Are skepticism and Belief in God mutually exclusive?

williamgrogan · 30-12-2003 10:29am

Well, William, if that *is* your real name

Yes my name is William, or Bill if you like. In fact I am the only one using his name. Why are the rest of you hiding?

Just because something is not scientific does not make it useless

I agree, but it does make it useless for studying nature which is what I was clearly referring to.

remember your existence can be proved because you think

This is the sort of BS I was referring to.

Then there is the whole study of ethics

Studying ethics without understanding modern biology and in particular evolution is totally useless. Ethics is often a synonym for religion. The current “debate” on Stem Cell research is an example.

How can you profitably study Ethics without knowing why human’s are programmed the way they are?

So far you've offered nothing but mindless invective

I doubt that DadaKopf has read this entire thread and thinks that. Anyway that sentence itself is mindless invective.

Philosophy gave rise to science

“has being replaced by Science”, might be more accurate. I can equally argue that it has held up scientific advance for centuries. If the ancient Greeks had discovered the Scientific Method instead...............

A great deal of Philosophy was devoted to an attempt to understand reality. It used completly useless mechanisms and failed utterly.

Philosophy has given rise to areas of study in the social sciences

That doesn’t make Philosophy itself useful. Anyway a great deal of the Social Sciences are also BS. I have already mentioned Economics. Psychology is not Science and neither are many other areas. The law could do with a total overhaul.

Philosophy of mind is a major component of cognitive Science

I disagree. In 2,000 years the Philosophers have discovered less than a tiny fraction of what is now understood about the mind by Science. Our understanding of how the brain works (not the mind) will come from MRI scans, medicine, biology, computer science etc.. The mind and coconscious was one of the many “unanswerable” questions that philosophers tackled but we now know it is just a computer system programmed initially by your genes.

However, if they succeed in spurring other scientists on then their contribution has been immence

I doubt that many Scientists over the last few hundred years were actually spurned on by philosophy. The most common thing seems to be Science Fiction. I cannot believe that anyone is arguing for the benefits of philosophy by stating that one of its main uses is to “spurn on” the work of scientists. It was only when Philosophy was dumped in favour of Science that we made any advance.

Contributions ……. quantum physics

You’re joking?

“Believing in Philosophy” is almost as bad as believing in God or even accepting the possibility of a god. In fact it is clear from many of your posts that the first error underpins the second.

Many of you made the mistake of not being Skeptical about Philosophy.

Your reactions to my comments on Philosophy and Religion are the same as the reactions of Homeopaths when their beliefs are questioned.

Philosophy may be interesting in the sense that scrabble is or learning a second language. However it did hold up intellectual advance for hundreds of years and a great deal of philosophy has been down a cul de sac because it attempted to answer questions without actual information, experiments & facts. Many scientific discoveries in recent decades have made whole branches of Philosophy look daft.

GuanYin · 30-12-2003 7:42pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Many scientific discoveries in recent decades have made whole branches of Philosophy look daft.

Many scientific discoveries in the recent decades have made branches of science look daft. What is your point? How do you rate alchemy, withcraft and herblore? All these things are ridiculous yet they gave rise to modern pharmaceutics and chemistry.

Advancement always has casualties, much like evolution, but it does not lessen any of the players along the way.

The fatal flaw in your argumenty is tarring everything under the "branch of philosophy" with the same brush. This is not only a very unscientific way to think but alos it highlights several misconceptions and inaccuracies in your knowledge of philosophy.

Many eastern philosophies embrace logic and endeavour to question everything. Japanese tribal monks were devout "philosphers" yet as far back as the fifth century had mastered pharmaceutical refinements and medicines (not to mention explosives)not seen in the western world until a thousand years later.

I think it is also very unscientific of you to ignore may arguements put forward to refute you and pick at pedantic points or areas you cannot answer. A true scientist would be able to stand up to any questios put forth to his work or theories. No offence, but I fear you would fair quite badly in the area that you so strongly defend.

GuanYin · 30-12-2003 7:48pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The mind and coconscious was one of the many “unanswerable” questions that philosophers tackled but we now know it is just a computer system programmed initially by your genes.

Actually your genes have little to no part in how mind or consciousness work. The genes that are regulated are common throughout humans and many other species. If anything Essential Fatty Acids, potassium, calcium, chloride and sodium play the most important roles. You have repeatedly displayed a total lack of understanding of genetics and the roles of genes in this thread.

In fact, most of your references have stronly mirrored the dumbed down and wholely inaccurate misrepresentations of genetics,, genes and DNA found in most popular science books.

