more about Science and Religion

ISAW

Time and again I witness threads here where Christianity is presented as illogical or unreasonable. Usually the person making such arguments is anti religious agnostic or atheist and subscribes to the belief about science as a rational alternative rooted in certainty and rigour.

And so we get the creation vs. evolution; Galileo vs. the Church;belief vs. scientific certainty and of science.

People have presented the view of the church as rooted in reason. So I want to present what I consider a "fair view" I want people to consider the view presented of science. If we look at the history and philosophy of science we can I believe quite quickly see that this view of certainty and scientific method is not so certain as some make out.

Take the following survey.
Answer each question with 'true' if what the sentence most normally means is typically true and 'false' if it is typically false.
1. Scientists usually expect an experiment to turn out a certain way.
2. Science only produces tentative conclusions that can change.
3. Science has one uniform way of conducting research called “the scientific method.”
4. Scientific theories are explanations and not facts.
5. When being scientific one must have faith only in what is justified by empirical evidence.
6. Science is just about the facts, not human interpretations of them.
7. To be scientific one must conduct experiments.
8. Scientific theories only change when new information becomes available.
9. Scientists manipulate their experiments to produce particular results.
10. Science proves facts true in a way that is definitive and final.
11. An experiment can prove a theory true.
12. Science is partly based on beliefs, assumptions, and the nonobservable.
13. Imagination and creativity are used in all stages of scientific investigations.
14. Scientific theories are just ideas about how something works.
15. A scientific law is a theory that has been extensively and thoroughly confirmed.
16. Scientists’ education, background, opinions, disciplinary focus, and basic guiding assumptions and philosophies influence their perception and interpretation of the available data.
17. A scientific law will not change because it has been proven true.
18. An accepted scientific theory is an hypothesis that has been confirmed by considerable evidence and has endured all attempts to disprove it.
19. A scientific law describes relationships among observable phenomena but does not explain them.
20. Science relies on deduction (x entails y) more than induction (x implies y).
21. Scientists invent explanations, models or theoretical entities.
22. Scientists construct theories to guide further research.
23. Scientists accept the existence of theoretical entities that have never been directly observed.
24. Scientific laws are absolute or certain.

Here is the answer key:
1. T (#4) 9. T (#4) 17. F (#6) 0 wrong = A+
2. T (#1) 10. F (#1) 18. T (#5) 1 wrong = A
3. F (#3) 11. F (#4) 19. T (#6) 2 wrong = A-
4. T (#5) 12. T (#2) 20. F (#7) 3 wrong = B+
5. T (#2) 13. T (#7) 21. T (#7) 4 wrong = B
6. F (#2) 14. F (#5) 22. T (#5) 5 wrong = B-
7. F (#4) 15. F (#6) 23. T (#7) 6 wrong = C
8. F (#5) 16. T (#2) 24. F (#6) 7 wrong = D
8 or more wrong = F

Before you reply tell us all
How did you do in the score?

I scored a B by the way. But two of the questions could be clearer and I wavered on them. ewven though I knew scientists manipulate results ( q9) I believe they shouldn't.

the point isn't how well you score but to understand the justification of the score given by the author in the source web page
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html

I suggest any preachy anti christian fundamentalist atheists be directed to this page before making pronouncements on the certainty of science based in empirical measurement as opposed to religion based on illogical belief.

Zombrex

Like I always say, one theory of electro-magnetism, thousands of religions.

But focusing on the certainty of science is missing the point. It isn't that we are certain of the theory of electro-magnetism. It could be wrong.

It is that it isn't based solely on personal assessment, because personal assessment is really bad.

Basing things solely on personal assessment leads to thousands of religions, with the vast majority of people sticking to the religion they were taught by their parents or community.

Now couple that with the recent discoveries in neuro-science and psychology about how the human brain naturally images human like agents being responsible for nature it is really hard not to be dismissive of religion.

As Soul Winner some what ironically said evolution has evolved our brains to survive, not find the truth.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Like I always say, one theory of electro-magnetism, thousands of religions.

You might have it the wrong way round.
Ever heard of Dogma?
Ever heard of Thomas Kuhn?

But focusing on the certainty of science is missing the point. It isn't that we are certain of the theory of electro-magnetism. It could be wrong.

Really? So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.

You didn't do the quiz did you?

It is that it isn't based solely on personal assessment, because personal assessment is really bad.

So Christianity is based wholly on personal assessment?

How did you score in the quiz by the way?

Basing things solely on personal assessment leads to thousands of religions, with the vast majority of people sticking to the religion they were taught by their parents or community.

and this is not true of science ? you didn't do the quiz did you?

Mind you we are talking about Christianity here and not other religions.

Now couple that with the recent discoveries in neuro-science and psychology about how the human brain naturally images human like agents being responsible for nature it is really hard not to be dismissive of religion

LOL psychology is being touted as a hard certainty now? LOL! you didn't do the quiz did you?

As Soul Winner some what ironically said evolution has evolved our brains to survive, not find the truth.

So do you have a scientific definition of "truth"?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You might have it the wrong way round.
Ever heard of Dogma?
Ever heard of Thomas Kuhn?

I certainly have.

I wonder are you adhering to the common but incorrect interpretation of Kuhn's paradigm shift concept, a notion that Kuhn has spent a lot of his life trying to correct. From Wikipedia

A common misinterpretation of paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) is a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different.

You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

I'm reminded of that famous scene in Anne Hall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY

ISAW wrote: »

Really? So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.

Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.

When I get a chance I will do the quiz, though considering I've explained my position on science a good number of times and you continue to ignore it and present what you think I must believe (like you just did there) I suspect the result will have little interest to you.

Zombrex

I got an A-

Is that good?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I certainly have.

I wonder are you adhering to the common but incorrect interpretation of Kuhn's paradigm shift concept,

I would have thought you would be aware of my comments elsewhere on relativism.

I was referring to the idea of one dogma and I suggest you look at the words in the wiki you linked which immediately follow Kuhn's comments on relativism.
"He then goes on to show how, although these criteria admittedly determine theory choice, they are imprecise in practice and relative to individual scientists."

Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.

What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.

When I get a chance I will do the quiz, though considering I've explained my position on science a good number of times and you continue to ignore it

Not at all. your words

It is that it [science as opposed to religion i.e. Christianity] isn't based solely on personal assessment

the "wholly objective" view. which if you did the quiz and read the comments on question 6 for exaqmple you would have found:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html#2
and http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html#3

and present what you think I must believe (like you just did there) I suspect the result will have little interest to you.

I can only go by what you actually state! i.e that science isn't based solely on personal assessment and assume that religion by default is.

Morbert

I agree with most of the answers. Question 9 is horribly worded though.

I don't know anyone who believes science is simply a rational mechanism rooted in certainty.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I got an A-

Is that good?

Absolutely or relatively? AS i stated I answered based on what I think scientists should do (e.g. not change the data or doctor results for expected outcomes ) rather than what some do in practice. I applaud your greater faith in science.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

the new one is always better, not just different.

This is a very important point.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

I agree with most of the answers. Question 9 is horribly worded though.

I don't know anyone who believes science is simply a rational mechanism rooted in certainty.

Yeah that got me too. We can all think of examples of manipulation but is it widespread. A similar myth exists about abusive clergy.

Manach

Morbert wrote: »

I agree with most of the answers. Question 9 is horribly worded though.

I don't know anyone who believes science is simply a rational mechanism rooted in certainty.

OT:
I was also unsure about Q9, but especially Q3 "the scientific method". Was the question to mean to be purely research or what I took to be the entire investigative process?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

When I get a chance I will do the quiz,

It is only a handful of true/ false questions. How much time could it take?

though considering I've explained my position on science a good number of times and you continue to ignore it and present what you think I must believe (like you just did there) I suspect the result will have little interest to you.

Up to that point you had replied TWICE to this thread and made points about science about which I took you up.
While I find Woody Allen very funny I find your personal reference comparing it to discussing with me a veiled personal attack. Just how is that Annie Hall clip showing anything like me?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?

Again, yes.

Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.

That would of course raise interesting questions as to how the models of an old Earth appear to work so well.

ISAW wrote: »

No it isn't!

