Science & religion ?

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

First off, science isn't something you "believe in" or "agree with". You can choose to accept its answers or not, but the only reason to do so is by seeing the physical manifestations of its observations.

like when the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth and like how mankind is causing a noticeable affect on this supposed global warming.

 

[NoID10ts]

like when the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth and like how mankind is causing a noticeable affect on this supposed global warming.

Which religious revelation straightened all that out, again? I forget.

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

Which religious revelation straightened all that out, again? I forget.

i havent promoted a word of religion in this forum.
but when i see someone say something like "if you disagree with 'science' you are just in denial" it kind of makes me laugh.
not only because science is very fallible compared to the way many people in this thread have painted it, but ON TOP of everything else there are so many different departments of science and when you talk about "science" like that, you lumping together things like global warming and the research of computer hardware.
people have such blind faith when they hear that something was spoken by a "scientist".

 

[Da Blob]

Lol, sure. That's one creative excuse for ambiguity. You aren't doing anyone any favors

True, and should I be? If I did not find some way to view all this negative feedback as amusing, then I probably would have left the forum a few thousand posts ago.

First off, science (God) isn't something you "believe in" or "agree with". You can choose to accept its (His) answers or not, but the only reason to do so is by seeing the physical (spiritual) manifestations of its (His) observations.

Second, even if science was a matter of belief, you can't just redefine faith to make it so that faith=belief and since belief=science, science MUST be a matter of faith. That's bullcrap. I also don't understand how because evidence documents past events, it's abstract.
That is not even close to what I stated, you might try reading what i did write (Faith = attitude, Belief = Action). One does not need evidence for that which exists for it serves as its own evidence, one only can use evidence to suggest that something did or will exist...

Third, the fact that we have similar brains physiologically doesn't support the idea that everyone must have faith. That's like saying since we all have similar brains, we should all see the exact same color spectrum (which we don't).

Faith is a cognitive process, not just a religious tenet.

"Belief is the science of outcomes."

No, it's the expectation of outcomes. Actuarial sciences, meteorology, these are sciences of outcomes. They take known information based on past observations and mold them into models to predict events. "Belief" expects outcomes regardless of past observations, as it's a manifestation of faith. No matter how many times life punches a certain belief in the mouth, it will always bounce back so long as its faith is resolute. That's not science, that's delusional obstinacy.

I 'believe' you are mistaken about the role of Belief. You describe insanity as belief and then state that insanity is the manifestation of faith. Do you see it as a truth that scientists believe nothing and have no faith in anything?

"But what about the evidence that supports scientific theory? It is the same type of evidence that supports a mob's conviction and lynching of an accused criminal - it is simply a matter of superior numbers and power - that is, the subjective opinions, faith, beliefs and evidence of scientific values, are dominant in some environments over the opinions, faith, beliefs and evidence of religious values simply via the exercise of brute power. And to be fair, the converse is also true..."

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, but it sounds like you're making science out to be some conspiracy dead set on brutalizing religion out of some vendetta or something. Just because the scientific community doesn't tend to agree with you, doesn't mean that EVERY single one of them is out to harangue your beliefs. It could just be that you're wrong...

No I am just observing that evidence is a socially-determined criteria that may have nothing to do with truth. Throughout history it has been the heretics of both science and religion that have challenged the 'evidence' of the era and pushed the pursuit of truth forward a bit.

 

[Apotheosis]

like when the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth and like how mankind is causing a noticeable affect on this supposed global warming.

This statement makes absolutely no sense to me for three reasons:

1. The concept of a flat earth was a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory. Even Ancient Greek astronomers determined that the earth was round centuries before the scientific method was developed.
2. Galileo was accused of heresy by the Vatican and placed under house arrest because of his rejection of the geocentric theory.
3. There's very little doubt at this point that the warming our planet has experienced throughout the past century is being caused primarily by our greenhouse gas emissions.

If you disagree with that last statement, I'd be happy to debunk any argument you have against the consensus view. Climate change denial may have been a viable position a few years ago, but not anymore.

That's not to say that it's bad to be skeptical. Always be skeptical. Just do the research, try to remain as objective as possible, and see what position is the most probable. Trust me, the more research you do on climate change, the more clear it becomes which side has the evidence.

but when i see someone say something like "if you disagree with 'science' you are just in denial" it kind of makes me laugh.

Who said that? Science should always be approached with skepticism, but some theories have a lot more substance than others. If you disagree with certain well-established scientific theories, it may be fair to say that you're either misinformed or in denial.

If you've approached the subject matter with healthy skepticism and an open mind, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with Quantum electrodynamics, the Computational Theory of Mind, or the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, along with numerous other theories and hypotheses. It's probably not so reasonable to reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution or Newton's Laws of Motion. The key is to find out what methodologies are used, how reliable the evidence is, and how well the hypothesis/theory fits the evidence.

not only because science is very fallible compared to the way many people in this thread have painted it, but ON TOP of everything else there are so many different departments of science and when you talk about "science" like that, you lumping together things like global warming and the research of computer hardware.

Sure, science is fallible. The beauty of natural science is that it relies on reason and evidence. Even if evidence is subjective as you describe it, the peer review process helps ensure that the discipline meets its fundamental goal: Increasing the knowledge of humanity as a whole.

Regarding this "lumping" of all sorts of science into one label — it would be more accurate to call this topic "Natural Science & Religion." Natural science is designed to explain phenomena that occur within the natural universe using the scientific method. In this field, "God did it" is not an acceptable theory, which is why there's debate over the compatibility of [natural] science and religion.

people have such blind faith when they hear that something was spoken by a "scientist".

Ah, the appeal to authority. Yet another rule that Da Blob is immune to.

Most people will accept whatever an expert says because they don't know how to think for themselves. Hell, most people will accept whatever a random dumbass says because they don't know how to think for themselves.

First off, science (God) isn't something you "believe in" or "agree with". You can choose to accept its (His) answers or not, but the only reason to do so is by seeing the physical (spiritual) manifestations of its (His) observations.

