nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Science Debate

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I understand those words just fine ISAW, they don't help your argument. What you claimed "science" says it doesn't, not even the positive movement that fell out of favor early last century.

1. There isn't a single view of what "science" is says. ther are different philosophies of science.

What do you mean by "fell out of favour" with whom? What favoured positivism?

2. Positivism was around well after early 20th century! It is still around today and is apparent in your absolutist statements about what "science" is the notion that it is a single coherent definable thing which "favours" certain interpretations.

None of this is relevant to this thread though so I'm happy to discuss the nature of science in another thread

I already pointed out the relevance in the comparison of revision in science with revision in religion.

I'm not sure why you were doing that, it is comparing chalk with cheese. As you point out "science" throughout the history of human development has encompassed a whole range of differing philosophies.

Eh No! What I pointed out was that there are different philosophies of science. Science itself may be a single definable domain ( that would be one philosophy of science). And many would argue that science is rooted in Greek logic and rationality, just as theology is.

Modern scientific philosophy rejects any notion that we can uncover true perfect understanding of nature.

ONE modern philosophy does. But that doesn't mean that a postmodern view of science is "correct" does it? And therein lies the enigma! On the one hand it suggests such statements as "correct science" are meaningless, on the other there is a suggestion that even if we can never measure nature to 100 per cent accuracy there are still underlying scientific laws of nature in which we believe.

So it would seem to be the exact opposite of your the RCC wasn't infallible in the past but is now view point.

I didn't state that! I stated the RCC never wrote down anything about papal infallibility until Vatican I.

As Jimi pointed out it isn't about light of new knowledge, it is about broken trust of claims. When the RCC claimed to be infallible they got it wrong. It should hardly be surprising that Protestants don't trust them now any more than they did before.

That is anachronistic and meaningless and based on a claim of infallibility not made.

The very nature of being infallible is untestable, something science long ago worked out in relation to its own scientific models.

LOL! Like now that quantum paradoxes can be explained by models of parallel universes I suppose you will explain how we are supposed to measure and information from these universes? If such a model is untestable how come it is "scientific"?

Saying to PDN well if you reject the infallibility of the RCC why don't you reject science as well seems a bit ridiculous since science isn't making any where near as bold a claim as the modern RCC is.

Interesting point in spite of the fact that didn't suggest that. what I suggested was models are revised in the light of new evidence and better interpretations. And science claims to explain the origin evolution and workings of the entire universe does it not?Based on what? Faith and reason?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

1. There isn't a single view of what "science" is says. ther are different philosophies of science.

What do you mean by "fell out of favour" with whom? What favoured positivism?

2. Positivism was around well after early 20th century! It is still around today and is apparent in your absolutist statements about what "science" is the notion that it is a single coherent definable thing which "favours" certain interpretations.

Off topic, I'm happy to discuss this another thread.

ISAW wrote: »

ONE modern philosophy does. But that doesn't mean that a postmodern view of science is "correct" does it? And therein lies the enigma! On the one hand it suggests such statements as "correct science" are meaningless, on the other there is a suggestion that even if we can never measure nature to 100 per cent accuracy there are still underlying scientific laws of nature in which we believe.

Which all scientists I know of are perfectly happy with. No one knows what the "true" nature of the universe is they only know how it appears to be.

That is the issue with the infallible proclamations of the RCC because it is making a claim that it cannot be wrong. How could we possible know that is the case?

ISAW wrote: »

LOL! Like now that quantum paradoxes can be explained by models of parallel universes I suppose you will explain how we are supposed to measure and information from these universes? If such a model is untestable how come it is "scientific"?

It is not scientific, but that wasn't actually the point.

The point is that any claim to infallibility is unknowable by its very nature. You can never tell if it is actually infallible or if you simply haven't come across something that invalidates it yet, which you may do tomorrow or in a year or when you are dead and meet God.

Which is why no scientific theory/model is ever considered to be 100% accurate or infallible.

ISAW wrote: »

what I suggested was models are revised in the light of new evidence and better interpretations.

That is fine, the point is that there is no logic that can be used to get to the point where you can say ok now we have enough information to determine that claims of infallible proclamations from the RCC are actually infallible.

You can take it as a matter of faith, but it seems that a lot of people have lost trust in the RCC and thus don't have faith in them.

ISAW wrote: »

And science claims to explain the origin evolution and workings of the entire universe does it not?Based on what? Faith and reason?

Science claims to have models that accurately reproduce observable phenomena, the assumption being that these models therefore are accurately representing the workings of the forces behind these phenomena.

That assumption may be wrong and that is something science is perfectly happy with.

I think if the RCC were doing that a lot less people would have objections to them.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Off topic, I'm happy to discuss this another thread.

It isn't off topic. It is a parallel to the idea of how theological debate develops.

Which all scientists I know of are perfectly happy with.

All swans are white - until yo find a black one. You should know that logic and mathematics in particular holds that a single counter example disproves a posited rule.

No one knows what the "true" nature of the universe is they only know how it appears to be.

But they believe there is a true underlying nature. No one knows God's plan they only know what he appears to want.

That is the issue with the infallible proclamations of the RCC because it is making a claim that it cannot be wrong. How could we possible know that is the case?

No one knows what the "true" nature of the universe is they only know how it appears to be.

It is not scientific, but that wasn't actually the point.

So how do you get around the causality problem of time travel without using parallel universes ?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=parallel-universes
The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere.

The point is that any claim to infallibility is unknowable by its very nature. You can never tell if it is actually infallible or if you simply haven't come across something that invalidates it yet, which you may do tomorrow or in a year or when you are dead and meet God.

A bit like "Gravity" or "photons"?

Which is why no scientific theory/model is ever considered to be 100% accurate or infallible.

Except the ones that are! For example the ones that claim there is a underlying set of universal laws which govern how the universe works.

That is fine, the point is that there is no logic that can be used to get to the point where you can say ok now we have enough information to determine that claims of infallible proclamations from the RCC are actually infallible.

Or to prove a God or disprove one? REason isn't enough. Not alone that but logic or any formal system capable of containing the basic rules of logic is either inconsistent or incomplete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible,

That's where "faith" comes in.

You can take it as a matter of faith, but it seems that a lot of people have lost trust in the RCC and thus don't have faith in them.

In THEM people yes. But in THAT church no.

Science claims to have models that accurately reproduce observable phenomena, the assumption being that these models therefore are accurately representing the workings of the forces behind these phenomena.

Models? the Map is not the territory!

That assumption may be wrong and that is something science is perfectly happy with.

I think if the RCC were doing that a lot less people would have objections to them.

So Science may be wrong and that is okay
but if senior people in the church are wrong then that isn't ok?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

It isn't off topic. It is a parallel to the idea of how theological debate develops.

I'll leave that up to the mods. From where I'm standing the history and nature of the philosophy of science is off topic. Discuss it with them and if you get the go ahead I'm happy to discuss it further in this thread.

ISAW wrote: »

All swans are white - until yo find a black one. You should know that logic and mathematics in particular holds that a single counter example disproves a posited rule.

I wasn't making a rule, I was pointing out that while the position you put forward is probably valid for some scientist some where in the history of science it is far from the position of modern mainstream science.

It is a bit pointless to try and make a point to PDN about general "science" by referencing an obscure out of date scientific philosophy.

ISAW wrote: »

But they believe there is a true underlying nature.

That seems some what of a irrelevant statement. Reality is by definition it is "true".

The issue is how true to reality our model representation (theory) of reality is. And, again, no modern scientist I've ever heard of believes that they have a model that is 100% true to reality, nor do they think they could know they had if they actually did.

ISAW wrote: »

No one knows God's plan they only know what he appears to want.

Which makes the concept of infallibility problematic since what he appears to want (ie our interpretation of what is communicated to us) and what he actually wants can be different and there is no way to determine to a level of infallibility that they are the same thing.

ISAW wrote: »

So how do you get around the causality problem of time travel without using parallel universes ?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=parallel-universes

Theories of parallel universes are non-scientific as the are models who's predictions are current untestable, ie there is no match between prediction and observation. That may change in the future but at the moment they are non-scientific.

I'm at a loss as to what you think time travel has to do with anything

ISAW wrote: »

A bit like "Gravity" or "photons"?

I'm aware of no one who claims to have an infallible theory of gravity or photons.

ISAW wrote: »

Except the ones that are! For example the ones that claim there is a underlying set of universal laws which govern how the universe works.

They do not claim infallibility. See Fanny's post on what a "law" in science actually is.

ISAW wrote: »

Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible,

That's where "faith" comes in.

Only if you require an answer. Science is perfectly happy with "we don't know for sure"

ISAW wrote: »

In THEM people yes. But in THAT church no.

The church at any point in time is the members of the church. If you don't have faith in those acting in the church it is hard to have faith in the church. I would imagine, these sort of questions are probably best directed to those who have no faith in the RCC.

ISAW wrote: »

Models? the Map is not the territory!

Yes ISAW, models. Science is a process of constructing and testing models.

For someone who seems to have read quite a bit on the philosophy of science (and who likes everyone to know this) you seem to be some what distant from the actual practicalities of science.

ISAW wrote: »

So Science may be wrong and that is okay
but if senior people in the church are wrong then that isn't ok?

Depends on what you mean by "ok".

It is probably not a good idea if the senior people in the church want people to believe them in the future when the claim something is an infallible proclamation.