Yes it is, as I and Morbet have explained to you over and over and over again.:rolleyes:

Seriously what is the point of entering in to a debate when you invent the position of the other side and then ignore when you are corrected.

ISAW wrote: »

the "wholly objective" view.

Wholly objective? What?

I'm beginning to think your problem is that you simply don't read posts properly.

When does isn't based solely on personal assessment turn into never based on personal assessment

If I said that sometimes I like to go for walks in the park at lunch you would no doubt take that to mean that every lunch time I go for a walk in the park.

ISAW wrote: »

I can only go by what you actually state!

ISAW you hardly ever go on what I actually state, something I've had to spend a great deal of time correcting in your replies to me and something the cases above demonstrate quite well.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Just how is that Annie Hall clip showing anything like me?

You are constantly appealing to the ideas of people you have read though often one gets the impression you don't understand what the heck they were talking about.

I would love, like Allen, to have one of these authors available to me when you do this, but of course that only happens in the movies.

ISAW

Manach wrote: »

OT:
I was also unsure about Q9, but especially Q3 "the scientific method". Was the question to mean to be purely research or what I took to be the entire investigative process?

I took it to mean the hypo-deductive method i.e. the whole process of scientific investigation and conformation.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Again, yes.

Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.

Nonsense. As you yourself stated.A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science

If one says "magic might be right and science totally wrong" one discredits science.

Yes it is, as I and Morbet have explained to you over and over and over again.:rolleyes:

Bald assertion isn't proof! Where in this thread have you explained something over and over again and shown the assertion to be certainly true?

Seriously what is the point of entering in to a debate when you invent the position of the other side and then ignore when you are corrected.

It isnt a fundamental principle of science that science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
As you yourself stated.A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science

Wholly objective? What?

I'm beginning to think your problem is that you simply don't read posts properly.

When does isn't based solely on personal assessment turn into never based on personal assessment

Science not being solely based on personal assessment implies that religion IS. that is to what you were referring.

It is that it isn't based solely on personal assessment, because personal assessment is really bad.

Basing things solely on personal assessment leads to thousands of religions, with the vast majority of people sticking to the religion they were taught by their parents or community

And you were claiming science is NOT like that!

If I said that sometimes I like to go for walks in the park at lunch you would no doubt take that to mean that every lunch time I go for a walk in the park.

You didn't state "sometimes"

If you said you are unlike others who never go for walks in the park I might well believe you were making a case for walking at lunchtime but if you are now claiming science is sometimes based on personal assessment and sometimes not then what is the strong argument for science in that claim?

ISAW you hardly ever go on what I actually state, something I've had to spend a great deal of time correcting in your replies to me and something the cases above demonstrate quite well.

You are hedging! Please dont obfuscate. When you stated

It is that it isn't based solely on personal assessment, because personal assessment is really bad.

What were you trying to claim is the good thing about science as compared to religion?
Come on. Out with it. Care to show us all what I confused? what is the strong argument in support of the scientific world view in these words you claim I don't understand?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

You are constantly appealing to the ideas of people you have read though often one gets the impression you don't understand what the heck they were talking about.

I would love, like Allen, to have one of these authors available to me when you do this, but of course that only happens in the movies.

Look! That is a personal attack! If you are claiming I posted something wrong about ANYONE I referred to then post it here and we can go over it and if I'm wrong I am happy to admit it!
You are claiming I don't know the references to which I refer! You are claiming that my citations are a misuse of other people work! That is completely unfair and unfounded!

So care to post three examples of authors and show where they disagree with me. Indeed some of the authors I post I have personally met and discussed the same issues with them and they range from scientists to public figures to authors to poets and beyond.

I think it is very very unfair of you to claim as you have.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Nonsense. As you yourself stated.A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science

If one says "magic might be right and science totally wrong" one discredits science.

No they don't. Science ITSELF says that. Science doesn't claim to find certainty. Magic (what ever you mean by that) might be right and scientific theories totally wrong. Unlikely but possible.

ISAW wrote: »

Bald assertion isn't proof! Where in this thread have you explained something over and over again and shown the assertion to be certainly true?

I've explain more times that I can care to remember to you that science does not claim to find absolute truths and certainty.

Strangely this doesn't stop you acting in faux shock when I said this again

ISAW wrote: »

It isnt a fundamental principle of science that science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?

Yes it is.

ISAW wrote: »

One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.

Science is a methodology. How "kooky" a person is is irrelevant.

ISAW wrote: »

As you yourself stated.A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science

Yes. It is a great advantage of science that it never claims to possess certainty about anything. It avoids the embarrassing habit religion has about making "infallible" proclamations about the natural world that later turn out to be wrong.

ISAW wrote: »

Science not being solely based on personal assessment implies that religion IS. that is to what you were referring.

How did you get "wholly objective" from that?

ISAW wrote: »

And you were claiming science is NOT like that!

If you are in doubt as to what I'm claiming just read my posts properly. I generally mean what I say.

Science is not based solely on personal assessment. Explain where you got me saying that science is wholly objective from that?

ISAW wrote: »

You didn't state "sometimes"

That is what "not solely" means. Again the fundamental issue here seems to be not reading posts properly.

ISAW wrote: »

if you are now claiming science is sometimes based on personal assessment and sometimes not then what is the strong argument for science in that claim?

Now claiming? I was ALWAYS claiming that.

The "argument for science" is that it is better than a system based solely on personal assessment, such like religion, because personal assessment is really bad at correctly judging things.

Strange, I seem to remember already saying that. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Look! That is a personal attack!

It isn't an attack it is an observation, born out of utter frustration at your obfuscation style of debate.

Exactly how many times are you going to make me repeat my position with regard to science before you accept it?

Do you really want me to drag up every post I've made where I tell you the exact same thing over and over, such as the notion that science does not claim scientific theories are infallible?

You may find that rather humiliating.

Here is a post from two months ago where we discussed pretty much the exact same thing and I expressed the exact same position. So why exactly are you shocked that I'm not repeating the position I held months ago?

See what I mean. Put yourself in our position for a minute ISAW. What would you do?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't an attack it is an observation, born out of utter frustration at your obfuscation style of debate.

Who is obfuscating now?

If ones "observation" is that a poster is ignorant , a bigot or dishonest then it is not just an observation it is a personal attack.

You are claiming that I am akin to the person in the Woody Allen clip you provided.
You have claimed I don't know about the people to which I refer ( e,g, Kuhn and other people) and that my understanding of them is either wrong or I am intentionally misinforming people. That is a direct attack on my credibility!
You top it off by saying ( as Woody Allen did) if only life was like that clip.

Clearly the contention is that
1. I don't understand the people to which I refer
2. I give a wrong interpretation of them
3. You have shown I am wrong and I stick to my interpretation like a bigot

Now care to show me what I am wrong about instead of making bald assertions that I am wrong?

Exactly how many times are you going to make me repeat my position with regard to science before you accept it?

If you have a position it is for you to express it and support it. Aboive your position is:

A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science

This is in a direct conflict with:

It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.

One can't come down on the side of science and say you trust it and it is the best system we have and then hedge by saying it could all be wrong and astrology for example be correct.

Do you really want me to drag up every post I've made where I tell you the exact same thing over and over, such as the notion that science does not claim scientific theories are infallible?

No! I want you to support your contention that like the man in the Woody Allen clip I do not know the people to which I refer in those debates and am ignorant of what they really meant. As regards science not being infallible I refer you to your earlier comment suggesting science is the best we have and comparing it with pseudo science or magic is not comparing like with like. We should not equate them with equal weight.

Here is a post from two months ago where we discussed pretty much the exact same thing and I expressed the exact same position. So why exactly are you shocked that I'm not repeating the position I held months ago?

Where in that exchange do I misinterpret misquote or put across a interpretation about an academic publication which is wrong?

note post 30 in that thread where I say:
That the universe exists is considered by science to be certainly true. Of course it may not exist at all but that would not be scientific statement, it would be a philosophical one, since it can't be falsified since if you could prove it doesn't exist at all you wouldn't be here to prove it!

Note also :
You propose that we can never make an absolute statement which we can say is certainly true. How about the suggestion that we can never make an absolute statement which we can say is certainly true? Like logical positivism the statement is self contradictory.