Now I'm almost sure that you're fucking with us.

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

im glad that you see science as a work in progress, but wouldnt that mean that whatever is currently accepted as fact is obviously not concrete fact since it is still a work in progress?

regarding science in the past being wrong - yes i know religion had to do with those things as well, but the scientists of the day still believed and promoted those ideas. An example of science doing this would be their previous views on "inertia" where they thought an object kept moving because it was pushing air that was in front of it, and then the air whipped around came behind it and pushed it from behind. also: the dates in evolution theory are always changing it seems... always getting older.

i still dont know why your are bringing offensive statements to religion against me, im in no way defending religion lol, simply attacking allot of views of science.
and im glad you dont take everything at your own word, but when i see people say things like not accepting current scientific beliefs as fact means i am in denial.

on a side note, i would gladly discuss global warming with you, either in another thread or in messages (ive been yelled at for derailing threads before) but a good starting place would be you explaining to me the evidence backing the theory of global warming and we could go from there.


ugh i dont know why i keep trying to defend blob he is going to make me tired of doing it...
but in that paragraph, he keeps putting god and such in parentheses to show that the statement his opposition made was extremely unbacked by reasons that blob could say the same exact thing about his point.
he was essentially saying "your paragraph means nothing"

or, if that analysis was wrong, maybe he is saying "while you look at things that way, i look at them (this) way"

i think ill just leave blob to fight his own battles, but it seems he doesnt like to explain the points he is trying to make.

 

[Apotheosis]

im glad that you see science as a work in progress, but wouldnt that mean that whatever is currently accepted as fact is obviously not concrete fact since it is still a work in progress?

In most cases, yes. Theories are (at least in theory) explanations for occurrences that use concrete facts as supporting evidence. However, when the evidence reaches a certain threshold, the probability of such a theory being wrong approaches zero.

It's always probabilities, never certainties. Of course, these theories are all based on certain methodologies and assumptions that could, in fact, be wrong. That's very unlikely, though, because we are surrounded by the results of natural science. Seriously, we're on the friggin internet.

regarding science in the past being wrong - yes i know religion had to do with those things as well, but the scientists of the day still believed and promoted those ideas. An example of science doing this would be their previous views on "inertia" where they thought an object kept moving because it was pushing air that was in front of it, and then the air whipped around came behind it and pushed it from behind. also: the dates in evolution theory are always changing it seems... always getting older.

The scientific method as we know it was first developed in the middle ages (around year 1021) and popularized in the 17th century, well after Aristotle's experiments with motion.

Now, about the changing dates in evolutionary theory, could you provide some examples? Creationists often try to repudiate carbon dating by pointing out inconsistent dates, but those accusations tend confuse one animal with another.

i still dont know why your are bringing offensive statements to religion against me, im in no way defending religion lol, simply attacking allot of views of science.

When did I do this? I was just responding to the points you made. I knew that you weren't defending religion, but some of those points appeared relevant to the subject.

on a side note, i would gladly discuss global warming with you, either in another thread or in messages (ive been yelled at for derailing threads before) but a good starting place would be you explaining to me the evidence backing the theory of global warming and we could go from there.

Hmm, that's a lot of evidence. It's kinda hard for me to post literally millions of pages in scientific research. I highly recommend potholer54's YouTube series on climate science because it addresses both the science behind climate change and some of the objections to it.

It also may be a good idea to Google any of the objections you've heard and see if they've been thoroughly debunked, as it tends to be the case. You can send me a message if you have a question or need help finding something and I'll see if I can help.

 

[Da Blob]

I am more than happy to explain any particular point but someone has to call me out on that point or ask me to explain in other terms or whatever. BTW - I do pay attention to these threads, and I find it interesting to categorize the Responses to my Stimuli into psychological categories of different sorts.

For example, the degrees of the "Human Tendency to be Resistant to Change" is one I often look at. It seems as though some do appear willing to change given the correct Stimuli having a Liberal (open-minded) view of change as possible opportunity for growth/profit. Whereas, the vast majority view all opposition to the status quo of their belief system as a threat, being quite Conservative of that which has been assimilated and unwilling to accommodate any further.

On a side note, these individuals are often political Liberals, while the open-minded tend to be more conservative, politically - an interesting paradox in itself (?)

 

[Apotheosis]

For example, the degrees of the "Human Tendency to be Resistant to Change" is one I often look at. It seems as though some do appear willing to change given the correct Stimuli having a Liberal (open-minded) view of change as possible opportunity for growth/profit. Whereas, the vast majority view all opposition to the status quo of their belief system as a threat, being quite Conservative of that which has been assimilated and unwilling to accommodate any further.

On a side note, these individuals are often political Liberals, while the open-minded tend to be more conservative, politically - an interesting paradox in itself (?)

I love changing my mind and I do it constantly.

Unlike you, however, I have no faith in my intuition or emotions. I try to approach everything as objectively as humanly possible because objectivity (well, as close as us humans can come to objectivity) has an excellent track record.

Subjectivity is your clever excuse to avoid any logical discussion that could affect your sensitive worldview. Or you're just fucking with us. Either-or.


Edit: I'd also like to add that there's a great deal of evidence that liberals and libertarians tend to have significantly more of the Big 5 Personality trait, Openness to Experience, than conservatives.

Oh, but you're not a fan of evidence. What a shame...

 

[Oblivious]

I like your style.

Oh, and no, Blob is not fucking with anyone. That is what's scary.

Edit: I just will not accept the idea that he is an intentional troll. It would be too humiliating. A normal human mind would not be able to contain the massive amount of lulz we have generated.

 

[Apotheosis]

I just will not accept the idea that he is an intentional troll. It would be too humiliating. A normal human mind would not be able to contain the massive amount of lulz we have generated.

I think he's operating on a whole new level.

 

[Da Blob]

I love changing my mind and I do it constantly.

Unlike you, however, I have no faith in my intuition or emotions. I try to approach everything as objectively as humanly possible because objectivity (well, as close as us humans can come to objectivity) has an excellent track record.

