|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2005 : 19:17:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
But, as I've said, I don't personally think that logic is infallible. Again, if you think that logic is infallible, logic is a religion. They say the same thing about the Bible.
Infallible to what purpose? Math is an infallible way of proving 2 + 2 = 4. Is math a religion? Only if one would try to extend it beyond it's scope or purpose.
First you say that because science is fallible, it's no different than religion. Then you claim that to pretend its infallible also makes it a religion. It seems, in your mind, the only way for science to avoid being a religion would for it to actually be infallible. Is that your position?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/09/2005 19:22:03 |
 |
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 19:29:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It seems, in your mind, the only way for science to avoid being a religion would for it to actually be infallible. Is that your position?
Hrm...*thinks*
If it actually were infallible, it wouldn't require faith in the machines, the theorists, or much else. So if science were infallible, it wouldn't be a religion. Yes.
Can science not be a religion and still be fallible? Yeah, sure, but then I'd think you'd need far less cognitive attachment than is really needed to devote your life to it. So, I think what I'm saying is that it's not a religion if you aren't using it to get at Truth. |
 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 19:32:34 [Permalink]
|
Faith and skepticism... I find it a bit difficult to reconcile one with the other. As one of them ascends, the other must diminish, or so it seems to me. If I am to assume some sort of supreme being, then I must do so solely on faith, as there is no empirical evidence for it's existance. Thus, if I become at all skeptical, that being diminishes to the degree of my skepticism. And t'other way 'round.
I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility of other intelligences in the universe, but until such is brought forth, I remain skeptical of the various claims. If this intelligence exists, it might well be so alien that we might not even recognize it as such.
What is my definition of religion? Anything, be it god or demon, or political party claims, that is taken as granted on no more than blind faith. Proper science fails to meet these criteria.
And of course, scientists are no more than human. Most are dedicated, honest students of their field of endevor, but some few will stoop to fraud and others will abandon their science for faith in the popular beliefs in the supernatural.
Welcome to SFN, Giltwist!
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 19:36:29 [Permalink]
|
I see. So essentially you believe that since nothing can be known with 100% certainty, whatever method one uses to approach "truth" is equally as good as any other. Everything requires faith. You make no distinction between degrees of certainty. To believe that the computer you type on exists is uncertain to the same degree that unicorns exist to the same degree that gods exist.
Is that about right?
Because I disagree. Science is the best method we have of determining truth. Not "absolute truth," but only because that is unattainable by any method.
"What science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know." --Bertrand Russell.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/09/2005 19:41:47 |
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 19:45:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As one of them ascends, the other must diminish, or so it seems to me.
The mathematician in me says there must be a point of optimum faith versus doubt. Someone grab my epistemological calculus book...
quote:
If this intelligence exists, it might well be so alien that we might not even recognize it as such.
Amen.
quote:
Anything, be it god or demon, or political party claims, that is taken as granted on no more than blind faith. Proper science fails to meet these criteria.
So, if religion is blind faith, what is examined faith? I've tried to improve my standing on that respect by spreading my horizons to religions besides Christianity, and I think that's helped. I still think there must be a divine entity of some sort, but I couldn't be much more specific than that. I mean, even the Bible leaves it open "Thou shalt have no gods before me" not "There are no other gods"
quote:
And of course, scientists are no more than human. Most are dedicated, honest students of their field of endevor, but some few will stoop to fraud and others will abandon their science for faith in the popular beliefs in the supernatural.
See that's the sort of skepticism I like to see. I can respect saying "science isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got"
As for the supernatural, that's a whole other conversation with me. I think magic is 99% symbolism, honestly. I think that last 1% that actually does something on occasion is subconscious, though, or actually physical and we just haven't figured that part of the brain out yet.
G. |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 20:11:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Logic only goes so far; to put it bluntly, logic itself is questionable because its language, like all languages, has certain assumptions built into it.