In reply in post 42 you state:

a core principle of science is that a guess with no way of determining if it is accurate or not is useless.

brought up in question 5 above

5. When being scientific one must have faith only in what is justified by empirical evidence.
This is clearly an expression of empiricism a belief about science


Now did you say 5 was true or false? If you said it was false then that contradicts " a guess with no way of determining if it is accurate or not is useless. "

See what I mean. Put yourself in our position for a minute ISAW. What would you do?

I would ask you to provide evidence which shows that I misquote or misinterpret people and not just allow that bald assertion. You have not done so.
I would show how your claim of being consistent in your expression of what you believe science to be has inherent contradictions. QED

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

No they don't. Science ITSELF says that. Science doesn't claim to find certainty. Magic (what ever you mean by that) might be right and scientific theories totally wrong. Unlikely but possible.

unlikely but not "of equal working value to true science". Something to be dismissed by true science unless like true science it can support itself. That is hedging.

I've explain more times that I can care to remember to you that science does not claim to find absolute truths and certainty.

And you also say "a core principle of science is that a guess with no way of determining if it is accurate or not is useless. "

More hedging!

Science does not claim to be the right interpretation but if we have another interpretation and can't scientifically show it to be the right interpretation then that other interpretation is useless?

Which is it. Other interpretations are valid or they are useless and should be dismissed by science?

Science is a methodology. How "kooky" a person is is irrelevant.

This is an appeal to science being a process which stands totally apart from the scientist. Look at questions 3,5,6,10, 12 and 16. How did you answer them?


Particularly 16? Did you know Newton was a heretic?

Yes. It is a great advantage of science that it never claims to possess certainty about anything. It avoids the embarrassing habit religion has about making "infallible" proclamations about the natural world that later turn out to be wrong.

Now I will refer you to that earlier thread! Galileo's problem was not so much with the Pope ( who was a personal friend ) so much as the academics i.e. the scientists of his day! And yes I can quote several authors on this Michael Matthews, Stillman Drake, Finnochario, etc. and I do NOT think I am misinterpreting them! i have personally met or spoken to them or to colleagues or family. I am annoyed if you think I am changing what they said to suit my own bigoted opinions. This is about learning and changing for me.

If you are in doubt as to what I'm claiming just read my posts properly. I generally mean what I say.

there you go again! Are you claiming I don't mean what I say?
Look I have shown how things you state like magic is not to be equated with science is at odds with science might be totally wrong and magic right.

Science is not based solely on personal assessment. Explain where you got me saying that science is wholly objective from that?

I didn't i explained that you put up religion as the opposite as science not being so there fore religion is. Wher I get the "objective" from is statements like:

"Science is a methodology."

and the person doing it is irrelevant whether they be kook, genius neither or both.

or

"a core principle of science is that a guess with no way of determining it it is accurate or not is useless. "

how does that reconcile with (post 44 in above thread)
"We could end up being right but we can never know we have."

On the one hand you have "science can never say it is right" on the other "any system that cant show itself to be right is useless"

On the one hand other systems are not to be equated with science on the other science is useless.

It seems to me you have done a deal of thinking but you have not consolidated your position nor is it as sound or valid as you may think. No amount of saying my position is wrong or I don't understand or my interpretation is dishonest or bigoted or ignorant will change the inherent problems with your position.

SAying "I told you twenty times already" in NOT saying anything if what you told me

1. Does not support your contention that I do not understand the references I supply
2. Has inherent contradictions.

That is what "not solely" means. Again the fundamental issue here seems to be not reading posts properly.

I inferred it not solely from the statement but also from other comments supplied by you.
I freely admit one could not logically conclude "always subjective" from "not solely subjective " based on the single statement given.

The "argument for science" is that it is better than a system based solely on personal assessment, such like religion,

Two problems with this.
1. You have to establish religion is based solely on personal assessment
2. What about science which is based on personal assessment?

because personal assessment is really bad at correctly judging things.

Strange, I seem to remember already saying that. :rolleyes:

Do you also remember your answers to questions 12, 16, 21, 22 and 23 Mr A- ?

What were they?

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

If you have a position it is for you to express it and support it. Aboive your position is:

A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science

This is in a direct conflict with:

It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.

One can't come down on the side of science and say you trust it and it is the best system we have and then hedge by saying it could all be wrong and astrology for example be correct.

If one knows anything about Science then yes one can. It's what science says about everything including itself.

All of science 'could' be wrong.

When you stop inventing peoples positions and actually want to debate what they are saying give me a call. Until then enjoy arguing with your own positions.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

One can't come down on the side of science and say you trust it and it is the best system we have and then hedge by saying it could all be wrong and astrology for example be correct.

It is not hedging anything, it is a realization that science, while the best system we have, produces theories that can still be wrong. That doesn't mean it is not the best methodology we have.

As I've repeated ad nausia, it is unlikely that a theory like evolution is wrong but it is still possible. I can't prove it is not wrong and thus I cannot support the statement that it isn't wrong.

It is also unlikely but still possible that an idea like Biblical creation is correct. I can't prove it isn't so there is always the possibility that it is.

Science does not make claims it cannot support. That is a core principle of the philosophy of science.

The better the system is simply means the more confidence we can have in the accuracy of the theories it produces. It never proves anything and thus you can never say something has been completely ruled out.

I seem to remember explaining that to you 6 months ago :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

No! I want you to support your contention that like the man in the Woody Allen clip I do not know the people to which I refer in those debates and am ignorant of what they really meant.

I already did. You seem to be holding to this notion that all systems of arriving at belief and knowledge are equal.

You seem to think that because science can't prove anything that means I can't say it is better than say theology.

All of that is nonsense and the opposite of what Kuhn was actually saying.

ISAW wrote: »

As regards science not being infallible I refer you to your earlier comment suggesting science is the best we have and comparing it with pseudo science or magic is not comparing like with like. We should not equate them with equal weight.

You are doing it again, making up my position based on your faulty logic and what you assume I must be saying.

Explain to me exactly why I have to hold that a methodology has to produce infallible results in order to say it is better than something else?

Or better yet explain it to Kuhn. Is he one of these people you know personally? Which would be interesting since he has been dead for 16 years. :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

note post 30 in that thread where I say:
That the universe exists is considered by science to be certainly true. Of course it may not exist at all but that would not be scientific statement, it would be a philosophical one, since it can't be falsified since if you could prove it doesn't exist at all you wouldn't be here to prove it!

And note where I replied that because it may not exist is why science doesn't hold to the notion that science considers that certainly true.

A principle of science is that you do not make statement you can't support. We cannot know for certain the universe exists, so science does not proclaim for certain that the universe exists.

I explained all of that to you in that thread. :rolleyes:

So explain to me why you are still holding to the view that I must believe science makes claims of certainty. Please, explain that one to me. Even if you think I'm wrong what purpose is served by continuously misrepresenting my position?

It isnt a fundamental principle of science that science could be wrong

I think Dara O'Briain's line is apt here, what was it: Science KNOWS it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it would just stop!

ISAW it's clear you're attacking straw men here.
I wonder why you set up this thread when you are refusing to listen and telling people what you think they believe

nozzferrahhtoo

It has been pointed out time and time again that there is no certainty in science nor is anyone within the realm of science claiming there is. It is only people outside it that claim that people inside the realm are the ones claiming it.

Nothing in science is proven or offered with certainty ever. Science is not in the business of “proof” as people commonly understand the word. The meaning of the word “prove” in science is closer to the meaning in older English when the phrase “the exception which proves the rule” was coined.

Clearly an exception negates the rule and so this phrase is meaningless in the modern uses of the word “prove”. No… in older English “prove” actually meant “to test” and that is what Science does.

When we “prove” an idea in science all we are saying is we “test” that idea. When we say something is “proven” in science we are saying “We have tested it every way we currently know how and there is nothing more we can do at this time but if more evidence or data comes in we will go right on testing it all over again”.

There is no “certainty” in science therefore, there is only claims made by virtue of past statistical analysis and experimentation. If I drop a ball 100 times and it falls every time, I have not shown with any degree of “certainty” that it will fall when next I drop it. However given our uncertainty statistically if we have to make a call on the behaviour of the ball we are moved to the prediction that it WILL fall on the 101st test.

