Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

more about Science and Religion

  • 12-10-2010 10:06AM
    #1
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


«134567

Comments

  • #2
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


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

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

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

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

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

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


  • #3
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Like I always say, one theory of electro-magnetism, thousands of religions.

    You might have it the wrong way round.
    Ever heard of Dogma?
    Ever heard of Thomas Kuhn?
    But focusing on the certainty of science is missing the point. It isn't that we are certain of the theory of electro-magnetism. It could be wrong.

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

    You didn't do the quiz did you?
    It is that it isn't based solely on personal assessment, because personal assessment is really bad.

    So Christianity is based wholly on personal assessment?

    How did you score in the quiz by the way?
    Basing things solely on personal assessment leads to thousands of religions, with the vast majority of people sticking to the religion they were taught by their parents or community.

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

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

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

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

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


  • #4
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


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

    I certainly have.

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

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

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

    I'm reminded of that famous scene in Anne Hall

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

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

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

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


  • #5
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    I got an A-

    Is that good?


  • #6
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I certainly have.

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

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

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

    What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
    No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
    When I get a chance I will do the quiz, though considering I've explained my position on science a good number of times and you continue to ignore it

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


    the "wholly objective" view. which if you did the quiz and read the comments on question 6 for exaqmple you would have found:
    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html#2
    and http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html#3
    and present what you think I must believe (like you just did there) I suspect the result will have little interest to you.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


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

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


  • #8
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I got an A-

    Is that good?

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


  • #9
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    the new one is always better, not just different.

    This is a very important point.


  • #10
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    I agree with most of the answers. Question 9 is horribly worded though.

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

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


  • #11
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Morbert wrote: »
    I agree with most of the answers. Question 9 is horribly worded though.

    I don't know anyone who believes science is simply a rational mechanism rooted in certainty.
    OT:
    I was also unsure about Q9, but especially Q3 "the scientific method". Was the question to mean to be purely research or what I took to be the entire investigative process?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »

    When I get a chance I will do the quiz,

    It is only a handful of true/ false questions. How much time could it take?
    though considering I've explained my position on science a good number of times and you continue to ignore it and present what you think I must believe (like you just did there) I suspect the result will have little interest to you.

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


  • #13
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?

    Again, yes.

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

    That would of course raise interesting questions as to how the models of an old Earth appear to work so well.
    ISAW wrote: »
    No it isn't!

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

    Seriously what is the point of entering in to a debate when you invent the position of the other side and then ignore when you are corrected.
    ISAW wrote: »
    the "wholly objective" view.

    Wholly objective? What?

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

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

    If I said that sometimes I like to go for walks in the park at lunch you would no doubt take that to mean that every lunch time I go for a walk in the park.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I can only go by what you actually state!
    ISAW you hardly ever go on what I actually state, something I've had to spend a great deal of time correcting in your replies to me and something the cases above demonstrate quite well.


  • #14
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Just how is that Annie Hall clip showing anything like me?
    You are constantly appealing to the ideas of people you have read though often one gets the impression you don't understand what the heck they were talking about.

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


  • #15
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


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

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


  • #16
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Again, yes.

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


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

    If one says "magic might be right and science totally wrong" one discredits science.
    Yes it is, as I and Morbet have explained to you over and over and over again.:rolleyes:

    Bald assertion isn't proof! Where in this thread have you explained something over and over again and shown the assertion to be certainly true?
    Seriously what is the point of entering in to a debate when you invent the position of the other side and then ignore when you are corrected.

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

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

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

    Science not being solely based on personal assessment implies that religion IS. that is to what you were referring.
    It is that it isn't based solely on personal assessment, because personal assessment is really bad.

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

    And you were claiming science is NOT like that!
    If I said that sometimes I like to go for walks in the park at lunch you would no doubt take that to mean that every lunch time I go for a walk in the park.

    You didn't state "sometimes"

    If you said you are unlike others who never go for walks in the park I might well believe you were making a case for walking at lunchtime but if you are now claiming science is sometimes based on personal assessment and sometimes not then what is the strong argument for science in that claim?
    ISAW you hardly ever go on what I actually state, something I've had to spend a great deal of time correcting in your replies to me and something the cases above demonstrate quite well.