Subjectivity is your clever excuse to avoid any logical discussion that could affect your sensitive worldview. Or you're just fucking with us. Either-or.


Edit: I'd also like to add that there's a great deal of evidence that liberals and libertarians tend to have significantly more of the Big 5 Personality trait, Openness to Experience, than conservatives.

Oh, but you're not a fan of evidence. What a shame...

Again evidence is a product of Subjective imagination. Tracks in the snow, for example, is assumed evidence of a creature passing, yet it is not the experience of seeing the creature pass, rather one has to imagine the creature being there to make the tracks.
There really is no such thing as "objective' evidence for such entails a number of unverifiable subjective assumptions concerning the events of a Past (that does not currently exist) to make observations about...

I can be quite logical, but I believe, that I understand the limitations of logic (as opposed to others who deify this thought process), that the causality inferred by logical exercises, (except for engineering applications) are really a subjective, rather than objective relationship...

I did not know that about the Big 5, but i doubt that our definitions of Liberal and Conservative are the same, and my observations are still valid in the context of approach/withdrawal - Left vs Right hemispheric bias...

BTW - your 'forced choice' - either/or scenario is rather juvenile, there are several other possibilities which you seemingly discount - such as my own subjectivity is totally 'assumed'...

 

[Apotheosis]

BTW - your 'forced choice' - either/or scenario is rather juvenile, there are several other possibilities which you seemingly discount - such as my own subjectivity is totally 'assumed'...

Hah, you can't find logical flaws in my arguments so you point out one in a half-sarcastic comment I made about you.

Congratulations!

 

[Da Blob]

Hah, you can't find logical flaws in my arguments so you point out one in a half-sarcastic comment I made about you.

Congratulations!

Crud I wasn't even aware you were attempting to mount an argument to address (?)
You stated a couple of mere opinions about my own mere opinions, BTW - I certainly do not invest my faith in emotions or intuition - they are not constants nor predictable...

you did not address or introduce any ideas except for the liberal/conservative differentiation... well, I guess the concept of "Half sarcastic' could count...

 

[Apotheosis]

you did not address or introduce any ideas except for the liberal/conservative differentiation... well, I guess the concept of "Half sarcastic' could count..

This is my, what, 19th post on this topic? I'm guessing that I've uttered something resembling an argument in those 19, mostly tl;dr posts.

If the rules of logic are no longer suspended, perhaps I should examine one of your arguments:

This forum is full of examples of narrow minded thinking that exalts Objectivity and denigrates Subjectivity - just look around. Have you ever considered what the scripture of Romans 12 actually means?

Quoting Bible verses is an appeal to authority. Do you expect those that lack faith that the Bible is the inspired word of God to view Paul's epistle to the Romans as an authoritative source?

If the knowledge gained by 'pure' science can never be verified by utilization or manipulation it is nothing but a fantasy, for all of the 'proof' is only of an abstract nature and resides only in the imagination.

Non sequitur. It does not follow that the knowledge gained from natural science (facts and theories that describe those facts) is nothing but a fantasy because it's "abstract." And no, when a theory has a sufficient amount of factual evidence backing it, it becomes clear that it does not reside in the imagination, either.

Theories become accepted by the scientific community because they are the best fit for a wide array of facts, and the peer review process helps ensure that those facts are gathered as objectively as humanly possible and that the theories are the best known fit for the data.

The concepts of gravity and natural selection do not reside solely in our imagination because they are actual, observable natural phenomena. Sure, the underlying concept of gravity is abstract and invisible, but is it just a figment of your imagination? A swift jump off a cliff is sure to provide a reliable answer.

To exalt such dreams, just because it is convenient, is an exercise of faith, in no way different from a believer's exercise of faith - except that the believer's faith can be rewarded...

Again, you are beginning with the assumption that such faith will be rewarded but you are unable to provide any evidence or logical arguments that that is the case. Also, faith is not required to conclude that a certain explanation is probable or improbable given empirical evidence. That's called reason.

 

[Da Blob]

This is my, what, 19th post on this topic? I'm guessing that I've uttered something resembling an argument in those 19, mostly tl;dr posts.

That most likely is a valid point. I usually just respond to posts (stimuli) on a one to one basis. Because you have invested so much 'Time" in this thread, seemingly it would be appropriate for me to invest in isolating the variable that is the set of your posts on this thread and respond accordingly

If the rules of logic are no longer suspended, perhaps I should examine one of your arguments:

Again, it is most likely that conflict is caused by misunderstanding, which set of the "Rules of Logic" are you referring to? We might be playing different games with different sets of "rules"



Quoting Bible verses is an appeal to authority.

This generalization is a false assumption, therefore that which follows this premise is false as well.

Do you expect those that lack faith that the Bible is the inspired word of God to view Paul's epistle to the Romans as an authoritative source?

No...(?)



Non sequitur. It does not follow that the knowledge gained from natural science (facts and theories that describe those facts) is nothing but a fantasy because it's "abstract." And no, when a theory has a sufficient amount of factual evidence backing it, it becomes clear that it does not reside in the imagination, either.

All theories reside in the imagination as mere abstractions. The accumulation of facts validating the theory allows it to be considered "a Law', fact or structural process not a mere theory any longer. A theory is a hypothesis, once a hypothesis in confirmed or denied it is no longer a hypothesis, but is in the process of becoming a verified, valid scientific fact...

Theories become accepted by the scientific community because they are the best fit for a wide array of facts, and the peer review process helps ensure that those facts are gathered as objectively as humanly possible and that the theories are the best known fit for the data.

Yes, the validity of a theory is established by a vote of peers, unpopular theories rarely get voted in, unless the theory has a good PR manager...

The concepts of gravity and natural selection do not reside solely in our imagination because they are actual, observable natural phenomena. Sure, the underlying concept of gravity is abstract and invisible, but is it just a figment of your imagination? A swift jump off a cliff is sure to provide a reliable answer.

This is the primary error of many, the assumption that our theories explain the chain of causality, seemingly inherent in the changes we observe in the environment. It is the basis of mythology and associated hubris.