So if people tell you there is “certainty” in science delete the word from their rhetoric entirely and replace it with “Safe bets made in the light of a wealth of statistical data supporting that bet as the best one to make".

If the same 10 horses ran the same race 100 times and the same horse wins 100 times, then you would do well to bet on that horse in race 101. Does this mean that horse will win with certainty? No it does not, but you would be mad to act otherwise all the same.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

If one knows anything about Science then yes one can. It's what science says about everything including itself.

All of science 'could' be wrong.

When you stop inventing peoples positions and actually want to debate what they are saying give me a call. Until then enjoy arguing with your own positions.

I call you out on that. The assertion above (fi you have followed the debate) s that I am inventing the position of Kuhn, Mathews, Drake etc. just as the man in the Woody Allen video invented the position of Beckett or Marshall McLuhan. You mean my whole fallacy's wrong?


Have you any evidence to back up the assertion?
Otherwise we can confine you to the internet lcategoory of "drive by shooter".

ISAW

bluewolf wrote: »

I think Dara O'Briain's line is apt here, what was it: Science KNOWS it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it would just stop!

Actually there is a counter argument to that. If we did have a complete theory of everything in physics, science would not stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything#Potential_status_of_a_theory_of_everything

ISAW it's clear you're attacking straw men here.

So you agree that I have been accused of not knowing about the people I have been referencing or misinterpreting them?

I wonder why you set up this thread when you are refusing to listen and telling people what you think they believe

One can only go by what people post. It has been posted that I refer to people e.g. Kuhn etc. in the same way the man in the Woody Allen video refers to Mc Luhan.

Excuse the pun but - Wrong fallacy!
That is ad hominem and not a straw man.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

unlikely but not "of equal working value to true science". Something to be dismissed by true science unless like true science it can support itself. That is hedging.

Creationism is dismissed by a "true" scientist (ie someone who understands the heck they are talking about) because its claims cannot be tested or fail tests and thus you cannot build any support for the accuracy of the idea.

That doesn't prove it is wrong.

ISAW wrote: »

And you also say "a core principle of science is that a guess with no way of determining if it is accurate or not is useless. "

More hedging!

How is that hedging?

ISAW wrote: »

Science does not claim to be the right interpretation but if we have another interpretation and can't scientifically show it to be the right interpretation then that other interpretation is useless?

Yes. If you understood what the purpose of science is (to build confidence in the accuracy of claims about the natural world) you would understand that.

An idea that has an unknown accuracy level is useless.

ISAW wrote: »

Which is it. Other interpretations are valid or they are useless and should be dismissed by science?

"Interpretations" are valid if you can test the accuracy of the claims.

ISAW wrote: »

Particularly 16? Did you know Newton was a heretic?

A heretic? A heretic against what? What the fudge are you talking about?

ISAW wrote: »

Now I will refer you to that earlier thread! Galileo's problem was not so much with the Pope ( who was a personal friend ) so much as the academics i.e. the scientists of his day!

You mean the natural philosophers of the day, right?

ISAW wrote: »

And yes I can quote several authors on this Michael Matthews, Stillman Drake, Finnochario, etc. and I do NOT think I am misinterpreting them! i have personally met or spoken to them or to colleagues or family. I am annoyed if you think I am changing what they said to suit my own bigoted opinions. This is about learning and changing for me.

Considering you don't appear to listen to anything you are told on this forum you aren't filling me with confidence that you listened when discussing it with them.

Next time you see them put the questions you are asking me to them and see what answer you get.

ISAW wrote: »

there you go again! Are you claiming I don't mean what I say?

No, I'm saying I mean what I say. You have an annoying tendency to invent my position based on what you assume I mean. You did it above with the notion that something has to be infallible to be considered better.

Please stop doing it. Just read my posts and if you are unclear about something ask me to clarify don't assume someone position for me I've never taken.

ISAW wrote: »

Look I have shown how things you state like magic is not to be equated with science is at odds with science might be totally wrong and magic right.

You haven't shown that at all. Again you are inventing a position.

Do you think it is better to plan a skyscraper using a methodical architectural design rather than just let the lead building just start throwing things up? If you do then are you saying that architecture never makes mistakes.

There is nothing that says a methodology has to be infallible for it to be considered better than another methodology. That is just your made up position that you then assume I have to share. I don't.

ISAW wrote: »

I didn't i explained that you put up religion as the opposite as science not being so there fore religion is. Wher I get the "objective" from is statements like:

"Science is a methodology."

and the person doing it is irrelevant whether they be kook, genius neither or both.

or

"a core principle of science is that a guess with no way of determining it it is accurate or not is useless. "

how does that reconcile with (post 44 in above thread)
"We could end up being right but we can never know we have."

Are you taking the piss? Would you like me to say Science is defined by us as a methodology? Don't be so silly.

ISAW wrote: »

On the one hand you have "science can never say it is right" on the other "any system that cant show itself to be right is useless"

Where did I say that?

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

Actually there is a counter argument to that. If we did have a complete theory of everything in physics, science would not stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything#Potential_status_of_a_theory_of_everything

Physics is science, science is not physics

So you agree that I have been accused of not knowing about the people I have been referencing or misinterpreting them?

Excuse the pun but - Wrong fallacy!
That is ad hominem and not a straw man.

You're attacking a straw man belief of science so yes it is.

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It has been pointed out time and time again that there
is no certainty in science nor is anyone within the realm of science claiming there is.

Please look up the "Sokal hoax".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDelhZQdCKQ

Do you agree with Dawkings that paper no 1 is true? Or not?

It is only people outside it that claim that people inside the realm are the ones claiming it.

No it isnt!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79146

Nothing in science is proven or offered with certainty ever. Science is not in the business of “proof” as people commonly understand the word. The meaning of the word “prove” in science is closer to the meaning in older English when the phrase “the exception which proves the rule” was coined.

Only since Popper offered falsification as a better standard than verification. But that isn't enough.

Clearly an exception negates the rule and so this phrase is meaningless in the modern uses of the word “prove”. No… in older English “prove” actually meant “to test” and that is what Science does.

Only if you regard falsification as the main basis of science.
One can't falsify God. does that mean God is scientifically true?

There is no “certainty” in science

Are you certain of that?

therefore, there is only claims made by virtue of past statistical analysis and experimentation. If I drop a ball 100 times and it falls every time, I have not shown with any degree of “certainty” that it will fall when next I drop it. However given our uncertainty statistically if we have to make a call on the behaviour of the ball we are moved to the prediction that it WILL fall on the 101st test.

So people should believe in God until you can prove God certainly does not exist?

So if people tell you there is “certainty” in science delete the word from their rhetoric entirely and replace it with “Safe bets made in the light of a wealth of statistical data supporting that bet as the best one to make".

there is a real world out there. You may or may not believe that. Science may or may not be able to measure it accurately but it exists. Science accepts it exists and gets on with the job. to say "maybe the world does not exist and science is all wrong" is equating Harry Potter, faries and pseudo science with science.

If the same 10 horses ran the same race 100 times and the same horse wins 100 times, then you would do well to bet on that horse in race 101. Does this mean that horse will win with certainty? No it does not, but you would be mad to act otherwise all the same.

Other things being equal It DOES mean if a sample produces 100 per cent results you are not mad to expect 100 per cent. You can only say that if you could live long enough and have unlimited bets you ran say a million races and the horse lost only one that it is reasonable to bet on the horse if the odds offered are better than a million to one on and on any of the other horses if the odds are better than a million to one. Say two million to one Then after twenty million races given an equal bet you will have paid out 20 million but won 40 million.

nozzferrahhtoo

Having explained to any user who is actually interested why there is no certainty in science, I can tell from the above post that for users who are interested the principle of falsifiability that some clarification is required on this too. Needless to say it is not as the user above portrays it.

What appears to be the understanding of the user above is that an idea is true until you can prove it false. This is not what is meant by falsifiability. The example the user gives is of god. No one can prove there is NO god, therefore the idea is not falsifiable and hence is “true” by the tenants of science.

This simply is not how it works.