Since modern science never claims infallibility this doesn't isn't an issue for science, which is why your comparison is, as I said, chalk and cheese.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I'll leave that up to the mods. From where I'm standing the history and nature of the philosophy of science is off topic. Discuss it with them and if you get the go ahead I'm happy to discuss it further in this thread.

Im not discussing the philosophy of science per se. I'm just showing how a belief in science can be analogus to a belief in religion.

I wasn't making a rule,

So what? the point is that logical rational systems like that of mathematics are rule bound. They have axioms that hold for all times! and you question "infallibility"? the infallibility argument in theology is as much tied up with reason as with faith. God can't act against reason.

I was pointing out that while the position you put forward is probably valid for some scientist some where in the history of science it is far from the position of modern mainstream science.

I dodnt advocate any position. I justy pointed to others that did. They [the positions] are not ancient but modern. And what do you clai is the "positon of modern mainstrean science"? this does relate to the position of reason today and how it relates to the position of Christianity.

It is a bit pointless to try and make a point to PDN about general "science" by referencing an obscure out of date scientific philosophy.

WHICH obscure out of date philosophy? do you mean positivism is out of date? By its own definition and tenets it cant be "obscure"! So having rejected positivism you then accept that science can't be logically proved ... no more then God can?
You also accept that reason alone enough is not sufficient for science?

Whatever next? ... belief?

That seems some what of a irrelevant statement. Reality is by definition it is "true".

LOL The "I am that am" argument coming from you?
Again there is a whole field of epistemology about this "truth".
"The world is all that is the case " may not be a bad place to start but Ill draw your attention to the inability to prove everything from reason alone.
even Wittenstien couldn't get around it.
I try not to write jokes in base 13 by the way where 9*5=42.

That was a joke by the way.

The issue is how true to reality our model representation (theory) of reality is. And, again, no modern scientist I've ever heard of believes that they have a model that is 100% true to reality, nor do they think they could know they had if they actually did.

Which position has the inherent belief that there IS a 100 per cent true reality!
See the problem?
you advance a notion of a God you cant prove and also critisise others for doing the same.

Which makes the concept of infallibility problematic since what he appears to want (ie our interpretation of what is communicated to us) and what he actually wants can be different and there is no way to determine to a level of infallibility that they are the same thing.

As there is no way to determine the 100 per cent true? But you accept it of a scientific entity?

Theories of parallel universes are non-scientific as the are models who's predictions are current untestable, ie there is no match between prediction and observation. That may change in the future but at the moment they are non-scientific.

But again you are saying that in your definition science is "that which we can conform to be absolutely true by measurement" but you already rejected absolute measurement and objectivism which is in essence positivism!

EDIT: "there is no match between prediction and observation" means observation ie measurement did not confirm the theory ie. the "prediction" to be true

I'm at a loss as to what you think time travel has to do with anything

allow me to explain. time travel suggests paradoxes which can be explained by parallel timelines. You have seen "back to the Future" II and III? You have heard of the "grandfather paradox" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox

I'm aware of no one who claims to have an infallible theory of gravity or photons.

Exactly! But they believe they exist?

Only if you require an answer. Science is perfectly happy with "we don't know for sure"

As is religion. "We dont know God's plan for sure " for example.

The church at any point in time is the members of the church. If you don't have faith in those acting in the church it is hard to have faith in the church. I would imagine, these sort of questions are probably best directed to those who have no faith in the RCC.

And there are those who would say the Church is nt a democracy voted on by members but the body of Christ. And questions about that are best directed to those with faith in the Church.

Yes ISAW, models. Science is a process of constructing and testing models.

and has nothing to say about the actual reality? Like you have about the "true" real thing?
How can one construct a model of something you believe isn't there?

For someone who seems to have read quite a bit on the philosophy of science (and who likes everyone to know this)

I take that as a personal attack. Nowhere have I claimed I have any academic or ecclesiastical authority. i do not argue from authority!
Please withdraw that remark. I don't "like everyone to now this"!

you seem to be some what distant from the actual practicalities of science.

And what you say "seems" to be true of me is as far form true a your inaccurate model of anything else.

It is probably not a good idea if the senior people in the church want people to believe them in the future when the claim something is an infallible proclamation.

Which is probably why such a thing has happened ONCE in the 150 or so years since it was claimed!

Since modern science never claims infallibility this doesn't isn't an issue for science, which is why your comparison is, as I said, chalk and cheese.

Tell that to the scientists like Burbridge who were pilloried for rejecting orthodoxy!

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Im not discussing the philosophy of science per se. I'm just showing how a belief in science can be analogus to a belief in religion.

Only if the scientific philosophy includes the belief in infallible theory, which no hardly any do (positivism certainly doesn't), and I'm pretty certain this isn't PDN's understanding of science (which is the mainstream modern scientific philosophy that a theory is never considered 100% accurate and thus never considered infallible).

So the analogy is pointless since any obscure scientific philosophy that holds to infallible theories you were using when you said "science" is not the one anyone one else here uses.

Again your "science" is a million miles away from what anyone else here thinks about when you say science. Which is why analogies with the RCC fail.

ISAW wrote: »

Which position has the inherent belief that there IS a 100 per cent true reality!

If you believe that a proclamation from the RCC is infallible it is by definition considered 100% true and without error. That is what infallible means. It cannot be wrong or in error.

ISAW wrote: »

But again you are saying that in your definition science is "that which we can conform to be absolutely true by measurement"

What

Why do you bother to quote things I never said and then put a spelling mistake in them? :mad:

Not only did I not say that, it is in fact the exact opposite of everything i have been saying. Nothing in science is considered absolutely true, by measurement or otherwise. That includes positivism.

ISAW wrote: »

allow me to explain. time travel suggests paradoxes which can be explained by parallel timelines. You have seen "back to the Future" II and III? You have heard of the "grandfather paradox" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox

The bit you should be explaining is what the heck this has to do with the bit you quoted from me. Time travel paradoxes have nothing to do with the models of parrallel universes being unscientific because they cannot be tested.

ISAW wrote: »

I take that as a personal attack.

Take it as a frustration with you seeming to be more interested in showing off than actually responding to the points in my post. Every response I make to you seems to be ignored, instead responded to with topics with big fancy words that actually have nothing to do with what we were discussing.

No offense ISAW but you remind me of a 1st year philosophy student who has just discovered all these wonderful books but really has no clue what any of it means.

Your posts are disjointed and skip all over the place, you make accusations about my misunderstandings and then ignore my replies, you misrepresenting my position and go so far as to make up entire quotes of things I never said to justify the false position you are laying at my feet.

I suspsect this is going the usual way it does with you ISAW, and I also suspect you have no genuine interest in proper discussion, so I'll leave you to it.

Pity because it is actually a very interesting topic for discussion.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

And science says "there are laws to the universe which don't change"
<snip>
A bit like the Big Bang or or Standard Model of particle physics?

Your comparison between science and the Church isn't really appropriate. Strictly speaking, scientists operate under a uniformitarian assumption when investigating nature, but this bears no relation to authoritative claims. We look for general laws and theories because they have predictive and explanatory power, not because we were told by an authority.

I am also curious about your critique of positivism (perhaps in another, more appropriate thread). And whenever the philosophy of science comes up, I instinctively post this link by one of the most awesome physicists out there:

Against Philosophy
"Despite its value to Einstein and Heisenberg, positivism has done as much harm as good. But, unlike the mechanical world-view, positivism has preserved its heroic aura, so that it survives to do damage in the future."

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Your comparison between science and the Church isn't really appropriate. Strictly speaking, scientists operate under a uniformitarian assumption when investigating nature, but this bears no relation to authoritative claims.

Not true! Burbridge himself a nobel prize winner personally explained to me how bias of not adhering to the accepted model in physics resulted in budget cuts for postgrad funding. while in theory we can all claim certain equations suggest certain interpretations and "science agrees" in practicse political and economic factors and personal bias affect budgets.

We look for general laws and theories because they have predictive and explanatory power, not because we were told by an authority.

Who pays your salary? Or do you work for nothing? To assert that "all science is purely objective" in nonsense. Barely one per cent Ook maybe up to three per cent) of science is about "finding new knowledge" i.e. pure or basiic research. Most is application! Just as most religion is pastoral and not theology.

I am also curious about your critique of positivism (perhaps in another, more appropriate thread). And whenever the philosophy of science comes up, I instinctively post this link by one of the most awesome physicists out there:

Against Philosophy

Weinberg is one of my favourite writers on science too and not because the is atheist as I suspect you are. Are you? He points out a lot of the political bais in science.

"Despite its value to Einstein and Heisenberg, positivism has done as much harm as good. But, unlike the mechanical world-view, positivism has preserved its heroic aura, so that it survives to do damage in the future."

But a relativist alternative also has flaws. Whether in morality or interpretation of the universe.

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just to remind folks that this thead is The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread. Other topics - such as science - really don't belong here.

And just to remind you that one element of the Catholic/Protestant debate is related to the idea of authority to interpret and pass on knowledge.

The underlying point is one of an absolute truth e.g. God or Nature and a group of people who have both the learning skills and tradition to interpret the truth.

