact within the domain of the puzzle-box itself. This is a crucial distinction. Does the puzzle box work the same with a marble? Does it work the same underwater? If I built one myself, would all my materials and dimensions exactly match my grandfather's? Those are different domains, and my 'knowledge' is not comprehensive enough or fine-grained enough to illuminate them (new experiments would be needed to expand into those areas, which would be perfectly doable). But within the scope of that ball and that puzzle, I am completely sure my model is accurate.
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).
Edit: missing word, typo, markup
[ September 01, 2006, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I might add, in the spirit of this thread, that a possible definition for an endeavor that seeks 'truth' (or 'Truth') is one that would apply outside or beyond any definition of a domain (as I am using the term above).
Religion, at a certain level, makes claims about the ultimate origin and nature of all things, both physical and metaphysical. It deliberately overreaches any domain constraint. Does a fundamental Christian believe that a Muslim is damned or saved according to the same rules as Christians (and vice-versa)? Yes.
Some lower-level areas of philosophy and religion do allow constraint to a given domain -- for example, a discourse on morals and ethics probably pertains to humans, and not animals and plants, much less inanimate matter. This opens the door very naturally to relativism of various sorts -- can a baby lie? should a mentally retarded person be executed for murder? Can someone forgive another for a perceived wrong, acknowledging that their value systems differ? and many more.
To the extent a system of thought can (in the case of philosophy) or must (in the case of science) be bound to a domain in order to remain self-consistent and 'true', is the extent to which that system of thought escapes any claim to 'Truth.'
Some people have the impression that science does operate at that level: above all domain constraint. 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.'
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).
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.'
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.
Better education about what science is and isn't is needed all 'round, I would say.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
I think the fact that all endeavors include discussions of definitions only proves only that all endeavors, including science, are concerned not just with the endeavor itself but also things related to that endeavor.
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)
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 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 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.
Then that is a point where I think you have left the boundries of what science can actually say.
quote: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).
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: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).
Why do you say science doesn't produce truth? I would say science is only useful insofar as we believe scientific theories are true.
I'm also not sure what you mean by a fact that is not truth. Don't facts have to be true?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
You are free to be a Young Earth Creationist based on nothing but faith. The question remains, what do you do when you meet an Old Earth Hindu who believes the world has come and gone 10,000,000 times? He also has his faith. How do you satisfy these questions of conflicting beliefs?
One way, the historic way, is to force those who disbelieve into beleiving in what you have faith is the correct way. This created such a wave of death and destruction in the renaisance that a more logical solution was envisioned--science.
You say x. I say y. We can either both hold firmly wto what we say, or we can decide to use logic to determine which is correct.
Did you ever notice, you can teach Evolution without mentioning Religion or ID. You could not teach ID without mentioning Religion or Evolution.
Well, you could. The class would be: "Something made everything the way it is now."
Which would be followed by questions:
"How?" "We don't know and can't know, ask the leader of your faith." "Why?" "We don't know and can't know, ask the leader of your faith." "Who?" "We don't know and can't know, ask the leader of your faith."
Not to difficult a class to ace.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you satisfy these questions of conflicting beliefs?
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.
So the situation is you say y, I say x. You think that because we disagree we need to use logic to determine which is correct: fine by me, but if your logic starts from assumptions contrary to what I already hold, then of course I am not going to accept your logic.
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?
I find it somewhat ironic that although Christianity is an evangelistic religion, you seem to be the one evangelizing here. I do believe in defending and sharing my faith when appropriate using reason to justify my beliefs, but I do not believe it possible for that reason to convince everyone.
[edit] I see you edited your post after I responded. Please note that I am NOT a supporter of Intelligent Design and do not think it a very good argument at all. On the other hand, you could very easily teach Creationism without mentioning evolution (although I certainly believe in evolution and intend on teaching my kids all about it as well) and you could also easily answer all those questions.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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?
Your own. If you are believing in inconsistent things, then that means you are believing things that you believe are wrong.
quote:Did you ever notice, you can teach Evolution without mentioning Religion or ID.
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Avin, sorry about the edit. I didn't realized you had responded. I had hit the reply key too soon.
I don't doubt that you and most Christians have no problem living with people who do not share your beliefs. You won't try to force them on others. Unfortunately history shows that the minority of believers that do try to force thier ideas do so with bloody results.
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.
My jump to ID was not meant to be directed to you, but to the whole ID debate.