List them.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 20:31:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
List them.
Well, the reasoning we talked about in analytic philosophy is that any language (including a formalizaed language like logic) only has a finite number of words, then you either have circular defintions somewhere or undefined words. Not to make a Bill Clinton joke, but you really have to wonder what the definition of "is" is. I mean it's just sorta understood. What does "is" mean? Well it means that the subjects exists. What does "exists" mean? Well it means that the subject is real. And on and on... It gets down to matters of what is reality and what is truth. Questions that are still far from answered.
Time for bed,
G. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 20:44:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwistquote:
And so does quilting, and interior design, and gardening. In other words, that definition of "religion" encompasses everything which people teach to each other. And because it's so broad, it becomes meaning-free.
Precisely my point.
Your point is that broad definitions are meaningless? Great, on this we agree.quote:
My epistemological stance is that we can't really KNOW anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I hope you don't justify that on a science textbook, 'cause that's what they teach.  quote:
Ok, I'll grant you the most famous cases are typically like this, but doesn't this prove my point about science not being infallible in practice?
Oh, was that your point? Surely you don't think I was arguing from a scientism point-of-view, that science is the be-all-end-all of epistemologies? It's just the best one (purely in terms of practicality) we know of at this moment in time.
No, science is fallible, since it's done by people. However, due to its open, competitive nature, with its demands for repetition and solid evidence, it does not, due to its fallibility, share the same epistemological uncertainty as religion, or guessing, or tea-leaf reading.quote:
Also, surely there must be cases where it isn't God that causes the zealousness.
Lysenko, in Soviet Russia, based his anti-evolution dogma on the fact that Darwinism was antithetical to dialectical materialism. Stalin really liked it, and Soviet biology took giant leaps backwards.
And there are plenty of crackpots whose dogmatism leads them away from our best approximation of "the truth," but it's difficult to call many of them "scientists." They are, after all, mostly amateurs or those working outside their field of expertise (see, for example, Linus Pauling and vitamin C).
And then there are examples like the numerous people who scoffed at Wegener and his theory of Continental Drift. But the reason that happened was that Wegener was well ahead of his time, and there simply wasn't enough evidence (or even any way to gather the evidence) for Continental Drift for another 40 years.quote:
It's times like these I wish I knew more about the history of science.
From personal experience, I can tell you that it helps a lot if you contract an incurable disease to which "alternative medicine practitioners" flock with their "cures." You'll find yourself researching tons of stuff only vaguely connected with medicine, in order to get to the bottom of why a particular argument is faulty.quote:
quote:
It's a real shame that people abuse his hypotheses so badly that he himself got disgusted.
I'd appreciate it if you would explain your alternative interpretation instead of just saying mine is wrong.
I didn't say yours was wrong, I was just commenting on Kuhn's fate at the hands of the postmodernists. If you're a postmodernist, I didn't know it, and will - after your clarification - explain the main problems with postmodernism.quote:
Right, SCIENTISTS understand that, but not the layman. If you ask the average person what color carbon atoms are and why, you'll probably hear "black, because that's how it was always depicted in the textbooks" (This one is courtesy of my educational methods professor)
Sure, but what do we care about questions for which the answer really doesn't matter? What color are carbon atoms? Come on.
You know, even most experts in automotive sciences will say "gas makes a car go" to a lay audience, despite the fact that unmodified internal combustion engines won't work on the Moon. How technically-proficient and nit-picky do you want the average layman to be? I mean, it'd be fantastic if everyone could get a working knowledge of all major branches of science within, say, 16 years of schooling starting at age 5, but it's unrealistic to think that even one person could do so.
quote:
Yeah, I definately agree. I'm not exactly sure where I was going with that bit. I think I was trying to create a sense of why believe in science "facts" can be believing in science dogma.