The topic is epistemology - the philosophy of knowledge "what we know" and/or ontology - how we find out about things "how we know". This is not science it is metascientific i.e. it is above and outside of science and does relate to theology. One particular parallel I have drawn is between the clergy and scientists as adept in studying interpreting and applying knowledge.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

There will always be playground politics in any discipline. But science is still antagonistic towards authoritative claims at its core, which is why, even if it takes decades of arguing and pushing against the norm, theories and models are ultimately adopted based on scientific merit.

As they are in theology.

And when authoritative pressures are identified in any scientific field, it is accepted as "bad".With the Curch, on the otherhand, authority is embraced. What the Pope says goes.

You really seem ignorant of the history of the Church. Many popes had limited power. ther is a tradition of church councils out voting the Pope. The idea of "papal infallibility" was only instituted even by Rome in the nineteenth century and even then has only been used ONCE since then.

On the other hand you have evolution a "theory" and relativity a "theory" and "quantum chromo dynamics" a "theory" and the "expanding Universe of the Big Bang" theory. People that oppose these mainstream ideas are treated worse than heretics. For example look at how Burbridge and Hoyle were ridiculed and had budgets cut by others. Similar is true of Galileo who went against the academics of his day.

As for 3% research? That's certainly not my experience, and I'm in the field of theoretical/computational physics.

Please look up "Berd Gerd and HErd"

But Ill correct myself at 5 to 15 per cent
http://www.ekt.gr/content/display?ses_mode=rnd&ses_lang=en&prnbr=14933

Yes, I'm an atheist. And yes he does. But he also goes on to say:

"It is simply a logical fallacy to go from the observation that science is a social process to the conclusion that the final product, our scientific theories, is what it is because of the social and historical forces acting in this process. A party of mountain climbers may argue over the best path to the peak, and these arguments may be conditioned by the history and social structure of the expedition, but in the end either they find a good path to the peak or they do not, and when they get there they know it."

But this metaphor assumes that science isnt about the "best way" but about finding an absolute truth. Which is what ytou critique the religion for doing?

The point about the Church and Protestantism is to say "suppose there is only ONE way up the mountain and all the others are dead ends or loop back on themselves?"

I think this parallel of comparison between philosophical interpretation of reality and truth does offer some insight into the comparison between thousands of years of learning knowledge and tradition and splinter Protestant groups, especially fundamentalist ones.

Fanny Cradock

Moved from the Catholic/ Protestant megathread.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

As they are in theology.

You really seem ignorant of the history of the Church. Many popes had limited power. ther is a tradition of church councils out voting the Pope. The idea of "papal infallibility" was only instituted even by Rome in the nineteenth century and even then has only been used ONCE since then.

It is precisely this papal infallibility that I am referring to. Even if it is only used on very rare occasions, am I right in saying that it can never be overturned? That it must be taken as authoritative?

On the other hand you have evolution a "theory" and relativity a "theory" and "quantum chromo dynamics" a "theory" and the "expanding Universe of the Big Bang" theory. People that oppose these mainstream ideas are treated worse than heretics. For example look at how Burbridge and Hoyle were ridiculed and had budgets cut by others. Similar is true of Galileo who went against the academics of his day.

Ignoring the hyperbole regarding heretics (which is obviously false), scientists who "oppose" established ideas will find it very difficult to receive funding until their arguments have permeated the community *shrug*. In the end, they are still ultimately accepted or rejected based on scientific merit. The theories you mentioned above, afterall, were intially contrary to what the scientific community believed, but were all accepted eventually based on merit. And no new theories to date have surpassed them.

Please look up "Berd Gerd and HErd"

But Ill correct myself at 5 to 15 per cent
http://www.ekt.gr/content/display?ses_mode=rnd&ses_lang=en&prnbr=14933

Sure, blue-sky research might not be all that common. But that does not mean research into innovative use of physical laws depends any less on scientific merit. A scientist developing nanoscale resistors based on the latest papers in theoretical chemistry will still ultimately depend on whether or not the resistors work. regardless of what authority tells him/her they will work.

But this metaphor assumes that science isnt about the "best way" but about finding an absolute truth. Which is what ytou critique the religion for doing?

The point about the Church and Protestantism is to say "suppose there is only ONE way up the mountain and all the others are dead ends or loop back on themselves?"

I think this parallel of comparison between philosophical interpretation of reality and truth does offer some insight into the comparison between thousands of years of learning knowledge and tradition and splinter Protestant groups, especially fundamentalist ones.

I am not talking about how true religious or scientific statements can be, but rather their relationships with authority. And the simple fact of the matter is the Church has a small collection of people at the top who decide what followers will believe, sometimes (even if rarely) declaring infallibility. Science, like the mountain climbers, may have internal political bickering, is ultimately judged by the fruits of its labour.

I'll put it another way. Imagine if scientists adopted the hierarchy of the church, with a single leader at the top, elected by a small council, with the power to declare theories as infallible (even if only exercised once). Imagine how much good science would get done.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Not true! Burbridge himself a nobel prize winner personally explained to me how bias of not adhering to the accepted model in physics resulted in budget cuts for postgrad funding.

You are completely missing the point.

An accepted model in science is not the same as an infallible model. Research funding is diverted from one area of study to another not because scientists claim that one particular model is infallible but because the research area is seen as more promising.

And certainly bias and politics play a role in this process. But again at no point is anyone making claims of infallibility.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

And certainly bias and politics play a role in this process. But again at no point is anyone making claims of infallibility.

so you are claiming science says "there are no ultimate laws to the universe"

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

so you are claiming science says "there are no ultimate laws to the universe"

You've been corrected on this many, many times.

Nothing in Science is 100%, absolutely nothing.

Gravity (Fact) is accepted based on observation as a scientific 'fact'. This does not mean it is not disprovable or 100% 'true'.
Gravity (theory) is accepted as the best explanation we have for the fact of gravity based on evidence, experimentation and observation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world.[dubious – discuss] Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.

A 'law' in science is not the same as a 'law' in common language.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.

<snip>

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

It is precisely this papal infallibility that I am referring to. Even if it is only used on very rare occasions,

ONCE! how rarer can you get?

am I right in saying that it can never be overturned? That it must be taken as authoritative?

All papal pronouncements are authoritative. Ex Cathedra ones are dogmatic.

Ignoring the hyperbole regarding heretics (which is obviously false), scientists who "oppose" established ideas will find it very difficult to receive funding until their arguments have permeated the community *shrug*. In the end, they are still ultimately accepted or rejected based on scientific merit.

As are theologians or reformers on theological merit. Martin Luther could well be nominated for sainthood yet.

The theories you mentioned above, afterall, were intially contrary to what the scientific community believed, but were all accepted eventually based on merit. And no new theories to date have surpassed them.

Like "ensoulment"?

Sure, blue-sky research might not be all that common. But that does not mean research into innovative use of physical laws depends any less on scientific merit. A scientist developing nanoscale resistors based on the latest papers in theoretical chemistry will still ultimately depend on whether or not the resistors work. regardless of what authority tells him/her they will work.

And a parish worker giving council to AIDS sufferers still depends on the underlying basis that the church is doing God's will.

I am not talking about how true religious or scientific statements can be, but rather their relationships with authority. And the simple fact of the matter is the Church has a small collection of people at the top who decide what followers will believe, sometimes (even if rarely) declaring infallibility.

And as Burbridge pointed out so does science.
http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4786_2.html
We need more people in the world who will blurt out the truth and what they feel, at the expense of whatever happens after that, rather than either turning the face away, or pussyfooting on things

He referred to the "First Church of Christ of the Big bang" in Schlick in
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html

Science, like the mountain climbers, may have internal political bickering, is ultimately judged by the fruits of its labour.

Which assumes that the mountain and the summit are in existence. They are absolute certainty.

I'll put it another way. Imagine if scientists adopted the hierarchy of the church, with a single leader at the top, elected by a small council, with the power to declare theories as infallible (even if only exercised once). Imagine how much good science would get done.

It is called a scientocracy. I would be terrible for running a country. As would uniting the church and State. which is why the Vatican don't insist in running the governments of every country in the world. You might have heard of "Render onto Caesar" ?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if the scientific philosophy includes the belief in infallible theory, which no hardly any do (positivism certainly doesn't), and I'm pretty certain this isn't PDN's understanding of science (which is the mainstream modern scientific philosophy that a theory is never considered 100% accurate and thus never considered infallible).

So the analogy is pointless since any obscure scientific philosophy that holds to infallible theories you were using when you said "science" is not the one anyone one else here uses.

Again your "science" is a million miles away from what anyone else here thinks about when you say science. Which is why analogies with the RCC fail.

So mathematical proofs are not 100 per cent true?

If you show that the set of natural numbers is infinite it could be disproved by someone someday?
Or is it true for all time?

If you believe that a proclamation from the RCC is infallible it is by definition considered 100% true and without error. That is what infallible means. It cannot be wrong or in error.

Only used ONCE in 150 years.
If you believe that the sum of two uneven numbers is an even number do you believe it can not be wrong or in error?

Not only did I not say that, it is in fact the exact opposite of everything i have been saying. Nothing in science is considered absolutely true, by measurement or otherwise. That includes positivism.

"The set of uneven natural numbers is infinite" is not a true statement?

The bit you should be explaining is what the heck this has to do with the bit you quoted from me. Time travel paradoxes have nothing to do with the models of parrallel universes being unscientific because they cannot be tested.