Falsifiability or refutability as it is sometimes called is when a person puts forward an idea, his evidence for that idea, and an explanation of WHAT would falsify that idea. This is key and is in fact indispensable to understanding falsifiability.

So for the concept of god to be a “falsifiable” one in the scientific meaning of the term, you would have to a) put forward evidence for that god concept and then b) explain what would falsify your idea or your evidence.

So while the negative concept “There is no god” can not be proved as one can not generally prove a negative … this is not the same as saying that god is a scientifically unfalsifiable proposition.

Put shorter: A falsifiable statement is one only if we know that were the statement false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. This is not so of statements like "there is a god".

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not hedging anything, it is a realization that science, while the best system we have, produces theories that can still be wrong. That doesn't mean it is not the best methodology we have.

So science isn't always right but it is much much much better than any other explanation?
So much so that we can dismiss the predictions which are wrong and treat it as if it were always right? Or are there non scientific interpretations which in any way come close to science at all?

As I've repeated ad nausia,

Sorry to be pedantic but ad nauseam http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/adnauseum.html

it is unlikely that a theory like evolution is wrong but it is still possible. I can't prove it is not wrong and thus I cannot support the statement that it isn't wrong.

I think that is a silly argument. Look at the dawkins video above. Which of the dinosaurs papers is "true" ? clearly the "Science could be wrong" just is not a runner in a real sense in cases like this. One should not let pseudo science get a look in. I seriously doubt you would apply this argument to the Creation vs evolution debate and say "Of course you might be right and the Earth be only 6000 years old" in that debate!

It is also unlikely but still possible that an idea like Biblical creation is correct. I can't prove it isn't so there is always the possibility that it is.

Go and post that sentiment on the atheist forum and see how far you get. such claims have been ripped to shreds even by Christians on this forum.

Science does not make claims it cannot support. That is a core principle of the philosophy of science.

Did you answer question 21,22 and 23? what answer did you give?
How did you score A-?

The better the system is simply means the more confidence we can have in the accuracy of the theories it produces. It never proves anything and thus you can never say something has been completely ruled out.

I seem to remember explaining that to you 6 months ago :rolleyes:

What were your answers to questions 21,22, and 23 . I seem to remember you not telling me.

I already did. You seem to be holding to this notion that all systems of arriving at belief and knowledge are equal.

Nope. I never suggested that at all! Where did I?

You seem to think that because science can't prove anything that means I can't say it is better than say theology.

Better in what way ? In being almost always right as opposed to 100 per cent and theology being what? What if it turns out that theology is 100 per cent right about something which science says is almost certainly untrue?

All of that is nonsense and the opposite of what Kuhn was actually saying.

What are you suggesting Kuhn was saying and what are you suggesting I am saying which is opposite?

You are doing it again, making up my position based on your faulty logic and what you assume I must be saying.

Care to Demonstrate the faulty logic?

I quoted EXACTLY what you stated. You are the one who brought in references to magic and pseudo science when you claimned I misinterpreted Kuhn's work. How did i?

Explain to me exactly why I have to hold that a methodology has to produce infallible results in order to say it is better than something else?

Where did i claim you do have to hold that position. As I stated if it is right much much more and actually has a component predicting how probable an outcome is then it is not to be compared on the same level to magic . this is in essence what Kuhn was saying in the quote you offered. Kuhn was attacking relativism.

Or better yet explain it to Kuhn. Is he one of these people you know personally? Which would be interesting since he has been dead for 16 years. :rolleyes:

Somne of the people I met personally e.g. Burbridge are now dead. I didn't suggest I spoke to Kuhn and I don't find making a joke about that funny.

A principle of science is that you do not make statement you can't support. We cannot know for certain the universe exists, so science does not proclaim for certain that the universe exists.

What was your answer to questions 16, 21 22 and especially 23

True or false?

I explained all of that to you in that thread. :rolleyes:

What was your answer to questions 16, 21 22 and especially 23

So explain to me why you are still holding to the view that I must believe science makes claims of certainty. Please, explain that one to me. Even if you think I'm wrong what purpose is served by continuously misrepresenting my position?

Ok. What was your answer to questions 16, 21 22 and especially 23. You said you got A- didnt you? which 2 did you get "wrong"?

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Having explained to any user who is actually interested why there is no certainty in science, I can tell from the above post that for users who are interested the principle of falsifiability that some clarification is required on this too. Needless to say it is not as the user above portrays it.

What appears to be the understanding of the user above is that an idea is true until you can prove it false.

I never claimed that!
Where did I?

I claimed that Popper progressed the idea of the verification principle as used by the Logical Positivists to the falsification principle. the idea being that science proposes a theory and a test which can in theory falsify the idea being proposed.

The whole idea of falsifability is to get around the idea of "proving a negative" into "disproving a positive claim"

This is not what is meant by falsifiability. The example the user gives is of god. No one can prove there is NO god, therefore the idea is not falsifiable and hence is “true” by the tenants of science.

I didn't say prove no God more so than falsify the proposition of God.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Sokal_and_Bricmont

In their book Fashionable Nonsense (published in the UK as Intellectual Impostures) the physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. They argue that theories are used because of their successes, not because of the failures of other theories. Their discussion of Popper, falsifiability and the philosophy of science comes in a chapter entitled "Intermezzo," which contains an attempt to make clear their own views of what constitutes truth, in contrast with the extreme epistemological relativism of postmodernism.

Sokal and Bricmont write, "When a theory successfully withstands an attempt at falsification, a scientist will, quite naturally, consider the theory to be partially confirmed and will accord it a greater likelihood or a higher subjective probability. ... But Popper will have none of this: throughout his life he was a stubborn opponent of any idea of 'confirmation' of a theory, or even of its 'probability'. ... [but] the history of science teaches us that scientific theories come to be accepted above all because of their successes." (Sokal and Bricmont 1997, 62f)

They further argue that falsifiability cannot distinguish between astrology and astronomy, as both make technical predictions that are sometimes incorrect.

Put shorter: A falsifiable statement is one only if we know that were the statement false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. This is not so of statements like "there is a god".

I concede this point. If I was making such an argument I withdraw it. I accept whatt you say - that science can not show "there is a God" to be untrue.

nozzferrahhtoo

Maybe an example from science would serve to illustrate what fallsifiability means to those on the thread who are applying it so consistently incorrectly. I will, since evolution was already mentioned on this thread, take my example from there, but I use the example for illustration only and do not wish to make this yet another evolution debate.

Again the crux is that the scientist in question must put forward a detailed description of what would falsify the proposition in question. Otherwise it is NOT a falsifiable proposition.

Take for example the claim that the higher apes, Humans included, all have a common ancestor. This claim was made before detailed knowledge of DNA was available to us. However we knew enough at one point to show that Humans had 23 chromosome pairs while the other apes had 24.

The only way this is possible, given that evolution does not allow for the spontaneous and sudden generation or destruction of a whole pair of chromosomes is if 2 pairs in the ape lineage fused into 1. There simply is no other way it could be possible.

Therefore we can predict that we will find such a fused chromosome in humans even before we look. We can predict that we will not only find this, but we will also inevitably find centromeres and telomeres on the DNA strand in places they do not belong and in places that are entirely meaningless.

Were we NOT to find such a thing, the common ancestry of humans and apes would be falsified and in fact so would most of the main tenants of evolution itself.

However in 2007 (there or there abouts, exact year not important but feel free to correct me) this WAS found and in fact it is the human chromosome Number 2. In fact our knowledge is now advancing so well we can pinpoint it to a precise fusion point of base pairs. The precise fusion site has been located in 2q13–2q14.1 (ref. 2; hg 16:114455823 – 114455838),

What we had therefore was a falsifiable proposition which was tested.

The phrase used above however “falsify the proposition of God” is meaningless because it is not a scientifically falsifiable statement. The statement was made without either presenting evidence for the proposition or without outlining a falsification pathway to test it.

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Maybe an example from science would serve to illustrate what fallsifiability means to those on the thread who are applying it so consistently incorrectly.

I have made my position on falsifiability quite clear and not applied it incorrectly!

No are you referring to me ISAW as "those on the thread who are applying it so consistently incorrectly. "

Yes or no?