I know that you could teach Creationism without mentioning Evolution. Then again, Creationism doesn't claim to be science. It is religion.
Tresopax--Yes, but teaching science you are saying that some beliefs are wrong. But science classes are not about beliefs, they are about science. To debate the philosophy behind science, and the particular religions who are apparently attacked by it, then take ID to philosophy class.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
(Um, yes. And also concerned with eating, and going to the bathroom, and wondering whether it will rain on their picnic.)
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.
Do you put the defining of terms among those activities that distinctly characterize scientific activity? Or do you not? You can't have it both ways.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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. :)
I don't mean to answer to Avin, but I can offer my own view point on it.
I have read books/articls by Gerald Schroeder and by some other guy (I don't remember his name) which address this. For both of them, the idea can be summarized as follows:
When people ask how old the universe is, there's a piece that's missing - Einstein taught us that time is relative to your location (among other things). Thus, it is much more accurate to say "how old is THIS piece of the universe".
The idea I've read is as follows: what if according to SOME clock, 6 days tick by while according to another 15 billion years pass by? Schroeder addresses this in "The Science of God" among other books. He even works out some of the math (poorly), and gets relatively decent results. I recently read a paper by him that I found very interesting (sorry, I know NO html or stuff like that):
The other guy (I REALLY wish I could remember his name), wrote a scientific paper addressing it. He challenged one (currently accepted) view point of cosmology - that there is no center of the universe. He said, what if there IS a center, and the solar system is roughly there? Further, what if at the moment of the big bang, when all the matter is super concentrated, there was a white hole (similar analogue to a black hole, except it EJECTS everything rather than trapping it. And they are on as firm a ground as black holes, at least theoretically). Then what happens?
1. The white hole pushes everything out (universal expansion)
2. As the white hole shrinks, eventually the Earth gets near the event horizon. White holes work just like black holes - at the event horizon, time virtually stops. Thus, it is EASY for incredible amounts of time to pass for the rest of the universe and at the same time, relatively none pass for earth.
The guy who wrote this paper believes in Theistic evolution. The part where God comes in is this: The mere probability of the Earth being at the center (if there even is a center) is incredibly small. God just kind of started things out there.
The paper, while rather technical, isn't what I'd hoped. He starts with the Schwartzchild equation from general relativity (the one that makes people think there are black/white holes) and goes from there. The problem is, in a single paper, it's impossible to address everything of importance (such as molecule production/distributions, cosmic microwave background radiation, etc).
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: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)
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.
Then you are wrong. Hypotheses and 'working theories' are assumptions -- and the expression I listed as an extrapolation is most definitely an extrapolation.
I have no argument about the testing and falsification stuff. My primary point was to try to help you see that assumption and extrapolation (yes, of course as waystations on the way to further testing) are integral to science, not hallmarks of non-science as you claimed.
quote: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.
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.
If for you 'assumption' strictly means 'assumption that remains forever untested' or 'assumption that is announced as fact without having been tested,' then you are right, those kinds of assumptions have no place in science, and few would disagree with that.
***Let's look at another example with the puzzle box. Let's say my grandfather had built the ball maze inside the box to have two levels: an upper course and lower course, overlaid one on the other, perhaps connected by a slanted section, like a parking garage.
But let's say I had not yet figured this out, so when the ball seems to be rolling the length of the box I imagine it is in one channel, even though sometimes it is rolling down an upper channel, and at other times rolling down a lower channel.
With me so far?
There are actually two forms of assumption at play here. One is a largely unconscious assumption that the maze is on one level. The other is a more particular, but related, assumption that when the ball is rolling here, it is always in the same part of the maze.
Either assumption can be dashed without ever explicitly acknowledging the assumption as such and testing for it. But you could also have an AHA! moment and say, "wait a sec, wiley ol' grandpop, is this on more than one level?" and very likely a whole bunch of divergent observations that weren't making sense click into place. Again, you haven't tested for the assumption specifically, or rather you did, earlier, unintentionally.
So, I think I have described a situation, that I consider a very good example of scientific method, where "assumption would be if you ... concluded [something] ..., and assumed that to be true without testing it" definitely takes place, and where the assumption could persist, without testing, for a considerable period of time. And yet this is all essential to science, contrary to what you seem to believe.
[ September 01, 2006, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A side point, but important to an understanding of scientific method and of how 'factual' modern evolutionary theory is.
quote:Tres wrote: If you test it, and keep it as your working theory as long as no test falsifies it....
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.