Parallel universes offer an explanation for time travel which avoids causality being upset and resolve paradoxes.

Take it as a frustration with you seeming to be more interested in showing off than actually responding to the points in my post.

That is a personal attack. It is also unfounded.

Every response I make to you seems to be ignored, instead responded to with topics with big fancy words that actually have nothing to do with what we were discussing.

I used words like "epistemology" and "ontology" which are commonly used in the philosophy of science. You yourself told me you were conversant with them. They are in fact used to avoid flowery language and avoid the foggy descriptions of "big fancy words".

No offense ISAW but you remind me of a 1st year philosophy student who has just discovered all these wonderful books but really has no clue what any of it means.

That is offensive and also a personal attack. Please apologise for it.

I only drew your attention to the field of study which you alluded to. You make a comparison with science as a rational coherent way of viewing the world. i pointed out that this is not so in terms of coherency and it certainly can be claimed "something is rotten in the state of Science". If you are going to propose science as an alternative to religion you had better be aware of the pitfalls of so doing.

Your posts are disjointed and skip all over the place, you make accusations about my misunderstandings and then ignore my replies, you misrepresenting my position and go so far as to make up entire quotes of things I never said to justify the false position you are laying at my feet.

Now you are indulging in ad hominem and you are also calling me a liar!

I suspsect this is going the usual way it does with you ISAW, and I also suspect you have no genuine interest in proper discussion, so I'll leave you to it.

Pity because it is actually a very interesting topic for discussion.

You asked for another thread and you got one. I took up your issues. I suspect you won't apologise for that personal attack so I'm reporting you.

Running away isn't good enough.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

You are completely missing the point.

An accepted model in science is not the same as an infallible model. Research funding is diverted from one area of study to another not because scientists claim that one particular model is infallible but because the research area is seen as more promising.

You are missing the point! Research money is politically influenced and economically influenced. the "purity" of research is a false god!

And certainly bias and politics play a role in this process. But again at no point is anyone making claims of infallibility.

The Papacy has made ONE ex Cathedra announcement in 150 years!

Do you believe evolution is true? Certainly true? And that the world is not say 10,000 years old but in fact certainly at least millions of years old?

do you believe the set of natural numbers is infinite? Can someone ever say that it isn't?

Do you believe atoms exist?

Do you believe cells exist?

do you believe there are a whole load of statements that science would say are 100 per cent true? Not just ONE statement?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Off topic, I'm happy to discuss this another thread.

Thisis another thread - discuss it then! you have accused me of being ignorant and like a first year philosophy student.

I'm quite happy to discuss the history and philosophy of science with you. I leave it to others to judge whether I am ignorant of that field.

Before we begin I will outline a few terms

What is?
Ontology
How do we know what it?
Epistemology
How can we measure what is?
Empiricism
So what? Does it matter to me?
Teleology

The reason for using those words is so we don't have to write whole sentences instead.
The first time i came across them I had to look them up. I know science teachers who would not be conversant with them. I once came across and academic refferring to what I has stated as "epistemosophy" I laughed ( i miss heard "epistemophisy" thinking he was referring to me pissing off the audience but he was actually serious.

I will explain any other jargon if and when I use it. But if I don't please draw it to my attention. "paradigm" is another used AFAIK in a master's thesis by Kuhn in relation to "shifts" but you already know that one - but probably not it's original source.

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnobit.html
Professor Kuhn argued in the book that the typical scientist was not an objective, free thinker and skeptic. Rather, he was a somewhat conservative individual who accepted what he was taught and appiied his knowledge to solving the problems that came before him.

Kuhn maintained, these scientists accepted a paradigm, an archetypal solution to a problem, like Ptolemy's theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Generally conservative, scientists would tend to solve problems in ways that extended the scope of the paradigm.

In such periods, he maintained, scientists tend to resist research that might signal the development of a new paradigm, like the work of the astronomer Aristarchus, who theorized in the third century B.C. that the planets revolve around the Sun. But, Professor Kuhn said, situations arose that the paradigm could not account for or that contradicted it.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You are missing the point! Research money is politically influenced and economically influenced. the "purity" of research is a false god!

A point that is irrelevant to the original point that was that scientific theories are not authoritative claims as to the true nature of reality.

ISAW wrote: »

The Papacy has made ONE ex Cathedra announcement in 150 years!

And ... ?

How does that help the problem of infallibility being indeterminable?

ISAW wrote: »

Do you believe evolution is true? Certainly true?

No, of course not.

I believe that the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution is an accurate model of development of life on Earth but almost certainly false in many regards. Only last week there was a paper released detailing a re-evaluation of how RNA in cell replication works.

ISAW wrote: »

And that the world is not say 10,000 years old but in fact certainly at least millions of years old?

Again, no. I believe that the current model of the Earth is accurate but it is impossible to tell if it is true.

ISAW wrote: »

do you believe the set of natural numbers is infinite?

Yes because it is defined as such.

ISAW wrote: »

Do you believe atoms exist?

Yes (notice in the earlier questions you asked me to I believe the theories were true, which is a different question)

ISAW wrote: »

Do you believe cells exist?

Yes

ISAW wrote: »

do you believe there are a whole load of statements that science would say are 100 per cent true? Not just ONE statement?

No, there is not a single statement that science would say are 100 per cent true.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

So mathematical proofs are not 100 per cent true?

What

Mathematical proofs have little to do with science or the limitations of science.

Mathematics work based on a set of internal defined rules. Since we know these laws we can prove things based on them.

The only way you could say some claim about reality is infallible is if you have access to the underlying axioms of reality and thus can prove something based on them.

Since you don't have access to this, you can't.

ISAW wrote: »

Only used ONCE in 150 years.

Whether it is used once or a million times doesn't change the problem with knowing a proclamation is or isn't infallible.

ISAW wrote: »

Parallel universes offer an explanation for time travel which avoids causality being upset and resolve paradoxes.

A point that is irrelevant to anything I said in my post. Why don't you just start listing World Cup scores :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

That is a personal attack. It is also unfounded.

I'm not sure me expressing frustration at your quoted responses having little to do with the bit you quoted, your misrepresentation of my points and your habit of attributing quotes to me that I never said can be seen as a personal attack against you. :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

Now you are indulging in ad hominem and you are also calling me a liar!

How am I calling you a liar?

You attributed a quote to me that I never said and that was in fact the exact opposite of my point. Here:

ISAW wrote: »

But again you are saying that in your definition science is "that which we can conform to be absolutely true by measurement" but you already rejected absolute measurement and objectivism which is in essence positivism!

I never said that. So why did you claim I did? Why did you claim I did and then say I'm personally attacking you and calling you a liar for pointing out that you just invented a quote from me?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

ONCE! how rarer can you get?

All papal pronouncements are authoritative. Ex Cathedra ones are dogmatic.

But what about my question? If something is declared infallible by the pope (whether once in 150 years or 2 times a day), can it ever be overturned?

As are theologians or reformers on theological merit. Martin Luther could well be nominated for sainthood yet.

Note that I am not talking about theologians, but rather the Catholic Church specifically. The theological community, like the scientific community, has no leader or authoritative structure.

Like "ensoulment"?

Ensoulment is not a scientific theory, let alone a scientific theory that would surpass quantum mechanics etc. Though perhaps I misunderstood your question.

And as Burbridge pointed out so does science.
http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4786_2.html
We need more people in the world who will blurt out the truth and what they feel, at the expense of whatever happens after that, rather than either turning the face away, or pussyfooting on things

He referred to the "First Church of Christ of the Big bang" in Schlick in
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html

I unfortunately don't have time to read entire links. Please direct me to the relevant paragraph(s) in the first link. And as for the second link regarding and the Big Bang: again, Weinberg said it best.

"I should acknowledge here that in fact we do not know if the universe did begin at a definite time in the past. Andre Linde and other cosmologists have recently presented plausible theories that describe our present expanding universe as just a small bubble in an infinitely old megauniverse, in which such bubbles are eternally appearing and breeding new bubbles. I am not trying here to argue that the universe undoubtedly has some finite age, only that it is not possible to say on the basis of pure thought that it does not. Here again, we do not even know that we are asking the right questions. In the latest version of string theories space and time arise as derived quantities, which do not appear in the fundamental equations of the theory. In these theories space and time have only an approximate significance; it makes no sense to talk about any time closer to the big bang than about a million trillion trillion trillionth of a second. In our ordinary lives we can barely notice a time interval of a hundredth of a second, so the intuitive certainties about the nature of time and space that we derive from our everyday experience are not really of much value in trying to frame a theory of the origin of the universe."

Weinberg was not cast out as a heretic for questioning the finite age of the universe (shock horror)

Which assumes that the mountain and the summit are in existence. They are absolute certainty.

No it doesn't. It only assumes the paths and the summit have an objective efficacy regarding explanatory power and predictive power. It says nothing about their "absolute truth".

It is called a scientocracy. I would be terrible for running a country. As would uniting the church and State. which is why the Vatican don't insist in running the governments of every country in the world. You might have heard of "Render onto Caesar" ?

No, a scientocracy is regarding the relationship between science and public policy. I am talking about an authoritative structure for scientific theories themselves. I.e. If there was a scientist Pope who once in 150 years declared a scientific theory (say, the theory of the luminiferous aether) as absolutely true for eternity.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

A point that is irrelevant to the original point that was that scientific theories are not authoritative claims as to the true nature of reality.