And I believe that most science "dogma" you'll find today, you'll find in the discipline of psychology. You already know about False Memory Syndrome's problems, and there's also "the Blank Slate." I can't think of a single example of something in the hard sciences which is believed dogmatically. Perhaps you can provide an example?quote:
You raise an interesting point. Then again, you could have said the same thing about Boolean algebra before we invented computers.
Apparently not. George Boole died in 1864.
In another post, you wrote:quote:
when have you even heard anyone even CONSIDER there might be another non-creationist origin to the universe?
What other non-creationist origin to the universe has as much evidence to support it as Big Bang theory? If there is another one with even minimal evidence, I've yet to hear anyone offer it up, though I must admit to not following cosmological journals. Oh, aside from Einstein's Steady-State Universe, of course, which we know to be wrong already.quote:
I agree with you that this is a definition of IDEAL science, but I think it's naive to think that things like politics don't come into play... Bu |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 20:47:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
The answer is....
1001
Shoot, Ricky, I forgot all about this.
Why is that hidden number the answer? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 21:28:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What other non-creationist origin to the universe has as much evidence to support it as Big Bang theory? If there is another one with even minimal evidence, I've yet to hear anyone offer it up, though I must admit to not following cosmological journals.
In a description of membrane theory I read a while back (thinking it was in a Sci-Am article) there was something about membranes colliding being a possible origin. I forget the specifics, but the general idea is that occasionally these membranes collide and release titanic (universe forming) ammounts of energy.
As for having significant evidenciary support? Well, it is big-bang-ish... lol.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 22:54:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
Well, the reasoning we talked about in analytic philosophy is that any language (including a formalizaed language like logic) only has a finite number of words, then you either have circular defintions somewhere or undefined words. Not to make a Bill Clinton joke, but you really have to wonder what the definition of "is" is. I mean it's just sorta understood. What does "is" mean? Well it means that the subjects exists. What does "exists" mean? Well it means that the subject is real. And on and on... It gets down to matters of what is reality and what is truth. Questions that are still far from answered.
Giltwist, it seems you're bringing up a completeness argument a la Goedel. You are, of course, absolutely right (get it?) about any system (math, logic, language, science, etc) having fundamental problems.
At the risk of reiterating those distinguished members who have posted before me, science is not a way to find "The Truth." It just happens to be the best way we have found so far. I would extend this to logic and mathematics as well. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 23:35:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It gets down to matters of what is reality and what is truth. Questions that are still far from answered.
From a purely practical point of view, I think we have very solid answers to those questions.
Only when discussing purely philosophical epistemology are those questions up for debate.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 02:19:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, if religion is blind faith, what is examined faith? I've tried to improve my standing on that respect by spreading my horizons to religions besides Christianity, and I think that's helped. I still think there must be a divine entity of some sort, but I couldn't be much more specific than that. I mean, even the Bible leaves it open "Thou shalt have no gods before me" not "There are no other gods"
Examined faith? Skepticism, of course! 
The Bible is a book composed, written, edited and revised by ever fallible Homo sapiens, who could easily and properly be re-named Homo schmuck if certain of our species were used as the example.
Gods and their associated good & evil minions cannot be tested, subjected to experiment, nor even discussed much beyond the content of their various literature and/or traditions. Thus, they are confined to that literature/tradition, and, as colorful and as popular as it all might be, it is still no more than the application of blind faith due to the chronic lack of evidence in their favor.
Is there a "God" out there, floating about the universe like some dread phantom, creating and destroying at a whim? Until the evidence is forthcoming, I must continue to say, no, there is not.
Is there "intelligence" out there? Why not? It's a huge universe even beyond Douglas Adams's imagination. But at this point, I don't see anything omnipotent.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/10/2005 02:33:47 |
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 05:56:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I didn't say yours was wrong, I was just commenting on Kuhn's fate at the hands of the postmodernists. If you're a postmodernist, I didn't know it, and will - after your clarification - explain the main problems with postmodernism.