    You are hedging! Please dont obfuscate. When you stated
    It is that it isn't based solely on personal assessment, because personal assessment is really bad.

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


  • #17
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


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

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

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

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

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


  • #18
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


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

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

    No they don't. Science ITSELF says that. Science doesn't claim to find certainty. Magic (what ever you mean by that) might be right and scientific theories totally wrong. Unlikely but possible.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Bald assertion isn't proof! Where in this thread have you explained something over and over again and shown the assertion to be certainly true?

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

    Strangely this doesn't stop you acting in faux shock when I said this again
    ISAW wrote: »
    It isnt a fundamental principle of science that science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?

    Yes it is.
    ISAW wrote: »
    One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
    Science is a methodology. How "kooky" a person is is irrelevant.
    ISAW wrote: »
    As you yourself stated.A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science

    Yes. It is a great advantage of science that it never claims to possess certainty about anything. It avoids the embarrassing habit religion has about making "infallible" proclamations about the natural world that later turn out to be wrong.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Science not being solely based on personal assessment implies that religion IS. that is to what you were referring.

    How did you get "wholly objective" from that?
    ISAW wrote: »
    And you were claiming science is NOT like that!

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

    Science is not based solely on personal assessment. Explain where you got me saying that science is wholly objective from that?
    ISAW wrote: »
    You didn't state "sometimes"

    That is what "not solely" means. Again the fundamental issue here seems to be not reading posts properly.
    ISAW wrote: »
    if you are now claiming science is sometimes based on personal assessment and sometimes not then what is the strong argument for science in that claim?

    Now claiming? I was ALWAYS claiming that.

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

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


  • #19
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Look! That is a personal attack!

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

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

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

    You may find that rather humiliating.

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

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


  • #20
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


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

    Who is obfuscating now?

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

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

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

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

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

    If you have a position it is for you to express it and support it. Aboive your position is:
    A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science

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

    One can't come down on the side of science and say you trust it and it is the best system we have and then hedge by saying it could all be wrong and astrology for example be correct.
    Do you really want me to drag up every post I've made where I tell you the exact same thing over and over, such as the notion that science does not claim scientific theories are infallible?

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



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

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

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

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

    In reply in post 42 you state:
    a core principle of science is that a guess with no way of determining if it is accurate or not is useless.
    brought up in question 5 above

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


    Now did you say 5 was true or false? If you said it was false then that contradicts " a guess with no way of determining if it is accurate or not is useless. "
    See what I mean. Put yourself in our position for a minute ISAW. What would you do?

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


  • #21
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


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

    unlikely but not "of equal working value to true science". Something to be dismissed by true science unless like true science it can support itself. That is hedging.
    I've explain more times that I can care to remember to you that science does not claim to find absolute truths and certainty.

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

    More hedging!

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

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


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


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


    Particularly 16? Did you know Newton was a heretic?

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

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

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

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

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

    "Science is a methodology."

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

    or

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Does not support your contention that I do not understand the references I supply
    2. Has inherent contradictions.
    That is what "not solely" means. Again the fundamental issue here seems to be not reading posts properly.

    I inferred it not solely from the statement but also from other comments supplied by you.
    I freely admit one could not logically conclude "always subjective" from "not solely subjective " based on the single statement given.
    The "argument for science" is that it is better than a system based solely on personal assessment, such like religion,

    Two problems with this.
    1. You have to establish religion is based solely on personal assessment
    2. What about science which is based on personal assessment?
    because personal assessment is really bad at correctly judging things.

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


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

    What were they?


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    ISAW wrote: »
    If you have a position it is for you to express it and support it. Aboive your position is:
    A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science

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

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

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

    All of science 'could' be wrong.

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


  • #23
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


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

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

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

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

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

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

    I seem to remember explaining that to you 6 months ago :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    No! I want you to support your contention that like the man in the Woody Allen clip I do not know the people to which I refer in those debates and am ignorant of what they really meant.
    I already did. You seem to be holding to this notion that all systems of arriving at belief and knowledge are equal.