Again, there is reason to believe that natural selection occurs because un-natural selection occurs in the selection of mates. However, can the same be said about gravity? Why not?

Genesis 30:31 And he said, What shall I give thee? And Jacob said, Thou shalt not give me any thing: if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock. 32 I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire. 33 So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me. 34 And Laban said, Behold, I would it might be according to thy word. 35 And he removed that day the he goats that were ringstraked and spotted, and all the she goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons. 36 And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks. 37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. 38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. 39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. 40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle. 41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. 42 But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's. 43 And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses.

So is Man a creature of Nature? if so the changes he makes in the environment and the speicies thereof, is a 'natural' process and should not be hindered. The endangered species act would then be a crime against nature, being un-natural.

Again, you are beginning with the assumption that such faith will be rewarded but you are unable to provide any evidence or logical arguments that that is the case. Also, faith is not required to conclude that a certain explanation is probable or improbable given empirical evidence. That's called reason.

Perhaps, but faith is required to believe that the conclusion is valid. One must have faith in one's reasoning - that it is perfect and infallible

I will get back later with a response to your accumulated postings, i 'imagine' it will take quite a bit of "time' to respond, respectfully...

 

[Da Blob]

Okay i created a Word document of the 19 posts (many which are not directed at my ideas, but at my personal qualifications to present such ideas (?)) Perhaps the idea of authority should be addressed first. I recognize no "Authority", unless forced to do so. This attitude allows me to maintain the illusion of freedom and perhaps relatedly, of being "The Authority" when referencing my own ideas. i certainly do not run to "authority" to prove anything, in fact, i usually can be found running From authority of a socially-imposed nature, such as self-granted authority of the current private club that is the academic community in America, who gather around the Altars of the Ivory Tower - imposing their belief systems on their poor students, who are victims of an uncaring educational system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
You seem to chose as your philosophy/religion the tenets of logical positivism, a popular cult in some academic circles, but rarely seen in the real world as being the basis for the foundation for human problem-solving techniques. L.P. is just another philosophy among thousands, perhaps no better or worse than others, except because of it's exclusive circular rationale, it is difficult to disprove or dismiss. Logic is an old Greek mind game and Positivism is the product of Comte...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the study of reasoning.[2] Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the study of logic falls in the area of epistemology, which asks: "How do we know what we know?"[citation needed] In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[3] from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Again, which set of "Rules of Logic" should be employed on this thread? The logic of math? The logic of computer science? The logic of argument? The logic' of human thought processes? etc.

Personally because my background is in Epistemology, the foundation for the various schools of logic, my perspective has been one of foundational rather than specific observations. Our knowledge of the various cognitive devices that actually have relationship to epistemology has been advanced tremendously during the past few decades, with the effect of invalidating some philosophies that do not have neurological data to support the premises and assumptions of those philosophies concerning the nature of knowledge and the valid methods of accumulating such.

Keep in mind that science is the world of probabilities based on empirical data, not the world of absolute truths.

And again, the argument — that because scientific evidence may require some form of "faith" in the evidence, all truth claims are equally valid — does not follow.
I've also made it quite clear why I'm ignoring "his blanket statements... when he is trying to back them up." If he has immunity from the widely accepted rules of logic, why should I point out the flawed reasoning in his argument when he will most likely say, in reply, that "logic is just a silly word game, that manipulates empty symbols"?

But seriously, you don't honestly believe that Blob presented a logically sound argument, do you?


"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."

- Thomas Paine

So what is the neurological manifestation of a possibility or a probability, what cognitive device is utilized to process such? (Surely not the imaginative components ). I did not state that all truth claims are equally valid, I may have implied that all imaginations are equally valid - but that was in a Subjective frame of reference, not an Objective frame of reference.

Perhaps to an extent, but some degree of faith in the scientific method is justified because the results of science and technology are all around us. Is the same true for religious beliefs?

The obvious answer is "Yes' - our social environments are full of the derivatives of religious tenets.

Was it not David Hume that said something along the lines of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

If I recall correctly, some variation of that statement was originated by Hume, altered by Pierre-Simon Laplace, reworded by Marcello Truzzi, and later popularized by Carl Sagan.

Philosophy provides questions you can't answer. Religion provides answers you can't question.

Science provides probabilities based on reason and evidence. And if you disagree with its underlying assumptions or its interpretation of the data and manage to form a theory that best fits the data, science moves even closer to the truth.

Sure, science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive, assuming that the subjective claims of philosophy are compatible with the objective reality of science.

Many of the metaphysical, historical, and scientific claims of religions conflict with our growing body of scientific knowledge, making parts of the two disciplines mutually exclusive.

We were referring to religions, not individual believers. To the best of my knowledge, all of the major religions include doctrines that conflict with well-established scientific evidence.

There's a difference between an individual that has adopted a Christian moral philosophy and an individual that has adopted the doctrines and dogma of Christianity. Scientific inquiry and belief in the virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension are both, on a personal level, mutually exclusive.

Let's see Science and Philosophy are Good friends, but Science and Religion are enemies (?). What is your distinction between a philosophy and a religion, that makes the statement valid?

BTW - could you list a few of the metaphysical et al. claims of religion that have been 'disproven' by science?

Why in the world would the birth, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ have to take place in a controlled environment - the only place in the universe where the scientific method has any validity? Does this mean that all of the variables that can not be manipulated in a lab, can not exist? This is a major problem fro those who express faith in science, the egotistical assumption that those relationships discovered in a controlled environment can be 'reliable' and inferred to exist in the real environment or the converse - that if a relationship can not be found with in the controlled environment then it can not exist in the real world...

If you disagree with certain well-established scientific theories, it may be fair to say that you're either misinformed or in denial.

?... Nevermind...

Sure, science is fallible. The beauty of natural science is that it relies on reason and evidence. Even if evidence is subjective as you describe it, the peer review process helps ensure that the discipline meets its fundamental goal: Increasing the knowledge of humanity as a whole.