No more than theological ones are!

How does that help the problem of infallibility being indeterminable?

It helps the idea of a "culture2 of authoritarians in science influencing what scientists do and say and what if funded i.e. what the "official view" is compared to a church who only made one statement in 150 years on the "official view" about the Virgin Mary.

No, of course not.

I believe that the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution is an accurate model of development of life on Earth but almost certainly false in many regards. Only last week there was a paper released detailing a re-evaluation of how RNA in cell replication works.

Do you believe "evolution" i.e. that today's living creatures evolved from other creatures
which go back in chains at least to hundreds of millions of years back? That that is true?
You bel;ieve that that is certainly true as opposed to all life being created by god 6000 years ago? and you believe it because of scence? In other words Science is 100 per cent true when it says life is at least millions of years old and not 6000 or thereabouts?

Again, no. I believe that the current model of the Earth is accurate but it is impossible to tell if it is true.

So you believe it is impossible to say anything on earth is over 10,000 years old? That it is impossible to say Stars were around for more then 6,000 years? Science does not offer you this certainty?

Yes because it is defined as such.

No it isn't! It is a conclusion which set theory arrives at by deduction. The deductive logic of mathematics concludes something therefore if logic is to be held as "always right" it concludes that the infinite set id true. Note : logic is assumed to be "always right" and the laws of mathematics or science are assumed not to be breakable.

Yes (notice in the earlier questions you asked me to I believe the theories were true, which is a different question)

If atoms exist then their existence in the real world is true.
It is a cop out to say "i just believe the universe exists. It might not exist and might not be there at all" This is a fairly basis exercise in philosophy. If you cant accept that the universe or you exists then why are you arguing about the strength of science over religion when you can't admit the rudiments of either are true. Maybe you should crawl into a barrel with the cynics? Although i doubt you subscribe to their aesthetic lifestyle.

No, there is not a single statement that science would say are 100 per cent true.

Including that one?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

But what about my question? If something is declared infallible by the pope (whether once in 150 years or 2 times a day), can it ever be overturned?

This was answered elsewhere.

Indeed it was answered by a pope who referred to "keys of wisdom"
Havent time to reoly one of the mods stated it . Ill get back on this.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

No more than theological ones are!

Ok, so perhaps we are misunderstanding each other and got off on the wrong foot.

Are you saying that infallible proclamations made by the RCC are not supposed to be considered infallible?

ISAW wrote: »

It helps the idea of a "culture2 of authoritarians in science influencing what scientists do and say and what if funded i.e. what the "official view" is compared to a church who only made one statement in 150 years on the "official view" about the Virgin Mary.

So again, are you saying that if the Pope makes an infallible proclamation it is not to be considered 100% correct but only considered the best judgement of the Pope based on evidence and study, at the time?

ISAW wrote: »

Do you believe "evolution" i.e. that today's living creatures evolved from other creatures

Yes

ISAW wrote: »

That that is true?

ISAW wrote: »

You bel;ieve that that is certainly true as opposed to all life being created by god 6000 years ago?

ISAW wrote: »

In other words Science is 100 per cent true when it says life is at least millions of years old and not 6000 or thereabouts?

ISAW wrote: »

So you believe it is impossible to say anything on earth is over 10,000 years old?

No I'm saying it is impossible to say that that view is true, which is what you asked me.

ISAW wrote: »

That it is impossible to say Stars were around for more then 6,000 years?

Anyone can say that the stars were around for more than 6,000 years. It is impossible to know that this is true or not. You can think that it is probably likely, but that isn't the same thing.

If you can't understand the difference you need to have another read of your philosophy of science books.

ISAW wrote: »

Science does not offer you this certainty?

No it doesn't, nor does it try to.

ISAW wrote: »

No it isn't! It is a conclusion which set theory arrives at by deduction.

No it isn't. I suspect you are confusing this with Cantor's diagonal argument. Natural numbers up to infinity have been used as such since around 500 BC when the concept of infinity was introduced.

Set theory came centuries later (end of the 19th century) and is simply a way of defining natural numbers in a way that is consistent to the way all other types of numbers are defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_diagonal_argument

None of this by the way is relevant since mathematics is not science.

ISAW wrote: »

The deductive logic of mathematics concludes something therefore if logic is to be held as "always right" it concludes that the infinite set id true. Note : logic is assumed to be "always right" and the laws of mathematics or science are assumed not to be breakable.

Utter hog wash. There is no unbreakable logic in science. Sure science just spend the last 100 years breaking every rule in the book in quantum physics.

As I always explained to you proof in mathematics is considered valid because it is based on a set of known rules. Things that are logically deduced from these are equally considered valid.

Since we don't know the set of rules in science no such idea holds in science. There are no "always right" rules in science nor are there any unbreakable rues.

ISAW wrote: »

If atoms exist then their existence in the real world is true.

Correct but I've no way to prove atoms exist so I have on way to say that "atoms exist" is a true statement.

ISAW wrote: »

It is a cop out to say "i just believe the universe exists. It might not exist and might not be there at all

Cop out of what? Apparent from the "just" at the start, that statement is as accurate as I can make. My correct statement would be

I believe the universe exists because of the accuracy of certain models to make predictions of said existence. It might not exist and might not be there at all.

ISAW wrote: »

If you cant accept that the universe or you exists then why are you arguing about the strength of science over religion when you can't admit the rudiments of either are true.

Because recognizing what we don't or can't know is better than pretending that what we believe or are told is or can be 100% correct.

You seem to have forgot that what we were discussing is papal infallibility.

ISAW wrote: »

Including that one?

That wasn't a scientific statement, it was a statement based on a set of known rules (since we made science up we define what it is or isn't), just like maths.

Again the problem with the natural world is that we don't know what the complete set of rules are, nor can we ever know that we have the complete set of rules. As such we can never make certain claims.

In order for the Pope to make an infallible claim he must be able to know all variables and be able to determine which ones apply. He obviously can't do that (he isn't God), and as such Papal infallibility as a definitive statement is, well, silly.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so perhaps we are misunderstanding each other and got off on the wrong foot.

Are you saying that infallible proclamations made by the RCC are not supposed to be considered infallible?

Only in so far as "The universe is millions of years old and certainly not 5,000 years old " are considered infallible in science maybe.

The point about infallibility is two fold.

1. The actual statement about Papal infallibility - this dates to Vatican I in the nineteenth century ( 1870)

2. The idea of magesterial infallability ( which includes the Pope) being there since the church was set up. This also beings in the idea of co

A pope dealt with papal; authority in the sense of (

This relates to the polity in the sence of autocephalous conciliarity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_polity

In other words the Ecclesiology (which has a Greek root of "congregation") or the understanding of theology is affected by the way the Church structure interprets it. Though more papal it would be wrong to say the Pope reads up on everything and makes pronouncements on them. There are other in The Vatican and throughout the Holy See with ordinary power who it is believed by the RCC are influenced by God and who have an input into theology. The congregation of Bishops is an example as are Church Councils. Other Mainstream denominations might have a greater conciliarity e.g. for Orthodoxy there is no ‘either / or’ between the one and the many. No attempt is made, or should be made, to subordinate the many to the one (the Roman Catholic model), nor the one to the many (the Protestant model).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiology

The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Historical objections to the teachings on infallibility often appeal to the important work of Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350 (Leiden, 1972). Tierney comes to the conclusion, "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it"
Tierney, Brian. Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages. ISBN 90-04-08884-9. in p. 281, John E. Lynch's review of the work, in Church History, Vol. 42, No. 2. (Jun., 1973), pp. 279-280, at p. 279.

Anyway the point made by one pope Jihn XXII ironically NOT in the Vatican is that
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/John22/qquor-e.htm

They say that "That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined by [means of] the key of knowledge, in faith and morals, once for all, persists unchangeable to such an extent, that it is not lawful for a successor to call it again into doubt, nor to affirm the contrary," although concerning those things, which have been ordained by [means of] the key of power, they assert it to be otherwise.

and:

And this Our Savior in making the promise of the keys to blessed Peter seems to have understood expressely, when He immediately adds to that: "And whatever you will bind on earth, shall be bound even in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed even in heaven," making no mention of knowledge.

Aside: The Vatican can err as above for the word "heaven" they have "heavem"

and:

6. If therefore after an interdict of a general council it was lawful for the supreme Pontiffs to confirm orders [that] had not been confirmed, and for their successors to dissolve completely [those which] had been so confirmed, is it not wonderful, if, what only the supreme Pontiff may declare or ordain concerning the rules of [religious] orders, it is lawful for his sucessors to declare or to change to other things. Moreover it is clear that neither the confirmation of the aforesiad [Popes], Honorius, Gregory, Alexander, and Nicholas[III], was accomplished in general council, since no general council was celebrated by any of these. Granted that Innocent IV celebrated a general council, nevertheless during that [council] the above said declaration of his was not accomplished with the authority of any council. Nicholas IV, however, neither celebrated a general council, nor declared anything concerning the said rule. The aforesaid Gregory IX, however, neither confirmed nor delcared the said rule, but in a general council, where there had been not a few orders of mendicants abolished, he did not abolish the orders of the said Friars Minor and [Friar] Preachers, but asserted them to be approved, saying thus: "To these [orders], which the resulting utility of the universal church, evident from these things, demonstrates as approved, We do not permit the present constitution to be extended."