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

    All of that is nonsense and the opposite of what Kuhn was actually saying.
    ISAW wrote: »
    As regards science not being infallible I refer you to your earlier comment suggesting science is the best we have and comparing it with pseudo science or magic is not comparing like with like. We should not equate them with equal weight.

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

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

    Or better yet explain it to Kuhn. Is he one of these people you know personally? Which would be interesting since he has been dead for 16 years. :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    note post 30 in that thread where I say:
    That the universe exists is considered by science to be certainly true. Of course it may not exist at all but that would not be scientific statement, it would be a philosophical one, since it can't be falsified since if you could prove it doesn't exist at all you wouldn't be here to prove it!

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

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

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

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


  • #24
    Eason Curved Transition
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Eason Curved Transition


    It isnt a fundamental principle of science that science could be wrong
    I think Dara O'Briain's line is apt here, what was it: Science KNOWS it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it would just stop!

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


  • #25
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • #26
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


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

    All of science 'could' be wrong.

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

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


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


  • #27
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


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

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything#Potential_status_of_a_theory_of_everything
    ISAW it's clear you're attacking straw men here.

    So you agree that I have been accused of not knowing about the people I have been referencing or misinterpreting them?
    I wonder why you set up this thread when you are refusing to listen and telling people what you think they believe

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

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


  • #28
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


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

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

    That doesn't prove it is wrong.
    ISAW wrote: »
    And you also say "a core principle of science is that a guess with no way of determining if it is accurate or not is useless. "

    More hedging!

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

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

    An idea that has an unknown accuracy level is useless.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Which is it. Other interpretations are valid or they are useless and should be dismissed by science?

    "Interpretations" are valid if you can test the accuracy of the claims.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Particularly 16? Did you know Newton was a heretic?
    A heretic? A heretic against what? What the fudge are you talking about?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Now I will refer you to that earlier thread! Galileo's problem was not so much with the Pope ( who was a personal friend ) so much as the academics i.e. the scientists of his day!
    You mean the natural philosophers of the day, right?
    ISAW wrote: »
    And yes I can quote several authors on this Michael Matthews, Stillman Drake, Finnochario, etc. and I do NOT think I am misinterpreting them! i have personally met or spoken to them or to colleagues or family. I am annoyed if you think I am changing what they said to suit my own bigoted opinions. This is about learning and changing for me.

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

    Next time you see them put the questions you are asking me to them and see what answer you get.
    ISAW wrote: »
    there you go again! Are you claiming I don't mean what I say?

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

    Please stop doing it. Just read my posts and if you are unclear about something ask me to clarify don't assume someone position for me I've never taken.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Look I have shown how things you state like magic is not to be equated with science is at odds with science might be totally wrong and magic right.

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

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

    There is nothing that says a methodology has to be infallible for it to be considered better than another methodology. That is just your made up position that you then assume I have to share. I don't.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I didn't i explained that you put up religion as the opposite as science not being so there fore religion is. Wher I get the "objective" from is statements like:

    "Science is a methodology."

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

    or

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

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

    Are you taking the piss? Would you like me to say Science is defined by us as a methodology? Don't be so silly.
    ISAW wrote: »
    On the one hand you have "science can never say it is right" on the other "any system that cant show itself to be right is useless"

    Where did I say that?


  • #29
    Eason Curved Transition
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Eason Curved Transition


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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything#Potential_status_of_a_theory_of_everything
    :confused:
    Physics is science, science is not physics

    So you agree that I have been accused of not knowing about the people I have been referencing or misinterpreting them?
    :confused:
    Excuse the pun but - Wrong fallacy!
    That is ad hominem and not a straw man.
    You're attacking a straw man belief of science so yes it is.


  • #30
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


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

    Please look up the "Sokal hoax".

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

    Do you agree with Dawkings that paper no 1 is true? Or not?
    It is only people outside it that claim that people inside the realm are the ones claiming it.

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

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

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

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


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

    There is no “certainty” in science

    Are you certain of that?

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

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

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

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


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


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


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


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

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

    This simply is not how it works.

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

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

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

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


Advertisement