Now, on the one hand, of course I recognize that history is littered with facts that were once deemed true but which have since been disproved. So it would smack of hubris (or stupidity) to claim that kind of infallibility for science.
And in fact, as I have noted a number of times, real science thrives on this. The advancement of knowledge often -- maybe even usually -- requires a certain appetite for changing one's mind or being proved wrong.
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: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...
...this:
quote:The answer can only be X, Y or Z. Y and Z have been falsified, therefore it must be X.
There are other logical/deductive forms that can produce similarly positive results.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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: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...
...this:
quote:The answer can only be X, Y or Z. Y and Z have been falsified, therefore it must be X.
There are other logical/deductive forms that can produce similarly positive results.
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.
That's not to say that some assumptions aren't extraordinarily reasonable. But sometimes extraordinarily reasonable assumptions turn out to be wrong (e.g. who would have thought that time wasn't an absolute?).
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: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?
It is most certainly not "just a preferred model," and as much as I, as an open-minded person, resist the word "never," I do believe the general outline of evolutionary theory and most of its particulars will not be falsified, with much the same certainty as I might say "the moon is not made of green cheese" will not be falsified.
For the record, I do not consider this an article of faith on my part; I have read widely on the topic in both lay and professional publications, and I remain deeply convinced by the sheer power of its explanations.
quote:Why do you say science doesn't produce truth?
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.
Consider the argument about how common extraterrestrial life may be in the universe. Early estimates looked at the mind-boggling vastness of space, the millions of galaxies with their billions of stars, and asked, "How could it be that Earth is the only planet to have spawned life?" A more recent (and controversial) study looked at the specific conditions necessary to the stability of an earth-like planet -- not too close to the galactic center, not too far, not too near violent astral events, etc. That study suggested that earth-like planets, even in the vastness of all space, could be quite rare.
The thing is, nothing in all that has much to do with 'truth.' Lots of facts, sure, but not truth.
quote:I would say science is only useful insofar as we believe scientific theories are true.
So if I believe a theory that says gravity is powered by chamomile tea, it becomes a useful theory? :-)
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.
In all cases, it is not so much to do with what we 'believe,' but what the consensus is. Conclusions that have strong consensus, that have been proved many times over, that are supported by unpredicted and surprising results in other arenas -- these come close to being treated as true.
I think some of the writings of religious scientists would be interesting here -- to see whether they actually disbelieve their science (where it conflicts with religion), but nevertheless from a practical standpoint treat the facts as true.
quote:I'm also not sure what you mean by a fact that is not truth. Don't facts have to be true?
(I'm glad you're asking some of this, it is making me think.)
I think I was getting at a crucial aspect of scientific culture, and it's this: a scientific 'fact' comes with a certain amount of baggage. Somewhere behind every scientific fact is a provenance of idea, experiment, proof, and so forth. Part of science is that you are always allowed to ask "sez who?" or "how come?"
This has two important consequences:
1. Every fact comes with the tacit message, "figure it out for yourself, see if you think it's true, too."
2. Every fact comes with the tacit message, "some one of the assertions or discoveries that undergird this fact could be mistaken." If such a mistake is found, it won't necessarily destroy the truth of this fact, but the possibility (in a very generic sense) exists.
Neither of these characteristics sound to me like a discipline that produces "truth," though I'll grant it is a subjective distinction.
I hope these ideas are useful in exploring this topic.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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").
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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").
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)".
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)"
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:...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)"
This is not where I thought you were going with this. (I thought we were talking about the inherent uncertainties of various deductive models.)
I take it as a given that science cannot rule out non-scientific theories, and I take it as a given that science accepts that fact. In fact, that is mainly what I meant earlier when I said "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."
It IS important for scientists to think not only rigorously but also broadly when concocting hypotheses. Picture a botanist studying a newly discovered orchid and trying to determine its relation to other orchids and to its ecosystem. Would you say that she is obliged, in addition to various 'scientific' theories, to consider a theory like, "or, well, it might have just been designed and placed here by who knows who"? Especially when that exact explanation is the one that was already superseded, 150 years ago? Especially when, if one contemplates tackling that as a theory or explanation, one quickly realizes there is absolutely nothing in it to be tested or studied?
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.
posted
Sorry for the late replies, I was out of town for the weekend.
quote: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.
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.
quote:I know that you could teach Creationism without mentioning Evolution. Then again, Creationism doesn't claim to be science. It is religion.
Agreed, although personally I don't much care too much for categories of knowledge.