Oh, I thought you were calling ME a postmodernist and, hence, summarily wrong. Sorry about that. I would still like to hear your take on Kuhn, though.
quote:
Sure, but what do we care about questions for which the answer really doesn't matter? What color are carbon atoms? Come on.
Well, it was just a concrete example I'd heard yesterday. It doesn't have to be color. It could be anything, really. But you raise a good point about the usefulness of simplification. But I think simplifications like that might be part of the problem of science as a religion. When you get to the point that you believe "gas makes cars go" because someone told you so, that's when I'm talking about science becoming a religion, in a sense.
quote:
I can't think of a single example of something in the hard sciences which is believed dogmatically. Perhaps you can provide an example?
Well maybe the hard/soft science is an important one then. I know that my chemistry professor used to complain about sociologists being satisfied with far lower strengths of correlation in data than he, as a chemist would. On the other hand, the same professor admitted that in organic chemistry, people who got a 50% yield on their efforts were lucky. But I think you are right that the soft sciences are probably a bigger source of science as a religion.
quote:
Apparently not. George Boole died in 1864.
Eh? What does his death have to do with anything? I was under the impression that AND, OR, NOR, and the like didn't really prove useful until their implementation in computers?
quote:
What other non-creationist origin to the universe has as much evidence to support it as Big Bang theory?
Here, I think, I'm dealing with a lack of advanced physics training, but from what I've gotten out of physics and general science classes and the couple of books I've read on the subject, all we've really got going for evidence of the Big Bang is universal expansion, cosmic background radiation, and some neat similarities in particle accelerators.
quote:
The people who engage in science and use logic can be fallible and/or swayed by politics, but the disciplines themselves don't give a rat's patootie about politics or errors.
So, what you are saying is that, in and of itself science is on the ball, but when humans come into the picture, things can go bad. I'd agree with that. The problem is that we can't do science without involving humans but more on that in a second.
quote:
Logic and mathematics, in fact, are the only disciplines humans know of in which things can actually be proven.
I definately agree with this up to a point, otherwise my university education wouldn't have focused on them ;) However, both are axiomatic systems. As thorough as I think we, as mathematicians and logicians, have been. I've yet to be exposed to how you can prove axioms without more axioms.
quote:
And since logic and math are practices based entirely upon definition, they also fail to address "The Truth." In fact, one could say that only religion addresses "The Truth," and that premise is probably its main failing.
Oooo. That's a GOOD definition for what a religion is. The question then becomes, if science is only concerned with lowercase-t truth, is the capital-T Truth worth considering? If not, then the next subject we should probably investigate is morality. Why have laws if they're not justifiable, right?
quote:
In a description of membrane theory I read a while back (thinking it was in a Sci-Am article) there was something about membranes colliding being a possible origin.
Yes, I've heard that true, but I thought that it was an explanation FOR the Big Bang and not an alternative TO the Big Bang. My next thought is, now we've got an explanation for our universe, but where did the brane universe come from?
quote:
Giltwist, it seems you're bringing up a completeness argument a la Goedel.
Duly noted and added to my To-Read list.
quote:
You are, of course, absolutely right (get it?)
I'm trying to be as left as right can be, though. I'd like to think I'm actually listening and learning, for example. Incidentally, do you have to be on the left to be a skeptic?
quote:
From a purely practical point of view, I think we have very solid answers to those questions.
Only when discussing purely philosophical epistemology are those questions up for debate.
Yeah, I'd agree with both of those. The problem is that I want those purely epistemological answers.
quote:
Is there a "God" out there, floating about the universe like some dread phantom, creating and destroying at a whim? Until the evidence is forthcoming, I must continue to say, no, there is not.
I must concede that I can't prove God by any measure far beyond Aquinas, but that doesn't mean I can't still want there to be some great Creator. If the universe is one great cosmic accident, why am I wasting time speculating about it when I should be out there enjoying the insignificant sliver of time I have to do so. So, while you are saying mundane |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
