more about Science and Religion

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

As I've repeated ad nausia,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Care to Demonstrate the faulty logic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True or false?

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

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

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

see also "null hypothesis"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

also

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

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

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

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

Wicknight wrote: »

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

What was ytour answer to questions 4 and 7?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Increasing accuracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here

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

and here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promac wrote: »

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

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

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

Wicknight wrote: »

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

Wrong! You are saying Boyle was not a scientist and his theory was not science untill it was confirmed by measurement.

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

Wormhole theory. Gauge theory , the higges bozon, Alternate universe theory. These are all invalid are they? apparently you believe conformation must always preceed hypothesis? Bizzare!

It would seem you are also not aware of the genetic fallacy of confusing cause with origin.
Assume Galileo was the first to say the Earth moved. Did the Earth just begin moving when he wrote that down?

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes it is. It is a fundamental principle of science that no theory is considered infallible (ie all theories could be wrong)

Not in an equal sense as the quote you provided from Kuhn attested!

It is a fundamental principle of science that no theory or even idea can be disproved conclusively (ie the notion that something isn't what is happening is infallible)

that is a straw man about science not claiming to be always right!
The contest in which you posted references Kuhn directly
Do not forget YOU were telling Me that i misunderstood Kuhn.
You posted something claiming Kuhn didn't support relativism!
This is the very subject of equating other interpretations with science!
Who does not understand what Kuhn was saying now?

The point he was making was that one should not equate other interpretations as if they are equally valid and/or dilute science to the level that they are at.

You AGREE WITH THIS, you keep going on about how I am misrepresenting you by saying you hold that a scientist can hold a theory infallible.

A scientist could but they would not be scientific in so doing.

So if a theory cannot be infallible then IT COULD BE WRONG. That is a fundamental principle of science.

Not in relation to equating alternatives like kooky interpretations!
That is what Kuhn was saying! It is in direct conflict with the point you are making.
Other interpretations could be right but they are not to be rated at the same level as scientific ones. Kuhn was at pains to point out that is NOT what he was doing and that is not what his position was and the quote you provided makes that absolutely clear!

I don't care what you think I mean the alternative is. I'm sick of arguing against your straw men.

What straw man? The only ones her are yours!
I NEVER claimed science says it is always right!
I NEVER claimed science says it is never wrong!
I asked you had you heard of Kuhn.
YOU told me I had misinterpreted Kuhn.
You went on to quote Kuhn saying he was not a relativist and how Kuhn did not view alternative interpretations as being in any way equal to science.
Then later you introduce this relativism as if alternate interpretations have any strong value and try to justify them on the straw man basis that science isnt always right!

Kuhn is not saying what you are saying or what you think he is saying.

1. Just what do you claim Kuhn was saying about his stance on relativism?
2. How is my position any different?

Comparing kooks to scientists is not relevant to the point.

It is EXACTLY the point. Kuhn says so . He says the kooky position is not to be equated with science. That is what he means by the quote you provided!

You asked me a simple question and I answered it. You said my answer was nonsense. It isn't nonsense, it is a fundamental principle of science. You don't get that, and I'm at a loss as to how to explain it to you any better.

Waffle! Deal with the actual issue and not opinions about it.

As do I. I have NEVER said that Creationism (or religion) is as good a system for discovering things about the natural world. That though doesn't mean it could not be correct in what it claims. I don't think it is, but I cannot prove it isn't, no one can.

So what? according to the Kuhn quote YOU provided other interpretations like astrology are not accorded equal status. If they are not of equal status as science then saying "they could be true" should not be taken seriously to any scientist.

I never claimed it was an equal alternative, I claimed I can't say it is wrong. What part of that are you not understanding? Seriously? Please point out what part of that do you not get!

The part where I continually point out that alternatives should not be considered EQUAL which is what is actually stated in the Kuhn quote. If you are saying that pixies or elves or Santa did it then we don't put that much faith in your theory even though Santa might have done it. so if you are saying the Santa theory could indeed be right and science be totally wrong you are not making such a strong claim are you? It really makes no sence to any serious scientist to entertain the "tooth fairy caused nuclear fusion" or "santa makes water boil" or "spoons bend by psychic powers" theories. Saying that could of course all be true is NOT saying anything of profound importance to the philosophy of science!
But you continually rehearse your Santa theories as if they have serious merit!

I do not have to prove it is wrong to say it is not an equal alternative,

Please look up "double negative"
Santa or the tooth fairy are not equal alternatives. dont try to advance the "what if Santa is real" theory!

I have never said it is equal, I said the exact OPPOSITE. Can you not read.

Oh so you admit that though Santa might be true we should not entertain such an alternative?
Good! Now get of the soapbox of "science does not claim to be always right" as if you are setting up some Santa alternative to science!

That does not prove they are wrong! Nothing in science can be proven.

That isn't actually absolutely true. I have pointed out how falsification has become handier mainly because it makes a theory easier to falsify.


'There are human beings on Earth.' one can verify that.

Hmm. A J Ayer one of the first books I read on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism
It is a principle and criterion for meaningfulness that requires a non-analytic, meaningful sentence to be empirically verifiable. However, the core of the idea is much older, dating back at least to Hume and the empiricists, who believed that observation was the only way we can acquire knowledge. Today the term "verificationism" is sometimes used to refer to similar philosophical ideas such as the falsification principle.

I said I cannot prove Creationism wrong and therefore must hold the possibility that it may, no matter how unlikely, be correct.

While you are in there in that room with Santa the tooth fairy and the creationists don't open the door to claim they are in any way comparable to logic rationality and science.

This is not equating it as having the same value as science in terms of accurately modeling the natural world. That is utter utter nonsense that exists only in your warped imagination.

Then why do you keep resurrecting your Santa straw man of "it might be true"
so what? Unicorns might be true but no serious scientist thinks they are!

No scientist can demonstrate his theory is infallible and thus no scientist can rule out the possibility of an alternative. THAT DOES NOT MEAN they hold all alternatives as equal value.

Great! Dump the unequal value theories then and stop clinging to Santa!
Why is it so profound to say "unicorns might be causing it and science could all be wrong"?
It isn't profound! It is kooky ! That is what Kuhn claimed!

You keep agreeing with this and saying that the alternative is a straw man that I've supposedly invented.

NO! the straw man is that "science is always right" is false!
I never claimed it was true!

If that is the case then why the heck did you say "Nonsense!" to what I at the start of this thread when you agree with it!!

You claimed I didn't understand Kuhn and your quote from himn contradicts the very idea of "they might be right and science wrong" as if they are to be entertained equally

You asked me can Creationism be right. I said yes, though this would be very unlikely. You apparently disagree. So please walk the rest of through how you have proven Creationism cannot right (ie your position is infallible) and then explain why you are able to hold an infallible position but no other scientist (or human for that matter) is. :rolleyes:

Back to your straw man again! Science does not hold literal creationism ( as in a 6000 year old universe) to be true. If science says "Science cant show itself to be 100 per cent right" That does not mean kooky creationism can say it is in any way an equal alternative.
This is why the flying spaghetti monster exists!
Get it?

Wicknight wrote: »

You are gong to have to be a bit more specific than that ISAW, I'm pretty sure Boyle came up with more than one scientific theory

Trey looking up Boyles law or reading the part in the book i referenced. If you are not aware of Boyles work on air pressure after that then dont blame me.

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

I have shown you several Wormhole Theory, the theory of the Higges Bozon, alternate universe theory. You claim these are not science?

Once again I find myself at a loss as to what the heck you are referring to here.

Try a search engine using the term "genetic fallacy"