Tarrsk -
quote: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.
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.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
I could do this, and that would not a useful dialogue make, but that is what I see you doing time and again, and it is tiresome. Please, for my sake and for all involved, please consider this.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
The issue is that a religious group, fundamentalist Christians mainly, is attempting to legitimize its teachings and violate the rights of students and teachers by repackaging religious doctrines as scientific ideas. The fact that it isn't science is obvious, but we need to be sure that we don't spend public money, and allow public institutions to be a mouthpiece for religion of any kind. This stuff belongs in a church, funded by its members, privately.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, Mathematician originally cited as an 'issue' the fact that scientists cannot really be 110% positive of their deductive conclusions, and that this left open a door (or ought to open a door) for seemingly non-scientific arguments to get SOME kind of hearing as alternatives to the leading accepted theories. My argument attempted to diminish that particular issue (to nothingness).
I certainly agree there is the different issue that you cite -- in fact, Mathematician's point of view seemed to be an example of it (albeit at its most benign).
I also agree pretty strongly with the rest of your opinions.
The only thing I would add -- while we are making these sweeping summaries -- 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.
When I was being raised as a Christian Scientist, we were permitted 'accommodation' to skip health classes in school (Christian Scientists don't believe in conventional medical teachings or methods).
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.
If evolution is only being mentioned in one unit (and a recent survey revealed that in many biology classrooms across the country it isn't being mentioned at all) then I think we have deeper problems.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
That does not contradict (3).
You are making an assumption here that if X is considered not "doing science" then X can't be the "business of scientists". I disagree with that assumption. In fact, that is my main point: The business of scientists includes MORE than just doing science.
quote:Then you are wrong. Hypotheses and 'working theories' are assumptions -- and the expression I listed as an extrapolation is most definitely an extrapolation.
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.
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: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
I don't believe there are any assumptions that we aren't allowed to question on this forum.
Also, as a sidenote, I don't think anything I've said on this thread rests on the assumption that God exists. If it did, I think it would be valid for you to question that assumption - although in that case, we've discussed that particular assumption so many times that it might not be productive to do it again. Or it might be - that's up to you. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres wrote: that is my main point: The business of scientists includes MORE than just doing science.
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.
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.
You are the one that started to use the term 'assumption,' not I. I merely clarified for you its meaning in a scientific context.
After two painful cycles of argument, you resolve the confusion by, in effect, saying, "I don't think assumptions that are derived or applied unscientifically should be considered scientific."
We're making great progress.
quote: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.
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: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.
This is a nice statement of some of the key issues embroiled in this debate, and it provides a really good segue.
My expression above, "far more than tentative," equates to the leap from "not yet proven false" to "true as far as science is concerned" (not "true as far as I'm concerned").
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).'
This is what I meant, I think, when I spoke above about science producing 'facts' but not 'truth.' A very few scientific areas approach the universality of truth -- most of mathematics, perhaps, but not much else.
'True as far as science is concerned' includes within it the tacit seeds of admission that:
however remote the possibility, some new wrinkle or revelation could emerge that would refine or perhaps even overturn this knowledge
there could be deific or supernatural forces in the universe, but science must exclude these possibilities to focus on concrete fact and physical law. A deity or supernatural power or designer would be an agent of will, purpose, caprice or bias, and thus by definition non-scientific.
'True as far as science is concerned' means:
Go ahead, build the bridge, mix the chemicals, shoot the rocket, inject the medicine
Take this as a given in formulating your next series of hypotheses and experiments. Why should every nuclear physicist have to start with the proof of basic theorems?
Teach it in your schools as the latest understanding that science brings to the world.
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?
I hope so - I like it when everyone agrees. Just because everyone agrees on it, doesn't mean it isn't important to point out or remember.
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. But far far more importantly, 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. I think that if future generations are not taught this distinction clearly, the authority of science will inevitably be undermined as the line between science itself and religious/political/philosophical beliefs is blurred.
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.
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.
quote: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).'
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On an older thread about this, which people might want to check out (as it was very interesting), I posted the following:
quote: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.
This is a more modern view of science than the "science only makes falsifiable claims" view that I often see Hatrackers assert.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And those who think Tres is closed-minded or obtuse should check out the old thread I linked to, because he totally came around to my view of science.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: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"
Help me get this straight.
Even though ID is not science (and thus has no place in "doing science"), it can still have a place in the larger realm of "the business of science" (along with such things as deciding on the definition of the word planet).