Besides they tell us, where they read assertions of this kind, hat it pertains to faith and morals, that Christ and the Apostles did not have as regards these things, which they did have, [anything] but the simplex usus facti? Indeed this does not pertain directly to faith, since concerning this [matter] there is not any article, neither [any] under which it is meant to be understood, as is clear in the creeds, in which the articles of the faith are contained, nor even remotely, unless this be contained in sacred scripture, by which having been denied all sacred scripture is reduced to doubts, and by consequence the articles of faith, which have been proven by means of sacred scripture, are redduced to doubts and uncertainties.

It seems John XXII is saying - on eading you will note it is and it is difficult to say he is "clearly" saying because the translation has errors; the original is by a French Pope and is in Latin; it concerns temporal matters about rules for friars but mentions faith and morals as well - anyway it seem he is talking about "keys" e.g. political ones of earthly power, keys of knowledge of the scripture and the keys of knowledge of faith and morals. But he supports the idea of a Papal declaration being infallible on the basis of counciliarity ie as approved by a council of the Church.

Now there are those who have dissented from Vatican I on papal infallibility, and there are those who claim that the council decision was based on an appeal to a tradition and an understanding by prior councils that papal infallibility existed. to the latter of these some have claimed such a tradition was not clearly shown and was falsely advanced. In any case it clearly does demonstrate papal infallibility based on Councils of the Church so papal infallibility manifests subsidiary to counciliarity.

So again, are you saying that if the Pope makes an infallible proclamation it is not to be considered 100% correct but only considered the best judgement of the Pope based on evidence and study, at the time?

What I say doesn't matter. It would appear the Pope isn't much concerned with the matter. Nor is the church a democracy but when asked their opinion it would seem most Catholics don't think all popes forever are infallible. It would seem the doctrine derives from an appeal that Church Councils endorsed it. It also seems that the distinction is to be made between statements on faith and political statements.

Since we don't know the set of rules in science no such idea holds in science. There are no "always right" rules in science nor are there any unbreakable rues.

If there are "laws of physics" then these are unbreakable are they not?

I agree about mathematics not being science but it is a formal system and intertwined with logic and reason. Sets always existed even if not defined. When galileo said the Earth moves it didn't just begin moving then because he said so. This is called the "genetic fallacy".

The cynicism of "i cant say anything to be true for certain" can be compared to " I can't say God exists for certain"

So in essence you are saying you can't prove it but you just believe in science!

Correct but I've no way to prove atoms exist so I have on way to say that "atoms exist" is a true statement.

But you have faith that they do even though you can't prove them?

I believe the universe exists because of the accuracy of certain models to make predictions of said existence. It might not exist and might not be there at all.

And if others substitute the word "God" for "universe" you ridicule them?

Because recognizing what we don't or can't know is better than pretending that what we believe or are told is or can be 100% correct.

Really? So you not only ridicule people for believing in God but also prople for taking a doctors advice or a dietician or a pharmacist or a mechanic when they say "this will cure you" or "this will fix your car" ?

You must have awful problems every time you go to the theatre - I mean what with taking all those instruments to measure forces and angles and then having to work out all the equations and then weighing yourself to make sure the seat does not collapse when you sit down on it!

Other people just believe that the people who made it knew it to be 100 per cent reliable.

The quantum theory has been modified yes but the underlying theory of probability is the same! The Big Bang has been modified but the postulates of relativity - speed of light and principle of superposition are the same. Cosmology has different Maps but the underlying assumptions of isotropism and homogenity are the same. They are a "dogma" if you will.

You seem to have forgot that what we were discussing is papal infallibility.

As you probably gathered above i hadnt forgotten that at all but this is a different thread relating to the parallells with science. Thry the "papal infallibility" thread for the original debate.

By the way I sometimes use "quotes" when I might use "italics and I might refer to the "papal Infallibility" thread then it is probably now the "protestant Catholic megathread" . I resent being called a liar for doing such things. Please see the Edit about what you claim I lied about by misquoting you.

I accept that the verbatum quote was not there but the edit shows how it was warranted. And the actual verbatum quote immediately prteceeds the quote by me!
i.e.
But again you are saying that in your definition science is "that which we can conform to be absolutely true by measurement" [should be that which we can conform to be absolutely true by measurement] but you already rejected absolute measurement and objectivism which is in essence positivism!

EDIT: "there is no match between prediction and observation" means observation ie measurement did not confirm the theory ie. the "prediction" to be true . Those were the words you used and I fail to see how my paraphrase which is immediately preceeded by the actual words is posting lies!

We were discussing the more general idea of something dogmatic being "always right" also exist in science!

That wasn't a scientific statement, it was a statement based on a set of known rules (since we made science up we define what it is or isn't), just like maths.

No as you stated maths isn't science. It is just a language but it is so formal as not to be capable of wishy washy interpretation. There is also a philosophy of science which suggests certain underlying rules. There is also an operational sociology of science which assumes some things to be certainly true.

Again the problem with the natural world is that we don't know what the complete set of rules are, nor can we ever know that we have the complete set of rules.

While that is true of mathematics ( which isnt science) it is not necessarily true of science. for it is inherently inconsistent. If it were true it would me "we don't know when we have all the rules " is a rule so by definition if this is a rule and it is true you are already defining a rule about all the set of rules based on a single rule in the set. This is what happens when you try to make absolute rules about completeness of formal systems. The rules become inconsistent.

In order for the Pope to make an infallible claim he must be able to know all variables and be able to determine which ones apply. He obviously can't do that (he isn't God), and as such Papal infallibility as a definitive statement is, well, silly.

Not necessarily. The idea isn't that he is all knowing but that God who is all knowing is guiding him. How do people know God is guiding him? While there is evidence ultimately they don't know they just believe it. Just like you may believe in atoms or dark matter maybe?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

But what about my question? If something is declared infallible by the pope (whether once in 150 years or 2 times a day), can it ever be overturned?

I have given the long answer to this. the short answer is yes and no.
John XXII argues about Councils giving the dogma and the pope getting their authority.
He seemed to say things remain that way until another pope changes things.

I think you might be more practical in asking something like:

What will happen if a pope says something and resigns and his successor contradicts him?
or
What will happen if the Orthodox church comes into communion with rome on the bais that they reverse all the decisions they made in the 17 Councils since 1054?

Note that I am not talking about theologians, but rather the Catholic Church specifically. The theological community, like the scientific community, has no leader or authoritative structure.

In the long answer i distinguished polity from theology. the polity is mixed up with it but more concerned with temporal matters and so I assume in that the pope isn't infallible.

Ensoulment is not a scientific theory, let alone a scientific theory that would surpass quantum mechanics etc. Though perhaps I misunderstood your question.

I think a lot of Greek thinking is the basis for both theology and science and is around today in education theory.

I unfortunately don't have time to read entire links. Please direct me to the relevant paragraph(s) in the first link.

I did. It is the quote following the link. Just click "edit" and "find" and paste it into the word search box

And as for the second link regarding and the Big Bang: again, Weinberg said it best.

"I should acknowledge here that in fact we do not know if the universe did begin at a definite time in the past. Andre Linde and other cosmologists have recently presented plausible theories that describe our present expanding universe as just a small bubble in an infinitely old megauniverse, in which such bubbles are eternally appearing and breeding new bubbles. I am not trying here to argue that the universe undoubtedly has some finite age, only that it is not possible to say on the basis of pure thought that it does not. Here again, we do not even know that we are asking the right questions. In the latest version of string theories space and time arise as derived quantities, which do not appear in the fundamental equations of the theory. In these theories space and time have only an approximate significance; it makes no sense to talk about any time closer to the big bang than about a million trillion trillion trillionth of a second. In our ordinary lives we can barely notice a time interval of a hundredth of a second, so the intuitive certainties about the nature of time and space that we derive from our everyday experience are not really of much value in trying to frame a theory of the origin of the universe."

And how then do we related to "illuminated" people assuming they exist?

Weinberg was not cast out as a heretic for questioning the finite age of the universe (shock horror)

Because he wasn't! He was saying he could not say it does not have a finite age:

I am not trying here to argue that the universe undoubtedly has some finite age, only that it is not possible to say on the basis of pure thought that it does not.

No it doesn't. It only assumes the paths and the summit have an objective efficacy regarding explanatory power and predictive power. It says nothing about their "absolute truth".

If you are talking about reaching the summit the map you are using is not the territory you are travelling but a representation of it. it is assumed the summit and the territory exists. It is bizzare to suggests that science is a map to a territory which does not exist!

No, a scientocracy is regarding the relationship between science and public policy. I am talking about an authoritative structure for scientific theories themselves. I.e. If there was a scientist Pope who once in 150 years declared a scientific theory (say, the theory of the luminiferous aether) as absolutely true for eternity.

Like they did! Causality Geocentrism etc. were all backed by the "scientific authorities" of the day.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

I have given the long answer to this. the short answer is yes and no.
John XXII argues about Councils giving the dogma and the pope getting their authority.
He seemed to say things remain that way until another pope changes things.

I think you might be more practical in asking something like:

What will happen if a pope says something and resigns and his successor contradicts him?
or
What will happen if the Orthodox church comes into communion with rome on the bais that they reverse all the decisions they made in the 17 Councils since 1054?