If you are then I take it as a personal comment on me. I have gone through considerable effort to clarify the debate about falsifiability. I clarified any inappropriate examples of uses of the term I suggested in advance you read sokal. I subsequently referred to him.

So either admit you are referring to me or say to whom you are referring. Which is it?
If me your "consistent incorrect " claim is false.

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Were we NOT to find such a thing, the common ancestry of humans and apes would be falsified and in fact so would most of the main tenants of evolution itself.

I think you may be confusing falsification with verification.
Do you think that absence of evidence of something is evidence of absence of it?

Something isn't falsified by not finding evidence in a test. It is falsified by finding positive evidence in a test which shows it not to be true. In other words it is proof positive the theory is not true. This is distinct from lack of evidence that it is true.

http://www.onbelief.org/Articles/Philosophy_Falsification.htm

The initial 'failure' cannot however be legitimately viewed as falsification because, as Dr Carl Sagan said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" when invoking the fallacy of the 'argument from ignorance'.

see also "null hypothesis"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Deductive_falsification.

naïve falsification does not enable scientists, who rely on objective criteria, to present a definitive falsification of universal statements.
Naïve falsificationism is an unsuccessful attempt to prescribe a rationally unavoidable method for science

Paul Feyerabend ...claimed that if one is keen to have a universally valid methodological rule, epistemological anarchism or anything goes would be the only candidate. For Feyerabend, any special status that science might have derives from the social and physical value of the results of science rather than its method.

Non-falsifiable theories can usually be reduced to a simple uncircumscribed existential statement, such as there exists a green swan. It is entirely possible to verify whether or not this statement is true, simply by producing the green swan. But since this statement does not specify when or where the green swan exists; it is simply not possible to show that the swan does not exist, and so it is impossible to falsify the statement.

And the following is germane to the idea Wicknight expressed about science possibly being all wrong because we cant be certain.

Metaphysical solipsism is not empirically falsifiable because once one has taken the solipsistic position, any evidence that might establish an external world is already viewed as being within (or produced by) the self. However, expressions of solipsism may be self-refuting.

I think I pointed out what I viewed as a contradiction but you can also accept such a position is not scientific according to the falsifiability criterion you advanced.

also

Some, but not all notions of a God are unfalsifiable...Certain other claims are falsifiable or even empirically testable. Cases in point include some miracles or the hypothesis that God created humankind specifically in their modern form, which was falsified by evidence that instead supports evolutionary origins from some common ancestor. Other beliefs have been falsified as scientific understanding has increased, or in some cases as science has gathered evidence of absence.

I would tend to suggest however that evidence of absence isn't strict falsification.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

So science isn't always right but it is much much much better than any other explanation?

Science isn't an explanation, it is a methodology. Scientific theories are much much much better than other explanations about the natural world (such as religious explanations), because we have some ability to assess their accuracy, even though they can still be wrong.

ISAW wrote: »

So much so that we can dismiss the predictions which are wrong and treat it as if it were always right?

I've no idea what you are referring to here.

ISAW wrote: »

I think that is a silly argument.

That could be why you are having such a hard time understanding all this. Think about it for a minute, how could a scientist (or anyone) demonstrate conclusively that some idea about the natural world is certainly true.

You yourself said it about the universe, we could be wrong about its existence. So if we could be wrong about this or anything else what purpose would it serve for science as a methodology to pretend otherwise?

ISAW wrote: »

Look at the dawkins video above. Which of the dinosaurs papers is "true" ? clearly the "Science could be wrong" just is not a runner in a real sense in cases like this.

Of course it is. You maybe confusing the idea that a scientific theory could be wrong with the idea that it is. Just because we can't tell if a scientific theory is completely correct (and thus must maintain it is possible if unlikely it is wrong) doesn't mean it is wrong or that we have to assume it is. I can't prove my girlfriend isn't a space alien. That doesn't mean I have to think she is.

ISAW wrote: »

I seriously doubt you would apply this argument to the Creation vs evolution debate and say "Of course you might be right and the Earth be only 6000 years old" in that debate!

I would. But just because they might be correct is rather irrelevant. They have to demonstrate that their theory is more accurate than others. Otherwise it is useless. There is an infinite number of things that might be true, but without being able to assess the accuracy of them this is meaningless.

You seem to be missing the wood for the trees here. Creationism is useless not because we have proved it is wrong. it is useless because Creationists have no ability to demonstrate it is accurate.

As I said a few pages ago if you can't assess the accuracy of a theory it is useless. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong if you have no way to begin to assess this.

ISAW wrote: »

How did you score A-?

By understanding science better than you? Just an idea :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

What were your answers to questions 21,22, and 23 . I seem to remember you not telling me.

My answers were true true and true. Did you read the explanations further down the page?

ISAW wrote: »

Nope. I never suggested that at all! Where did I?

When you said I can't say science is better because it can't prove something infallibly.

If I'm misunderstanding what you meant care to expand on that.

ISAW wrote: »

Better in what way ?

Increasing accuracy.

ISAW wrote: »

In being almost always right as opposed to 100 per cent and theology being what?

Theology has an undetermined level of accuracy. It might be right, it might be wrong. It is useless for the same reason Creationism is.

ISAW wrote: »

What if it turns out that theology is 100 per cent right about something which science says is almost certainly untrue?

Since we cannot assess the accuracy of theological statements we will never know this. A theological claim might be 100 per cent correct but since we can't figure out if it is this is something we will never know.

Again you are missing the wood for the trees. The purpose of science is to be confidence in what we think we know, and to be ever increasing this confidence.

Theology you just believe something or you don't. There is no methodology to test if that belief is justified or not.

ISAW wrote: »

What are you suggesting Kuhn was saying and what are you suggesting I am saying which is opposite?

I've already address this. Do you have an answer or do you just want to keep going around in circles.

ISAW wrote: »

Care to Demonstrate the faulty logic?

I already did. Why does a methodology have to produce infallible theories in order to say it is better? That is faulty logic.

ISAW wrote: »

I quoted EXACTLY what you stated.

And then you assume I must take a position that I never said (see directly above)

ISAW wrote: »

Where did i claim you do have to hold that position.

Here

If one says "magic might be right and science totally wrong" one discredits science.

and here

One can't come down on the side of science and say you trust it and it is the best system we have and then hedge by saying it could all be wrong and astrology for example be correct.

and a load of other places I can't be bothered quoting because you are just obfuscating now.

ISAW wrote: »

As I stated if it is right much much more and actually has a component predicting how probable an outcome is then it is not to be compared on the same level to magic

Science is a methodology, magic is a supposed phenomena. I assume you mean scientific theories are not on the same level as unsupported claims of magic.

Yes that is correct, which is why science is better. I seem to remember saying that a while ago.

ISAW wrote: »

What was your answer to questions 16, 21 22 and especially 23

True or false?

How about you answer my questions first, you are just moving on to something else to avoid having to admit you made a mistake.

Do you agree that we cannot say a scientific theory is infallible? If not name me a scientific theory which is considered infallible.

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

I would tend to suggest however that evidence of absence isn't strict falsification.

I would add that I believe the wikipedia article is contradictory and hence wrong on this count. Which is part of the reason for my clarification/retraction on the falsification of god issue.

While we can however falsify claims of a miracle I would note that the Church criterion is that any alternative scientific explanation should have to be even less likely than the miracle itself.

Promac

ISAW wrote: »

I would add that I believe the wikipedia article is contradictory and hence wrong on this count. Which is part of the reason for my clarification/retraction on the falsification of god issue.

While we can however falsify claims of a miracle I would note that the Church criterion is that any alternative scientific explanation should have to be even less likely than the miracle itself.

If we can't find an acceptable scientific explanation for something we just say "God did it"?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Science isn't an explanation, it is a methodology.

What was ytour answer to questions 4 and 7?

I've no idea what you are referring to here.

See above:
Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. They argue that theories are used because of their successes, not because of the failures of other theories. Their discussion of Popper, falsifiability and the philosophy of science comes in a chapter entitled "Intermezzo," which contains an attempt to make clear their own views of what constitutes truth, in contrast with the extreme epistemological relativism of postmodernism.