Have I got it?
In which part of the definition would "deciding what should be taught in a science curriculum" fall: in "doing science" or "the business of science"? (Aside from other areas it might fall, such as "doing education", "doing public policy", etc.)
quote:...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.
I agree that this is an important distinction to maintain. For example, when scientists engage in political or social advocacy (e.g. climate change).
I would point out, however, that the activity of "distinguishing between science itself and other claims that scientists make that are not directly supported by science itself," is itself one of the things that scientists do when they are "doing science."
That's not to say that non-scientists -- citizens -- shouldn't also attempt to make that distinction. Science should be held accountable to intellectual and analytical rigor whatever its source.
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.
No fair picking on gravity! Nobody knows what gravity is.
How about: - Water molecules comprise two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom - Between two sedimentary strata, the deeper one is the older (with certain exceptions easily elaborated in a fuller statement of the model) - The moon orbits the earth, has a gravity about 1/6 of earth's, and is not made of green cheese - E=MC2 - White light combines light of all colors in the visible spectrum - a feather and a cannonball will fall the same distance in the same time in a vacuum - some birth defects are due to genetic mutation, random errors in the sequence of a very complex molecule that is invisible to the naked eye.
I'm sure I could think of more if I put my mind to it.
quote:I think many simply think "true as far as science is concerned" means it is actually true, certain, proven fact.
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).
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
It reminds me of the way I use i. Sure, there's no real number i, but that doesn't stop it from being useful in solving all sorts of engineering problems. If some of the potential implications of i were against my religious philosophy, I really don't have to buy into them for i to still be useful to me.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, of course. I don't know why they would want to be excused, either. But it does answer the objection of really devout families for whom a teaching of geologic time and evolution is an offense against conscience -- without arbitrarily throwing in Creationist or ID palliatives that really don't belong in the (public school) curriculum.
Many such families already opt out -- the homeschool movement.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No fair picking on gravity! Nobody knows what gravity is.
Um, I do. It's curvature of the spacetime metric.
quote:Sure, there's no real number i,
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm always weirded out by the notion some people seem to have that the reals exist but the imaginaries don't.
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
I think we can agree that you've pointed out a hole in the blanket statement that "X is only scientific if it is falsifiable." But that was an overly simplistic description of science anyway, and certainly does not mean that "anything that is not falsifiable can be considered scientific." As I and others have pointed out many times in this thread, anything that purports to have explanatory power- that proposes a mechanism to account for what we observe- MUST be falsifiable. Both the theory of evolution and ID claim explanatory power. The word "planet" does not. Ergo, evolution and ID must be falsifiable to be considered scientific, whereas "planet" does not.
I know you delight in playing devil's advocate when it comes to basic assumptions, but the simple fact of the matter is that science IS based upon some simple assumptions: that the universe follows a set of rules, and that these rules don't change from one moment to the next. That's WHY scientific theories can have explanatory and predictive power. And science itself fulfills its own predictive criterion, as evidenced by the fact that bridges and skyscrapers don't spontaneously fly into space, the internal combustion engine works well enough to get millions of commuters to work each day, and vaccines prevent billions of deaths due to disease. If you don't accept the basic assumptions behind science, then I feel that we really don't have anything to discuss.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, you are trying to pick apart a person's thoughts on a scientific theory based on how the same person uses mathematical concepts. You aren't going to a) achieve a comprehensible correlation between unreal numbers and scientific theories, or b) use that correlation to convince us of anything.
You are attacking a mathematical principle which yeilds positive results (no pun intended), when really you will only strengthen Mathematician's point by showing us how theories can be so useful. This is very sketchy argumentation and you know it, I wouldn't go any further with it, but that is the hatrack way I suppose.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No fair picking on gravity! Nobody knows what gravity is.
Um, I do. It's curvature of the spacetime metric.
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.
As a quick example, consider this function: Given any place on earth, the function f tells you the latitude of that place. Is the function f curved? What does that even mean? Is 2+2 = 4 curved?
Is the thing the function acts on curved? Sure, the set of all points on the earth forms a curved manifold.
Same idea with gravity.
Beyond even this though, Einstein came up with a great mathematical description of gravity. But that certainly doesn't mean we must all actually exist on a 4-dimensional manifold. In otherwords, Einstein did a great job of giving us equations to model gravity, but he gave us nothing to say "this is what gravity REALLY is"
quote: Originally posted by Desineer:
quote:Sure, there's no real number i,
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