Faith in the peer-review system can only be held by one who knows nothing about the subjective process of deciding who gets published and who does not - it has little to do with anything to be proud of. If a person invests a great deal in bribes and relationships with "The Peers", the 'probability' of being published increases. Whereas, if one lets it be known that one does not have a high opinion of the members of the private club, that is a peer-reviewed journal - then one is unlikely to get published no matter how ground-breaking, precise or illuminating one's work might be...

I am sure I missed something but i have already spent hours on this... Sorry - feel free to ask questions

John

 

[AlisaD]

The only reply I'd have for this thread is this:

 

[Apotheosis]

Again, it is most likely that conflict is caused by misunderstanding, which set of the "Rules of Logic" are you referring to? We might be playing different games with different sets of "rules"

This is true, but it presents the problem that we cannot rationally evaluate the validity of an argument without some form of agreement on the rules of the game. Perhaps it would be easier to state the rule (supposedly) violated, explain why the logic is flawed, and see if we agree on those assumptions.

This generalization is a false assumption, therefore that which follows this premise is false as well.

That claim — that the remainder of my argument is false because that generalization is false, regardless of whether or not my statement was false (it's undoubtedly arguable) — is a false assumption.

All theories reside in the imagination as mere abstractions. The accumulation of facts validating the theory allows it to be considered "a Law', fact or structural process not a mere theory any longer. A theory is a hypothesis, once a hypothesis in confirmed or denied it is no longer a hypothesis, but is in the process of becoming a verified, valid scientific fact...

I suppose that you are correct that a theory is an imaginative abstraction explaining physical, observable phenomenon. Your initial claim was that the knowledge gained from natural science is nothing but a "fantasy" because they are reflected in the form of abstract concepts. This, as far as I can tell, does not follow.

As I noted before, we are on the internet. Modern technology, love it or hate it, is the result of scientific knowledge. It's not a "fantasy."

You also appear to misunderstand the differences between laws, theories, and hypotheses in the natural sciences. Laws express fundamental scientific principles after repeated observations. They do not attempt to explain natural phenomena using similarly repeated empirical evidence; those are called theories. A hypothesis is just a guess, quite possibly an uneducated one. Hypotheses become theories because they explain the observed subject matter. Theories remain theories and laws remain laws because they are explaining two unique kinds of knowledge.

Yes, the validity of a theory is established by a vote of peers, unpopular theories rarely get voted in, unless the theory has a good PR manager...

Yes, scientific institutions are plagued with many of the same issues (e.g. politics, bias, groupthink, etc.) present in any other influential human institution. The success of the scientific method, IMO, has been its ability to continuously triumph in its search for truth in spite of humanity.

This is the primary error of many, the assumption that our theories explain the chain of causality, seemingly inherent in the changes we observe in the environment. It is the basis of mythology and associated hubris.

Good catch! If it's any consolation, I was kinda tired and drunk when I wrote that

Yes, that assumption could quite possibly be wrong and I accept your claim that theories exist within the human imagination separate from the observations they describe. My objection, again, is with your claim that the knowledge acquired from natural science is a "fantasy."

Here's is your statement from earlier:

If the knowledge gained by 'pure' science can never be verified by utilization or manipulation it is nothing but a fantasy, for all of the 'proof' is only of an abstract nature and resides only in the imagination.

You assume that the "proof" of natural science is abstract, which makes absolutely no sense to me. Theories and laws are abstract ideas that explain concrete, observable facts, and those facts are a central part of scientific knowledge. Without supporting evidence, you have no theory.

Perhaps, but faith is required to believe that the conclusion is valid. One must have faith in one's reasoning - that it is perfect and infallible

I agree with that. If you accept that your reasoning could be flawed, make as few assumptions as possible, and try to look at things in terms of probabilities with as little subjectivity as possible, is any faith required?

If so, how does that faith differ from other forms of faith? Or, in your worldview, is it all the same?


I'll respond to your other post when I get an opportunity. At the moment, I must sleep. My point of view on the topic may have changed a bit since a few days ago, so this could get interesting.

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

yay, looks like people and blob are in something other than a flame war now.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think he's operating on a whole new level.

I feel like I'm on a Level 3 dream and someone's trying to plant something in my head.

 

[Da Blob]

This is true, but it presents the problem that we cannot rationally evaluate the validity of an argument without some form of agreement on the rules of the game. Perhaps it would be easier to state the rule (supposedly) violated, explain why the logic is flawed, and see if we agree on those assumptions.

Agreed, I think that is one of the ultimate tragedies of the Human Experience that so much conflict and destruction is caused by the lack of common meanings for common symbols. People so often get into vehement arguments because each 'knows' they are correct - based upon their personal definition of the symbol that is the source of the disagreement

That claim — that the remainder of my argument is false because that generalization is false, regardless of whether or not my statement was false (it's undoubtedly arguable) — is a false assumption.
I could argue about that, the generalization did not apply to me, personally - at least not IMO.

I suppose that you are correct that a theory is an imaginative abstraction explaining physical, observable phenomenon. Your initial claim was that the knowledge gained from natural science is nothing but a "fantasy" because they are reflected in the form of abstract concepts. This, as far as I can tell, does not follow.

Abstract versus real.

abstract
adjective |abˈstrakt; ˈabˌstrakt|
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence :
• dealing with ideas rather than events :
• not based on a particular instance; theoretical :
• (of a word, esp. a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object : abstract words like truth or equality.

Again what is the difference between the Abstract and the Imagined? Is the Abstract somehow more valid, because scientists' imaginations are superior to Others' imaginations?

As I noted before, we are on the internet. Modern technology, love it or hate it, is the result of scientific knowledge. It's not a "fantasy."
I disagree, to a point, technology is not the result of Pure Science or knowledge in itself, but rather the outcome of applied science or just dumb luck of having a trial-and error methodology result in a new application of knowledge. Technology is not abstract, in the least...

You also appear to misunderstand the differences between laws, theories, and hypotheses in the natural sciences. Laws express fundamental scientific principles after repeated observations. They do not attempt to explain natural phenomena using similarly repeated empirical evidence; those are called theories. A hypothesis is just a guess, quite possibly an uneducated one. Hypotheses become theories because they explain the observed subject matter. Theories remain theories and laws remain laws because they are explaining two unique kinds of knowledge.