So it is only a another pope that can change what catholics believe, and not, say, the collective experience of the members of the Church?

I think a lot of Greek thinking is the basis for both theology and science and is around today in education theory.

Well some of it, yes. But I still don't see how this relates to scientific theories being overturned by new evidence, as opposed to being kept by authoritative decisions.

I did. It is the quote following the link. Just click "edit" and "find" and paste it into the word search box.

Ok, I've done that, but I still don't see how it supports the idea that scientific theories are accepted or rejected based on authoritative decisions. I have said before that I will happily admit that new theories and ideas often have to push against the norm at the risk of scientific reputations and upsetting the status quo, but this is always temporary. Remember that all currently esablished scientific theories were once "rejected" by scientific "authority".

And how then do we related to "illuminated" people assuming they exist?

I don't understand.

Because he wasn't! He was saying he could not say it does not have a finite age:

Yes he was, even if it was only incidental:

"I should acknowledge here that in fact we do not know if the universe did begin at a definite time in the past. Andre Linde and other cosmologists have recently presented plausible theories that describe our present expanding universe as just a small bubble in an infinitely old megauniverse, in which such bubbles are eternally appearing and breeding new bubbles."

If you are talking about reaching the summit the map you are using is not the territory you are travelling but a representation of it. it is assumed the summit and the territory exists. It is bizzare to suggests that science is a map to a territory which does not exist!

Well I am personally a nihilist in that regard, and do not believe the summit necessarily exists. But the point is that, even if playground politics and funding can interfere with scientific investigation, scientific theories are still ultimately accepted or rejected based on their explanatory and predictive power.

Like they did! Causality Geocentrism etc. were all backed by the "scientific authorities" of the day.

Until evidence overturned them. Then, they were overturned regardless of what any self-appointed authority claimed. This is the nature of the scientific community.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Only in so far as "The universe is millions of years old and certainly not 5,000 years old " are considered infallible in science maybe.

It isn't considered infallible in science, that is the point. The idea that is may be wrong is considered the entire time.

So if you mean it is only considered "infallible" in a we are pretty confident we are right about this, but we may be wrong kind of way then there is no issue, except probably "infallible" is the wrong word to use since that implies that the possibility it is wrong is not to be considered.

ISAW wrote: »

What I say doesn't matter.

It is when you are the one likening it to science. Then it matters a lot what you understand papal infallibility to mean since that will determine what you mean when you liken it to science and whether the rest of us agree with you are not.

If you considered papal infallibility to be basically we have good reason to think it is thus but we may be wrong then yes it is like science.

It on the other hand it is we say it is this and we are not wrong then it isn't like science at all.

ISAW wrote: »

If there are "laws of physics" then these are unbreakable are they not?

No they are not. Again Fanny dealt with the term "law" in the context of science in the post i referred to you.

No law in science is considered unbreakable because laws are man made models of how we think the universe works and we could end up being wrong. For example the weird stuff in quantum physics has broken a number of laws already.

That doesn't mean laws are useless. The more support they get the more solid they seem, and the more convincing someone will require in order to accept the law has been broken, which is why few give much time to the odd crack pot who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine.

But at no point are they considered unbreakable.

ISAW wrote: »

The cynicism of "i cant say anything to be true for certain" can be compared to " I can't say God exists for certain"

It isn't really anything to do with cynicism. It is to do with reality. How could you know you have discovered all the laws of a system and thus be able to prove something about that system based on those laws?

We may think we have discovered everything there is to know about say an electron. But we can't know we have and thus we can't say we have proved anything about it.

ISAW wrote: »

So in essence you are saying you can't prove it but you just believe in science!

No, I'm saying I can't prove it but I believe it to be the case in the context of practical functionality.

ISAW wrote: »

But you have faith that they do even though you can't prove them?

It doesn't require faith.

The scientific model of atomic structure appears, based on years of study, to accurately predict observed phenomena. If it turns out to be completely wrong this still holds a great many practical uses, such as allowing the construction of this computer.

ISAW wrote: »

And if others substitute the word "God" for "universe" you ridicule them?

Sometimes, depends on the theist and why they believe. The phenomena of God is far better explained by other theories about the human mind than the actual existence of a super deity.

ISAW wrote: »

Really? So you not only ridicule people for believing in God but also prople for taking a doctors advice or a dietician or a pharmacist or a mechanic when they say "this will cure you" or "this will fix your car" ?

I most certainly would ridiculous someone who believed that what they had just been told by their doctor or their mechanic could not, ever, be wrong.

For example, if a woman who had breast cancer was told by her doctor that she had made a full recovery and won't get cancer again and then a few months later found out the cancer had come back a normal response would be Ok, I've cancer again, the doctor was wrong.

But if the person initially believed the doctor was infallible then the second visit where she was told she had cancer could not be correct, since it would contradict the infallible statement she had been told originally.

So she walks out of hospital thinking she doesn't, and can't, have cancer.

That to most people would seem nuts.

It is though how a heck of a lot of religious people operate if you swap the first doctor for a holy book or religious preacher. For example look at the Creationist movement, who utterly refuse to consider the scientific evidence for evolution because it cannot be correct because the infallible Bible contradicts it.

ISAW wrote: »

Other people just believe that the people who made it knew it to be 100 per cent reliable.

You seem to be having a hard time telling the difference between implausible and impossible.

If a chair is 100% reliable then it is considered a logical impossibility that it could break, rather than merely an implausibility that it would break.

I'm happy with it being implausible that it would break, so I don't require that I double check ever single thing in a manner you comically demonstrated above.

But equally it is rather ridiculous to say it is impossible that it would break. How would anyone know this for 100% certain?

ISAW wrote: »

The quantum theory has been modified yes but the underlying theory of probability is the same! The Big Bang has been modified but the postulates of relativity - speed of light and principle of superposition are the same.

No they aren't. The speed of light has been modified a number of times since it was first measured and theory of relativity has been updated a number of times as well (often followed by rather sensationalist headlines in the papers such as "Einestien was WRONG!")

ISAW wrote: »

Cosmology has different Maps but the underlying assumptions of isotropism and homogenity are the same. They are a "dogma" if you will.

No they aren't they have changed a number of times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_(physics)#Homogeneous_cosmology

ISAW wrote: »

By the way I sometimes use "quotes" when I might use "italics and I might refer to the "papal Infallibility" thread then it is probably now the "protestant Catholic megathread" . I resent being called a liar for doing such things.

Umm, what about when you say "you are saying" and then follow that statement with a passage in quotes?

Are you saying that I and any other reader shouldn't assume that you are directly quoting me when you do this?

If that is the case you should brush up on how English works.

And by the way I've never called you a liar, I asked you to stop misquoting me.

ISAW wrote: »

Please see the Edit about what you claim I lied about by misquoting you.

Why, I didn't claim that either? Measurements to not prove or confirm the prediction to be true.

Things would go a lot quicker if you just stopped assuming you know what my point is and look at what I'm actually saying.

If I say that nothing in science is ever proven true you can be pretty sure that when I say something next I am not saying that something in science has just been proven true. :rolleyes:

Testable predictions do not prove theories. They help increase the confidence in theories.

ISAW wrote: »

But again you are saying that in your definition science is "that which we can conform to be absolutely true by measurement"

When I state a good number of times the exact opposite of such an idea I think you can be safe in assuming that this is not what I'm saying.

I said that here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66632755&postcount=2

"Which is why no scientific theory/model is ever considered to be 100% accurate or infallible."

so there is really no excuse for thinking that the above definition of science is what I think science is if you just read my posts properly.

Let me state it again. Nothing in science, neither measurement or theory or model or prediction is ever confirmed to be absolutely true. Doesn't matter if it is measured or if all the experiments in the world support it.

ISAW wrote: »

Those were the words you used and I fail to see how my paraphrase which is immediately preceeded by the actual words is posting lies!

I never claimed it was a lie. It is a false quote and a misrepresentation of my position. When I have already said that nothing is ever proven or confirmed absolutely true in science there should be no need for you think present that as being my position.

Matching prediction and observation does not prove a theory true, it merely builds support for its accuracy. For example Newton's theories of motion are wrong but they are still accurate to a high degree because Newton spend a long time developing his theories based on feed back from prediction and observation.

ISAW wrote: »

If it were true it would me "we don't know when we have all the rules " is a rule so by definition if this is a rule and it is true you are already defining a rule about all the set of rules based on a single rule in the set.

It is not a rule about the natural world. It is a rule about epistemology which is a man made invention.

This is the same reason you can have proofs in maths because mathematics is not about the natural world. Or a rule in a computer language.

ISAW wrote: »

The idea isn't that he is all knowing but that God who is all knowing is guiding him. How do people know God is guiding him? While there is evidence ultimately they don't know they just believe it.

In which case it is some what silly to call this infallible, unless the people themselves think they aren't making a mistake.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't considered infallible in science, that is the point. The idea that is may be wrong is considered the entire time.

Great! 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.

So if you mean it is only considered "infallible" in a we are pretty confident we are right about this, but we may be wrong kind of way then there is no issue, except probably "infallible" is the wrong word to use since that implies that the possibility it is wrong is not to be considered.

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!

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

It is when you are the one likening it to science. Then it matters a lot what you understand papal infallibility to mean since that will determine what you mean when you liken it to science and whether the rest of us agree with you are not.