Sokal and Bricmont write, "When a theory successfully withstands an attempt at falsification, a scientist will, quite naturally, consider the theory to be partially confirmed and will accord it a greater likelihood or a higher subjective probability. ... But Popper will have none of this: throughout his life he was a stubborn opponent of any idea of 'confirmation' of a theory, or even of its 'probability'. ... [but] the history of science teaches us that scientific theories come to be accepted above all because of their successes." (Sokal and Bricmont 1997, 62f)


Being right " almost all of the time" isn't to be compared to pseudo science magic creationism etc. One shouldn't endorse it by saying "it could be right". According to the standards of science saying astrology etc. could be right is disparaging science.

That could be why you are having such a hard time understanding all this. Think about it for a minute, how could a scientist (or anyone) demonstrate conclusively that some idea about the natural world is certainly true.

But where did I claim such a thing? I just claimed it was an unscientific philosophical cul de sac. with a sign sayiong "truth" pointing up it.

Metaphysical solipsism is not empirically falsifiable because once one has taken the solipsistic position, any evidence that might establish an external world is already viewed as being within (or produced by) the self.

You yourself said it about the universe, we could be wrong about its existence. So if we could be wrong about this or anything else what purpose would it serve for science as a methodology to pretend otherwise?

Yes and i also said if so it would be a philosophical and not a discussion about science. A cul de sac.

Of course it is.

No it isn't! "Science could be wrong" just is not a runner in a real sense in cases like this.
People who say dinosaurs never existed and the universe is 6000 years old are kooks and not people who should be equated with science on any reasonable level.

You maybe confusing the idea that a scientific theory could be wrong with the idea that it is. Just because we can't tell if a scientific theory is completely correct (and thus must maintain it is possible if unlikely it is wrong) doesn't mean it is wrong or that we have to assume it is. I can't prove my girlfriend isn't a space alien. That doesn't mean I have to think she is.

Nothing whatsoever to do with my point.
First of all suppose aliens have different blood. you CAN prove it since you could take a sample and analyse it! Second of all I didn't claim evolution was right. I just said putting it on the same level as creationism is ridiculous. this is why the church of the flying spaghetti monster came about. One can't devote equal time or equal weight to alternatives on the basis that they might be right and that you cant show science to be 100 per cent right ( which isnt a concept I promoted in the first place).

I would. But just because they might be correct is rather irrelevant. They have to demonstrate that their theory is more accurate than others. Otherwise it is useless. There is an infinite number of things that might be true, but without being able to assess the accuracy of them this is meaningless.

No it isn't!How did you answer question 23?

You seem to be missing the wood for the trees here. Creationism is useless not because we have proved it is wrong. it is useless because Creationists have no ability to demonstrate it is accurate.

How did you answer 23 again? can you prove wormholes exist? how about dark energy?

As I said a few pages ago if you can't assess the accuracy of a theory it is useless. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong if you have no way to begin to assess this.

Alternate universe theory is useless then since we cant go there? Science is only about measuring things? the empirical position for you then is it? Not alone that but you don't believe we can accurately measure things to be 100 per cent true.

By understanding science better than you? Just an idea :rolleyes:

I have asked you what you replied to some questions. Your comments here seem to contradict those replies. If you scored a- you had two which differ from the answer matrix. which two were they? I have shown how your comments seem to contradict the other questions.

My answers were true true and true. Did you read the explanations further down the page?
21. 21. Scientists invent explanations, models or theoretical entities.
22. 22. Scientists construct theories to guide further research.
23. 23. Scientists accept the existence of theoretical entities that have never been directly observed.


You say 23 is true but you also say Scientists have to
"... demonstrate that their theory is more accurate than others. Otherwise it is useless."

So you are saying that it isn't science if they cant measure it but you are also saying (in answer to 23) that it is science if they can't measure it. Which is it?
You do know the quiz is about science and not about other non scientific beliefs scientists might have like faeries or whatever?

When you said I can't say science is better because it can't prove something infallibly.

How is that saying "all systems of arriving at belief and knowledge are equal. "

If I'm misunderstanding what you meant care to expand on that.

You are the one claiming I stated "all systems of arriving at belief and knowledge are equal." I can no more expand on that than I can expand on my suggestion that unicorns are controlling world energy production since I didn't claim that either!

Increasing accuracy.

But then you are back to it not having to be 100 per cent right just much more accurate then anything else. You are still left with the idea that all science is only about accuracy.

Theology has an undetermined level of accuracy. It might be right, it might be wrong. It is useless for the same reason Creationism is.

But that all depends on your definition of "useless" being "not being able to measure" which is the empirical definition of science and in conflict with your answer to 23!

Since we cannot assess the accuracy of theological statements we will never know this. A theological claim might be 100 per cent correct but since we can't figure out if it is this is something we will never know.

But you said the exact same of science! When you argued from solopsicm that we can't really know anything 100 per cent!

Again you are missing the wood for the trees. The purpose of science is to be confidence in what we think we know, and to be ever increasing this confidence.

now you are back to "it is not about getting 100 per cent right but just about getting it as accurate as possible" - the empicist definition and where does it leave all the science we dont measure like the stuff in your answer to 23? the stuff to which you answered -TRUE?

Theology you just believe something or you don't. There is no methodology to test if that belief is justified or not.

Simplistic. eis logic and reason in theology. In fact natural philosophy and modern science is founded on it!

I've already address this. Do you have an answer or do you just want to keep going around in circles.

Look at your last addressing of it!
Where did i claim that science is about "infallible theories"?

I already did. Why does a methodology have to produce infallible theories in order to say it is better? That is faulty logic.

Where did i claim that science is about "infallible theories"?

And then you assume I must take a position that I never said (see directly above)

Yes you did! :
Why does a methodology have to produce infallible theories in order to say it is better? That is faulty logic.

You position is that my logic is faulty because I say science has to produce infallible theories in order to say it is better.

Where did i say science has to produce infallible theories in order to say it is better?

Here

If one says "magic might be right and science totally wrong" one discredits science.

and here

One can't come down on the side of science and say you trust it and it is the best system we have and then hedge by saying it could all be wrong and astrology for example be correct.

and a load of other places I can't be bothered quoting because you are just obfuscating now.

But they were the actuyal quotes YOU USED whenb referring to Kuhn ! Dont you remember

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68463591&postcount=4

I wonder are you adhering to the common but incorrect interpretation of Kuhn's paradigm shift concept, a notion that Kuhn has spent a lot of his life trying to correct. From Wikipedia

A common misinterpretation of paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) is a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different.

You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

Science is a methodology, magic is a supposed phenomena. I assume you mean scientific theories are not on the same level as unsupported claims of magic.

YOU brought up the above quote yourself! note the bold bit?

Morbert

ISAW wrote:

How did you answer 23 again? can you prove wormholes exist? how about dark energy?

You say 23 is true but you also say Scientists have to
"... demonstrate that their theory is more accurate than others. Otherwise it is useless."

So you are saying that it isn't science if they cant measure it but you are also saying (in answer to 23) that it is science if they can't measure it. Which is it?

23 refers to "directly observing", which is different to "demonstrating the accuracy" of a theory. A quantum wavefunction cannot be observed, but it has consequences that can be very accurately measured, and it therefore interpreted as a 'true' description of a system. This is what I inferred from wicknight's post.

As for wormholes and Dark Energy: Wormholes are hypothetical precisely because there is no observational evidence for them. I.e. Scientists do not yet accept that wormholes exist. Dark Energy is really just a place holder for some form of undiscovered energy density responsible for the behaviour of the universe at large scales.

ISAW

Promac wrote: »

If we can't find an acceptable scientific explanation for something we just say "God did it"?

Did I suggest that?
I don't recall doing so. Can you show me where you claim I did?

What I suggested was that the wikipedia article is contradictory in saying in one place in relation to falsification that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but then applying this in the case of theology

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

How about you answer my questions first, you are just moving on to something else to avoid having to admit you made a mistake.

sorry but I hadn't time to reply to this as I was called away with an educational related problem.

Let me get something quite clear. I resent you comment that I am trying to avoid being honest. I have been quite fair with you because I believe you are actually interested in debate but I won't suffer any more personal comments like that. I have posted more than 3000 messages to boards.ie It is not the posting forum to which I post a majority of my posts. Most are elsewhere. But out of 3000 or so I doubt I have had call to correct more then ten. If I make a mistake I admit it. I have a posting style which some people find difficult butI do not get personally with people unless they attack me.