I believe that the relationship of theory and hypothesis is one of reciprocal causality.. (Yes?)

Yes, scientific institutions are plagued with many of the same issues (e.g. politics, bias, groupthink, etc.) present in any other influential human institution. The success of the scientific method, IMO, has been its ability to continuously triumph in its search for truth in spite of humanity.
Yes, the technique itself is a problem solving method, that if adhered to, can eliminate Observer and Subjective biases in a controlled environment. Unfortunately this elimination of bias is a temporary condition that does not apply in some of the most crucial aspects of the sharing of scientific knowledge in the social environment of academia.

Good catch! If it's any consolation, I was kinda tired and drunk when I wrote that

Yes, that assumption could quite possibly be wrong and I accept your claim that theories exist within the human imagination separate from the observations they describe. My objection, again, is with your claim that the knowledge acquired from natural science is a "fantasy."

Here's is your statement from earlier:


You assume that the "proof" of natural science is abstract, which makes absolutely no sense to me. Theories and laws are abstract ideas that explain concrete, observable facts, and those facts are a central part of scientific knowledge. Without supporting evidence, you have no theory.[/COLOR]


I agree with that. If you accept that your reasoning could be flawed, make as few assumptions as possible, and try to look at things in terms of probabilities with as little subjectivity as possible, is any faith required?

If so, how does that faith differ from other forms of faith? Or, in your worldview, is it all the same?


I believe that there is a basic generic faith, that is the manifestation of a cognitive process, perhaps originating in the 'old mammalian brain". This faith involves the imagination of a reality existing beyond immediate perceptual input. Of course, there is no evidence to verify this Basic Assumption of Generic Faith. We use the capacity of imagination to create this hypothesized reality. However, this simply is an exercise of Subjective faith. Faith which has to be engaged before one can even conceive of expanding that faith to include the 'objective' existence of the future, the past, science, religion or SpongeBob SquarePants...


I'll respond to your other post when I get an opportunity. At the moment, I must sleep. My point of view on the topic may have changed a bit since a few days ago, so this could get interesting.

 

[NoID10ts]

Here's a link to an interesting article about fraud in the science community.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin

 

[Apotheosis]

You seem to chose as your philosophy/religion the tenets of logical positivism, a popular cult in some academic circles, but rarely seen in the real world as being the basis for the foundation for human problem-solving techniques.

No, and I definitely was not trying to give off that impression. Logical positivism relies on the assumption that, for a claim to be meaningful, it must be possible to prove that claim true or false. I make no such assumption, as that in itself is a claim that cannot be proven true or false and, by its own logic, is not meaningful.

I think the likelihood that a claim is "accurate" increases when that claim is logically consistent and empirically validated. (Note that I did not say "meaningful" as many of us can argue for hours over what meaning is and whether it exists.) Assertions that lack those qualifications may be accurate or meaningful, but I view the probability that they are true as being lower when that is the case.

Logic and empiricism are useful tools we use to help validate the beliefs that reside within our imagination. My position is not that a claim lacks meaning if it cannot be proven true or false -- just that another claim that is logically consistent and empirically validated is more likely to be describing "truth" than the initial claim.

Our knowledge of the various cognitive devices that actually have relationship to epistemology has been advanced tremendously during the past few decades, with the effect of invalidating some philosophies that do not have neurological data to support the premises and assumptions of those philosophies concerning the nature of knowledge and the valid methods of accumulating such.

You just provided an example of scientific research altering the likelihood that philosophical claims are true to the point where it invalidates the entire philosophy, which is the precise point I'm trying to articulate.

I did not state that all truth claims are equally valid, I may have implied that all imaginations are equally valid - but that was in a Subjective frame of reference, not an Objective frame of reference.

Even in a subjective frame of reference, beliefs that rely within the mind are not equally probable, depending upon its use of reasoning and evidence. Some beliefs are valid, others may be valid but lack evidence and/or sound reasoning (lower probability of being valid), and others may be valid and do have supporting evidence and/or sound reasoning (higher probability of being valid).

The obvious answer is "Yes' - our social environments are full of the derivatives of religious tenets.

Yes, and most of those religions are dead and gone. Modern technology came about as a result of natural science. We can't build computers, cars, and spacecrafts without a decent understanding of how motion, matter, and (in the third case) gravitation works. I have yet to witness any of the deities, miracles, etc. that are described in religious texts, and what I do see is not supernatural, and in fact appears to be a man-made construct.

Let's see Science and Philosophy are Good friends, but Science and Religion are enemies (?). What is your distinction between a philosophy and a religion, that makes the statement valid?

It's not necessarily religion, but dogma that is the enemy of reason and empiricism, IMHO. You can be religious without denying established and proven facts, but the fundamentalists who believe in a young (and in some instances, flat) earth are blind, deaf, and a special type of dumb. I only wish they were mute.

BTW - could you list a few of the metaphysical et al. claims of religion that have been 'disproven' by science?

No, not metaphysical claims, but each year there are fewer and fewer things that can't be explained by science (and continue to elicit the insightful "God did it" response). Given the size of the universe and how indifferent it appears to be to our existence, why would there need to be a god?

This is a major problem fro those who express faith in science, the egotistical assumption that those relationships discovered in a controlled environment can be 'reliable' and inferred to exist in the real environment or the converse - that if a relationship can not be found with in the controlled environment then it can not exist in the real world...

Perhaps. As you can see above, I backtracked a bit on the whole "Science & Religion?" thing. It may be true that Jesus was crucified, died, resurrected from the dead, appeared on earth again and then ascended into heaven. If we were able to recreate resurrection and ascension in a laboratory, and if much of Jesus' life's story did not appear plagiarized from various other myths, I would be more inclined to believe it.