And i am in a number of aspects. One is how scientists conference together and come up with a point of view or position. the same happens in theology. Eventually one theory becomes the accepted theory. this may be modified bt the underlying basis is the same i.e. Greek rationality and logic. The modification is only made when and if it is reasonable.

If you considered papal infallibility to be basically we have good reason to think it is thus but we may be wrong then yes it is like science.

That would be more like conciliarity and it depends on what denomination:
http://cathedraunitatis.wordpress.com/2007/10/14/primacy-and-conciliarity-1/
The Apostolic Canon clearly excludes two extremes. The primate is not and cannot be “above” the Church, nor “above” the episcopate. He is not to act without obtaining the consent of his brothers. The episcopate is not and cannot be “independent” of the primate; the remaining bishops shall not act without obtaining the primate’s advice and approval. Thus the primate is not to be a dictator or tyrant, but neither is he a mere figurehead. The history of the past two-thousand years provides more than sufficient examples of what can happen when either extreme is pressed too far.

http://cathedraunitatis.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/primacy-and-conciliarity-3/
A perfect harmony between primacy and conciliarity may be an ideal that is unattainable in this world.

these are very similar to your statements about science getting the certain picture or there being "laws of nature" which we can never find out?

It on the other hand it is we say it is this and we are not wrong then it isn't like science at all.

Science says the speed of light in a vaccum c is unchanging and the charge on an electon e is unchanging.

No law in science is considered unbreakable because laws are man made models of how we think the universe works and we could end up being wrong.

But we can never end up being right? There never can be a "grand theory of everything" in physics which explains all matter and all interactions? Funny how almost the entire research budget of physics is being spent on this then isn't it? But maybe you are right and all the scientists are wrong?

For example the weird stuff in quantum physics has broken a number of laws already.

Then they weren't laws they were approximations.

Tell me which quantum physics broke the law of gravity? When is gravity not attractive? Under what circumstances does matter stop attracting other matter and begin repelling other matter?

That doesn't mean laws are useless. The more support they get the more solid they seem, and the more convincing someone will require in order to accept the law has been broken, which is why few give much time to the odd crack pot who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine.

Actually it is because perpetual motion breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

It isn't really anything to do with cynicism. It is to do with reality. How could you know you have discovered all the laws of a system and thus be able to prove something about that system based on those laws?

When you can explain and measure any types of interaction that happens in that system.

We may think we have discovered everything there is to know about say an electron. But we can't know we have and thus we can't say we have proved anything about it.

Yes we may not know what a photon or an electron is but it is in theory possible to explain and measure every possible interaction such an entity may have..

It doesn't require faith.

And yet you believe it is true in spite of saying you can't say for sure it is true.

The scientific model of atomic structure appears, based on years of study, to accurately predict observed phenomena. If it turns out to be completely wrong this still holds a great many practical uses, such as allowing the construction of this computer.

So all science does is make better and better maps but you can never know what the territory ultimately is? Based on that you claim the territory does not exist because all we can relate to others is based on the maps we draw? surely the territory may be really there no matter what map we have of it?

Furthermore your "atomic structure" point is utilitarian. You are claiming that even if proved wrong the science is usefull e.g. for making computers. How come you can't also say "even if proved wrong the church is usefull e.g. for world peace"?

Sometimes, depends on the theist and why they believe. The phenomena of God is far better explained by other theories about the human mind than the actual existence of a super deity.

Interesting - God as a reality is better explained by assuming no god?

I most certainly would ridicul[e] someone who believed that what they had just been told by their doctor or their mechanic could not, ever, be wrong.

Tell that to the quacks who tell people not to take their cancer medicine and to use crystals instead. It is interesting to note however that you have just justified prayer for the sick.

For example, if a woman who had breast cancer was told by her doctor that she had made a full recovery and won't get cancer again and then a few months later found out the cancer had come back a normal response would be Ok, I've cancer again, the doctor was wrong.

And iof the doctor said "you ave cancer" but could be wrong you think the woman should use quack medicine? By the way the science isn't wrong in the above example the diagnosis is! i.e.e the application is incorrect but the theory is sound.

But if the person initially believed the doctor was infallible then the second visit where she was told she had cancer could not be correct, since it would contradict the infallible statement she had been told originally.

Nope! Doctors can be infallible but we don't throw out science because of mis diagnoses! Science even has a term for it -"false negatives"

So she walks out of hospital thinking she doesn't, and can't, have cancer.

If the original diagnosis is assumed to infallible why is this woman getting a second one?

It is though how a heck of a lot of religious people operate if you swap the first doctor for a holy book or religious preacher. For example look at the Creationist movement, who utterly refuse to consider the scientific evidence for evolution because it cannot be correct because the infallible Bible contradicts it.

Indeed. I agree. I suggest you refer to the reference I gave to Leon Festinger on "cognitive dissonance" and Bob Altemeyer on "Authoritarianism".

You seem to be having a hard time telling the difference between implausible and impossible.

You seem to be having a problem distinguishing between scientific crackpots and religious fundamentalists and scholarly discussion which arrives at a consensus like Church Councils and scientific conferences have.

If a chair is 100% reliable then it is considered a logical impossibility that it could break, rather than merely an implausibility that it would break.

I'm happy with it being implausible that it would break, so I don't require that I double check ever single thing in a manner you comically demonstrated above.

Great! So why not apply that thinking to the "Chair of Peter"?

But equally it is rather ridiculous to say it is impossible that it would break. How would anyone know this for 100% certain?

By sitting on it?

No they aren't. The speed of light has been modified a number of times since it was first measured

No it hasn't! The speed of light in free space is c. All measurement of c is limited by instrumental and experimental error. Just because that error exists does not mean that c isn't absolute! Just because you have not got the 100 per cent accurate map does not mean the territory isn't really there.

and theory of relativity has been updated a number of times as well (often followed by rather sensationalist headlines in the papers such as "Einestien was WRONG!")
[/wrong]

WRONG! The theory of relativity was stated in ancient Greece. Your yourself are expounding the philosophy by saying "there are no absolute measurements" [that by the way is a paraphrase in case you think it is a verbatum quote but what you are saying amounts to the same thing. You are a relativist. relativity is the idea that observation is relative to the observer.]

No they aren't they have changed a number of times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_(physics)#Homogeneous_cosmology

No they havent! Above are examples of some counter arguments which are easily explained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

The first implicit qualification is that "observers" means any observer at any location in the universe, not simply any human observer at any location on Earth.

The second implicit qualification is that "looks the same" does not mean physical structures necessarily, but the effects of physical laws in observable phenomena.

The third qualification, related to the second, is that variation in physical structures can be overlooked, provided this does not imperil the uniformity of conclusions drawn from observation

The two testable structural consequences of the cosmological principle are homogeneity and isotropy.

The cosmological principle is consistent with the observed isotropy of the: (i) the celestial distribution of radio galaxies, which are randomly distributed across the entire sky, (ii) the large scale spatial distribution of galaxies, which form a randomly tangled web of clusters and voids up to around 400 megaparsecs in width, (iii) the isotropic distribution of observed red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies, which implies a uniform expansion of space or Hubble flow in all directions, and (iv) the cosmic microwave background radiation, the relict radiation released by the expansion and cooling of the early universe, which is constant in all directions to within 1 part in 100,000.

Things would go a lot quicker if you just stopped assuming you know what my point is and look at what I'm actually saying.

I assume you mean what you are actually "writing"?
Ming you you used the word "saying! but if you were to use the correct engish you would have used the word "writing" or "stating" . all I'm am doing is restating it in another way. If I misstate what you actually meant i am happy to correct that but please dont accuse me of lying or making things up. I'm just restating the implications of your own words - just as I restate "saying" as "stating".

If I say that nothing in science is ever proven true you can be pretty sure that when I say something next I am not saying that something in science has just been proven true. :rolleyes:

Including the above statement?

Testable predictions do not prove theories. They help increase the confidence in theories.

Now we are back to "science only makes maps". Even if true so what? That does not mean the territory isn't there.

I said that here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66632755&postcount=2

"Which is why no scientific theory/model is ever considered to be 100% accurate or infallible."

Including your scientific theory expounded in that statement? ie the statement
" no scientific theory/model is ever considered to be 100% accurate or infallible."
is fallible?

And again you are back to maps.

so there is really no excuse for thinking that the above definition of science is what I think science is if you just read my posts properly.

You statement about nothing being infallible is infallible is it?

Let me state it again. Nothing in science, neither measurement or theory or model or prediction is ever confirmed to be absolutely true. Doesn't matter if it is measured or if all the experiments in the world support it.

so your statement that "nothing is absolutely true" is not absolutely true?
Or is it absolutely true? which is it ? Is it true or false?

I never claimed it was a lie. It is a false quote and a misrepresentation of my position. When I have already said that nothing is ever proven or confirmed absolutely true in science there should be no need for you think present that as being my position.

When you state something which is fallacy what do you expect me to reply?

Matching prediction and observation does not prove a theory true, it merely builds support for its accuracy.

I am aware of the distinction between the verification principle and the falsification principle.

This is the same reason you can have proofs in maths because mathematics is not about the natural world. Or a rule in a computer language.

so i should ignore you non formal statements above about nothing being 100 per cent true?
Might I draw your attention to the idea that even if stated in a formal system like mathematics such statements are paradoxes? c.f. Godel's Theorem