Do you agree that we cannot say a scientific theory is infallible?

I don't think I ever suggest science was like that. However if you want my personal opinion I am happy to say astrology and such nonsense is indeed nonsense and is to my knowledge shown up to be so by science. I am not of the "it might be true " opinion.

If not name me a scientific theory which is considered infallible.

Where did I suggest such a theory exists? The argument has developed to science being able to say things better i.e. more accurately than anything else . anythi9ng else is therefore not to be compared as equal even if science is not 100 per cent right all the time.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Let me get something quite clear. I resent you comment that I am trying to avoid being honest. I have been quite fair with you because I believe you are actually interested in debate but I won't suffer any more personal comments like that. I have posted more than 3000 messages to boards.ie It is not the posting forum to which I post a majority of my posts. Most are elsewhere. But out of 3000 or so I doubt I have had call to correct more then ten. If I make a mistake I admit it. I have a posting style which some people find difficult butI do not get personally with people unless they attack me.

Wonderful, can you answer the questions please.

ISAW wrote: »

I don't think I ever suggest science was like that.

What does that mean? Do you agree or not?

ISAW wrote: »

However if you want my personal opinion I am happy to say astrology and such nonsense is indeed nonsense and is to my knowledge shown up to be so by science. I am not of the "it might be true " opinion.

Again what the heck does that mean?

Is it logical that a scientific theory be considered infallible by scientists (or anyone else for that matter)? Yes or no?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

23 refers to "directly observing", which is different to "demonstrating the accuracy" of a theory. A quantum wavefunction cannot be observed, but it has consequences that can be very accurately measured, and it therefore interpreted as a 'true' description of a system. This is what I inferred from wicknight's post.

So do you also subscribe to the view that science is about measuring things and anything which can't be measured is useless to science?

As for wormholes and Dark Energy: Wormholes are hypothetical precisely because there is no observational evidence for them. I.e. Scientists do not yet accept that wormholes exist.

And do you say they are not part of science?
Life outside Earth may not exist but we have already developed xenobiology.
Is it science or not?

So you are saying if it cant be measured or shown to exist it isn't part of science?

21. 21. Scientists invent explanations, models or theoretical entities.

does not say they have to exist does it?

23. Scientists accept the existence of theoretical entities that have never been directly observed.

Are you saying that if something cant be mneasured or does not exist in our universe it isn't part of science?

Dark Energy is really just a place holder for some form of undiscovered energy density responsible for the behaviour of the universe at large scales.

So now something ( we dont know what cant explain it cant measure it and dont have any theory about it) called a "placeholder" is part of science?

why not just make all the stuff above we cant measure or observe or which don't exist into placeholders so they can be part of science too then?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You are still left with the idea that all science is only about accuracy.

Sweet Dawkins beard!

ALL SCIENCE IS ONLY ABOUT ACCURACY

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Wonderful, can you answer the questions please.

What question? the one where you attribute to me the opinion "Science is 100 per cent accurate or can be 100 per cent accurate"?

I never suggested such a thing!

What does that mean? Do you agree or not?

I would not make a claim for science being 100 per cent accurate and I do not believe I have done so . I do not believe you can show anywhere I have done so and as such I suggest you have a straw man on your hands here.

Again what the heck does that mean?

I dont want to go on about your straw man! I told you my personal opinion is that pseudo science astrology etc. are bunkum and science shows them to be so.

I do not claim science is 100 per cent accurate and have not done so!

Is it logical that a scientific theory be considered infallible by scientists (or anyone else for that matter)? Yes or no?

Now THAT is a different question!
The logical parts of it yes. If there are deductive expressions then yes they can be considered infallible in the sense that if A=b and b=c then the fact that A=c is considered logically infallible.

But that is different to a statement that "scientific theories are always right" Either that is a tautological definition of "scientific" or it takes in something much more broad than logic and deduction and formal reasoning.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

What question? the one where you attribute to me the opinion "Science is 100 per cent accurate or can be 100 per cent accurate"?

I never suggested such a thing!

You stated scientists do not entertain the possibility that their theories might be wrong and something else, such as Biblical Creationism, might be right instead.

For a scientists to refuse to accept his theory might be wrong is for him to believe it is infallible.

Is it logical for a scientist to hold that his theory is infallible? Yes or no?

ISAW wrote: »

I would not make a claim for science being 100 per cent accurate and I do not believe I have done so . I do not believe you can show anywhere I have done so and as such I suggest you have a straw man on your hands here.

So you accept that no scientific theory can be considered conclusively true? That all theories must be considered accurate but not proven and that they all could be wrong?

ISAW wrote: »

Now THAT is a different question!

Only if you didn't understand the first question. :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

The logical parts of it yes. If there are deductive expressions then yes they can be considered infallible in the sense that if A=b and b=c then the fact that A=c is considered logically infallible.

But that is different to a statement that "scientific theories are always right"

I didn't ask you are scientific theories always right. If you misquote me again I'm going to report you to the moderators.

Now explain to the rest of us please how a scientist can logically determine that a scientific theory is infallible. You do understand what a scientific theory is I hope, it is a model of a natural phenomena. To be infallible is to mean it is a perfect model, no aspect of the model is wrong or inaccurate in relation to the phenomena it is modeling.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Sweet Dawkins beard!

ALL SCIENCE IS ONLY ABOUT ACCURACY

People dont believe that
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf
See section 3

also where does that leave
23. Scientists accept the existence of theoretical entities that have never been directly observed.
or
5. When being scientific one must have faith only in what is justified by empirical evidence.
or
12. Science is partly based on beliefs, assumptions, and the nonobservable.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=qnwzRqh5jFMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Look at page 63 of this book from Matthews on Boyle's tentative comments on the "springiness" of the air. the language is exploitative and tentative not accurate.

Science may be tentative and guesswork and creative inspiration.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Science may be tentative and guesswork and creative inspiration.

Scientists may partake in guesswork and creative inspiration and all those wonderful things but they must then demonstrate that what they come up with is ACCURATE at representing the natural phenomena they are attempting to explain (ie an accurate scientific theory). Science is only concerned with accuracy. Nothing else.

Show me a single scientific theory that is still only a guess and has never had its accuracy tested yet is considered valid by scientists. Just one.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

You stated scientists do not entertain the possibility that their theories might be wrong and something else, such as Biblical Creationism, might be right instead.

Where did I?

You refer to the post from YOU quoting Kuhn about magic and other things not beiong compared to science. YOU quoted that to me in a suggestion I doidnt understand Kuhn. I later referred you back to that. But that is NOT saying science is 100 per cent right nor is it saying scientists say that nor do I believe i claimed scientists say that as part of science.

Did you also note I posted Newton was a heretic? He had some off the wall persoinal beliefs.

For a scientists to refuse to accept his theory might be wrong is for him to believe it is infallible.

So what? for a straw man to be knocked down all you have to do is build one.

Is it logical for a scientist to hold that his theory is infallible? Yes or no?

It would be a personal belief and not a scientific one. But it is a straw man since I never claimed science is infallible!
You can't show anywhere I did can you?

Please don't try "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence here" or I will replace proving a negative with shifting the burden.

So you accept that no scientific theory can be considered conclusively true? That all theories must be considered accurate but not proven and that they all could be wrong?

Please re read my comments on solopsism cul de sacs and straw men.

I didn't ask you are scientific theories always right. If you misquote me again I'm going to report you to the moderators

Yes you did
a scientific theory that can be considered conclusively true?
=
a scientific theory that is always right

report away. I don't think you can accuse me of lying about you because I didnt!
Your "conclusively true" argument is a straw man anyway!

Now explain to the rest of us please how a scientist can logically determine that a scientific theory is infallible. You do understand what a scientific theory is I hope, it is a model of a natural phenomena. To be infallible is to mean it is a perfect model, no aspect of the model is wrong or inaccurate in relation to the phenomena it is modeling.

Straw man! i never made such a claim and you have been asked to show where I did and you have utterly failed to do so. But you are intent on following this straw man so you can knock it over. knock away but you are not establishing anything.