Faith in the peer-review system can only be held by one who knows nothing about the subjective process of deciding who gets published and who does not - it has little to do with anything to be proud of. If a person invests a great deal in bribes and relationships with "The Peers", the 'probability' of being published increases. Whereas, if one lets it be known that one does not have a high opinion of the members of the private club, that is a peer-reviewed journal - then one is unlikely to get published no matter how ground-breaking, precise or illuminating one's work might be...

What gives you the impression that science is truly that corrupt on a global scale? Is there any precedent for such a vast conspiracy? Could you point to examples of the world really working that way?

I share some of your cynicism, but there's a limit.

Again what is the difference between the Abstract and the Imagined? Is the Abstract somehow more valid, because scientists' imaginations are superior to Others' imaginations?

It seems like these arguments always meander into semantics.

Even if you are correct that knowledge is a fantasy, what difference does it make? Is knowledge no longer useful? Does scientific inquiry beyond the field of applied science provide no utility to the human experience?

Is there not a fundamental difference between the claim that knowledge of science exists in the mind and the claim that it is a fantasy?

Given the successes of natural science (which I'll expand upon below), is it too presumptuous to assume that, when scientific knowledge supports a proposition, it increases the probability that the proposition is accurate?

I disagree, to a point, technology is not the result of Pure Science or knowledge in itself, but rather the outcome of applied science or just dumb luck of having a trial-and error methodology result in a new application of knowledge. Technology is not abstract, in the least...

How could mankind have created modern technology without first acquiring a basic understanding of motion, mechanics, electricity, dynamics, kinematics, optics, thermodynamics, etc.?

Trial and error, perhaps? If we build something enough times using enough methods, it may eventually do something?

I believe that the relationship of theory and hypothesis is one of reciprocal causality.. (Yes?)

How so? A hypothesis doesn't become a theory unless the evidence gathered supports its predictions. I understand how the terminology can be confusing, especially since some hypotheses/theories/laws within the natural sciences are mislabeled. For instance, M-theory (an attempt at a unified field theory using string theory) is just a hypothesis, and Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation don't apply to the extremely small and extremely fast.

Yes, the technique itself is a problem solving method, that if adhered to, can eliminate Observer and Subjective biases in a controlled environment. Unfortunately this elimination of bias is a temporary condition that does not apply in some of the most crucial aspects of the sharing of scientific knowledge in the social environment of academia

Human bias is always present but the scientific method provides the means to discover truth in spite of it.

I believe that there is a basic generic faith, that is the manifestation of a cognitive process, perhaps originating in the 'old mammalian brain". This faith involves the imagination of a reality existing beyond immediate perceptual input. Of course, there is no evidence to verify this Basic Assumption of Generic Faith. We use the capacity of imagination to create this hypothesized reality. However, this simply is an exercise of Subjective faith. Faith which has to be engaged before one can even conceive of expanding that faith to include the 'objective' existence of the future, the past, science, religion or SpongeBob SquarePants...

I agree, but I don't believe that all subjective beliefs are equally probable, as some of those beliefs have supporting evidence and others do not.

 

[Apotheosis]

Here's an example to illustrate my point:

What if I claimed that the entire universe was created one week ago? Perhaps the galaxies, planets, and all living things were created last week with the illusion that everything we observe has existed for more than one week.

This claim may be perfectly valid. There's no amount of empirical evidence or reasoning that could disprove that assertion, but would any of us consider this subjective belief to be more likely than the belief (which is supported by empirical evidence) that the universe has existed for much longer?

 

[Da Blob]

Perhaps all arguments of a verbal nature can be classified as 'matters of semantics'?
There is not much left to discuss - for your observations are valid given your limited point of view and you were careful to state that the limitations of that POV precluded certain observations.

I certainly agree that the role of Dogma as propaganda has little to do with progress. The one thing I would like to point out is that, in the modern society, there is much more dogma and propaganda of a pseudo-scientific nature, than a pseudo-spiritual nature. Politicians have petitioned the gods of science to smile on their politically-correct activities and they use all sorts of data to suggest, that indeed, the gods of science have smiled on their selfish agendas.

I believe that the role of science, in modern society, is as religion, for those who are neither scientists or religious...

 

[TheHmmmm]

Perhaps all arguments of a verbal nature can be classified as 'matters of semantics'?
There is not much left to discuss - for your observations are valid given your limited point of view and you were careful to state that the limitations of that POV precluded certain observations.

I certainly agree that the role of Dogma as propaganda has little to do with progress. The one thing I would like to point out is that, in the modern society, there is much more dogma and propaganda of a pseudo-scientific nature, than a pseudo-spiritual nature. Politicians have petitioned the gods of science to smile on their politically-correct activities and they use all sorts of data to suggest, that indeed, the gods of science have smiled on their selfish agendas.

I believe that the role of science, in modern society, is as religion, for those who are neither scientists or religious...

No, his point is that if you use the argument "prove me wrong", then yes all arguments are valueless.

If you instead think in terms of "what's most likely" and "what makes more sense" you open the door to many different discussions.

As to your dogma paragraph, you have a lot of claims to back up and I won't bother arguing further on that until you do.

 

[Da Blob]

No, his point is that if you use the argument "prove me wrong", then yes all arguments are valueless.

Yet the scientific method is based upon the denial of the null hypothesis...(?)

If you instead think in terms of "what's most likely" and "what makes more sense" you open the door to many different discussions.

True, only if all are standing in the same open doorway or window, having a 'shared view' experience and in the process sharing assumptions, frame of references and jargon... What about 'enlightenment' and sharing experienced of which the POV is not shared, like looking out of different windows in a house.... What can be seen from one window is "Not Likely" to be seen from a different window...(?)

As to your dogma paragraph, you have a lot of claims to back up and I won't bother arguing further on that until you do.

It was merely a generalization of a pattern that I have observed - particularly in the promotion of liberal causes by liberal professors>liberal politicians...

I do not mean to seem to be argumentative - I mean I never lose arguments, so it is not very much fun...

 

[TheHmmmm]

No, his point is that if you use the argument "prove me wrong", then yes all arguments are valueless.

Yet the scientific method is based upon the denial of the null hypothesis...(?)

If you instead think in terms of "what's most likely" and "what makes more sense" you open the door to many different discussions.

True, only if all are standing in the same open doorway or window, having a 'shared view' experience and in the process sharing assumptions, frame of references and jargon... What about 'enlightenment' and sharing experienced of which the POV is not shared, like looking out of different windows in a house.... What can be seen from one window is "Not Likely" to be seen from a different window...(?)

As to your dogma paragraph, you have a lot of claims to back up and I won't bother arguing further on that until you do.

It was merely a generalization of a pattern that I have observed - particularly in the promotion of liberal causes by liberal professors>liberal politicians...

I do not mean to seem to be argumentative - I mean I never lose arguments, so it is not very much fun...

Paragraph 1: Science doesn't "reject" the null hypothesis, it uses it without blindly accepting it. And I don't know what that has to do with this.

Paragraph 2: "sharing experiences of which the POV is not shared" doesn't make any sense. And windows offer myopic views, assuming that you CAN'T see the rest of the picture from it, which is wrong. It operates under the assumption that one person can't be right.

Paragraph 3: Lol.

 

[Apotheosis]

It was merely a generalization of a pattern that I have observed - particularly in the promotion of liberal causes by liberal professors>liberal politicians...

There's little doubt that academia has a liberal bias, but is it not a bit presumptuous to conclude that it is corrupted at the core — or perhaps even a global, nefarious conspiracy — without corroborating evidence? If such corruption/conspiring exists, why did the thousands of hacked "Climategate" emails and documents include no evidence of wrongdoing?

I can think of a few explanations for the dominance of liberalism throughout much of academia. I view these possibilities as much more likely than the widespread collusion of scientists and politicians that you suggest:

• As intelligent right wing thinkers like Noah Millman and Bruce Bartlett have pointed out, there's a deep-seated opposition to intellectualism within the modern conservative movement. Why would intellectuals join a movement that does not want them?
• Liberals tend to be more interested in academic pursuits than conservatives, whereas those on the right are much more likely to enter military service or law enforcement.
• If your profession relies on government spending on education and scientific research, it's unlikely that you will vote Republican
• Maybe reality has a liberal bias?

If science truly is as you say it is, where's the evidence? Or is this just a clever way to support your "all subjective claims are equally valid" thesis by dismissing the reliability of scientific evidence and thus making counter-argument impossible?

 

[Da Blob]

There's little doubt that academia has a liberal bias, but is it not a bit presumptuous to conclude that it is corrupted at the core — or perhaps even a global, nefarious conspiracy — without corroborating evidence? If such corruption/conspiring exists, why did the thousands of hacked "Climategate" emails and documents include no evidence of wrongdoing?

I can think of a few explanations for the dominance of liberalism throughout much of academia. I view these possibilities as much more likely than the widespread collusion of scientists and politicians that you suggest:

• As intelligent right wing thinkers like Noah Millman and Bruce Bartlett have pointed out, there's a deep-seated opposition to intellectualism within the modern conservative movement. Why would intellectuals join a movement that does not want them?
• Liberals tend to be more interested in academic pursuits than conservatives, whereas those on the right are much more likely to enter military service or law enforcement.
• If your profession relies on government spending on education and scientific research, it's unlikely that you will vote Republican
• Maybe reality has a liberal bias?

If science truly is as you say it is, where's the evidence? Or is this just a clever way to support your "all subjective claims are equally valid" thesis by dismissing the reliability of scientific evidence and thus making counter-argument impossible?

I do not know that the general trend of selfishness amongst politicians and academicians has to be at the level of a 'conspiracy' for it to be a real variable that effects the quality of life for those subjected to the dominance of those selfish individuals, who happen to be in positions of social power.

I have a different take on the liberal/conservative scale, I see it as an indication of responses to changes in the environment, adaptation - the political 'meanings' seem to me to be a derivative of the basic attitude that individuals have towards change: Threat or Opportunity... I think that a lot of so-called Liberals, now see any change in the current hedonistic society as a threat - even though such a society is inherently flawed, not being sustainable...

As you know 'Reliability" is a measure of repeated results and conclusions of studies conducted amongst peers. Depending on the group of peers in question, a reliable study might still have absolutely no external validity, as validity is a separate dimension... I believe that quite a few academicians lose their ideals in the process of becoming a tenured professor, as very few idealist individuals seem to hold tenured positions, the 'realists' end up with those positions because they manipulate the system that exists, not the one that is supposed to exist...

 

[Apotheosis]

I do not know that the general trend of selfishness amongst politicians and academicians has to be at the level of a 'conspiracy' for it to be a real variable that effects the quality of life for those subjected to the dominance of those selfish individuals, who happen to be in positions of social power.

Let's take a look at what you said earlier:

"Faith in the peer-review system can only be held by one who knows nothing about the subjective process of deciding who gets published and who does not - it has little to do with anything to be proud of. If a person invests a great deal in bribes and relationships with "The Peers", the 'probability' of being published increases. Whereas, if one lets it be known that one does not have a high opinion of the members of the private club, that is a peer-reviewed journal - then one is unlikely to get published no matter how ground-breaking, precise or illuminating one's work might be..."​

The bold text was added by me for emphasis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not require a great deal of corruption (if not a conspiracy) within the scientific community on a global scale for that to be the case?

What examples do you have of scientists bribing journals or finding it impossible to get groundbreaking scientific research published within any of the thousands of peer-reviewed journals?


Edit: After taking another glance at your statement, I can see that you were referring to the natural politics involved in publishing work within a scientific journal, not claiming that it has been impossible, at times, to publish groundbreaking research within any of the thousands of peer-reviewed journals.

With that said, I still think it's sort of disingenuous to distrust all scientific evidence, since some theories are supported by countless facts gathered by millions of scientists throughout the world, and corruption of such evidence would require corruption on a massive scale.

That's why I think my position is valid. When the empirical evidence supporting a particular belief reaches a certain threshold, there is no longer a compelling reason for doubt. In natural science, this is true for certain laws and theories.