This is the danger when people "mis-use" science to make their arguements. Much like religious institutions often mis-use peoples beliefs for their own purposes.

williamgrogan · 30-12-2003 7:53pm

I think it is also very unscientific of you to ignore may arguements put forward to refute you and pick at pedantic points or areas you cannot answer. A true scientist would be able to stand up to any questios put forth to his work or theories. No offence, but I fear you would fair quite badly in the area that you so strongly defend.

I have no idea what you are referring to?

Can you give me some examples?

GuanYin · 30-12-2003 7:56pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I have no idea what you are referring to?

Can you give me some examples?

Having read through the entire thread, I have noticed you have ignored posts and psoters that make constructive valid points against your arguements and either change direction altogether or pick apart points in the reply you wish to deal with (and these are often minor points of the post). Other posters have called you up on this too I have just noticed.

Perhaps you should read back over the post, as I believe you criticised Dadakopf for not reading the entire thread to gleam information for himself.

williamgrogan · 30-12-2003 8:06pm

Many scientific discoveries in the recent decades have made branches of science look daft

I didn’t say that! Are you saying that? If so what branches of Science?

Actually your genes have little to no part in how mind or consciousness work

This statement must be 100% wrong as without genes there would be no brain and therefore no mind.

The difference in the genes between monkeys and humans accounts for the difference in mental traits and abilities. It is in these traits and abilities that many of a human’s behaviour are based.

The genes contain the blueprint (data/information) for building the brain. The initial “firmware” must be primarily encoded in the genes. Where else could it be? A baby’s brain has enough of an “operating system” when it is born to begin learning. This has to come from genes. The fact that bright parents give rise to bright children is also proof that genes are involved in the structure of brain.

The point here is that when Philosophy examined the way humans behaved it did not take evolution and the structure of the brain into account. Nor did it understand information processing. Therefore its conclusions had to be wrong.

Can we skip this type of insulting crap, “In fact, most of your references have stronly mirrored the dumbed down and wholely inaccurate misrepresentations of genetics,, genes and DNA found in most popular science books”?

Have you something against popular science books? Or are you some sort of snob?

williamgrogan · 30-12-2003 8:22pm

Having read through the entire thread, I have noticed you have ignored posts and psoters that make constructive valid points against your arguements and either change direction altogether or pick apart points in the reply you wish to deal with (and these are often minor points of the post). Other posters have called you up on this too I have just noticed.

So you are not going to give me an example then? I'm going to have to guess what you are referring to?

GuanYin · 30-12-2003 8:33pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I didn’t say that! Are you saying that? If so what branches of Science?

I am saying that. Several branches of genetics and evolutionary theory are laughable. Outmoded scientific views on pathology, microbiology neurology etc etc. Science is constantly usurpingold beliefs in favour of "more informed" ones.

A specific example? Not so long ago (early 80's) microbiology stated that the stomach was sterile with no bacteria. Now we know that not only our our guts lined with bacteria, many of them are potentially pathogenic. Look at how daft the field of gastroenterology was back then? I tell you, we laugh about it every day now.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
This statement must be 100% wrong as without genes there would be no brain and therefore no mind. /B]

How facaetious can you get. Saying that genes are required for brain formation and brains are required for cognitive function are two entirely different things. Having the genes to form a brain and being able to think with it are separate issues, as well you know. So either you are being petty or you are particularly misinformed.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The difference in the genes between monkeys and humans accounts for the difference in mental traits and abilities. It is in these traits and abilities that many of a human’s behaviour are based.

Wrong! Genetically the difference is minute and the actual anomalies are in break down metabolism genes. the key differences are in biochemical processes, specifically protein folding of L/R analogues ne-AAs. These have nothing to do with genes at all.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
he genes contain the blueprint (data/information) for building the brain. The initial “firmware” must be primarily encoded in the genes. Where else could it be? A baby’s brain has enough of an “operating system” when it is born to begin learning. This has to come from genes. The fact that bright parents give rise to bright children is also proof that genes are involved in the structure of brain.

Wrong again. I'm going to fail any future student that ever puts "blueprint" on a paper in a genetics exam. Recipe would be a far better word and even then its far off. You are missing proteomics and glycomics. Protein folding and orientation and glycobiology (sugar capping) have a very large role in structual formation and metabolism of all biological systems. Your precious DNA and genes have the guidelines on making the structure but not the running of the system. The actually learning comes from stimulations, which while regulated by genes, is ultimately down to the proteomics of the ion channels in cell membranes. Genes don't always dictate proteomics so your arguement is too simple to even be elucidated in its flaws here. If you want to discuss and debate it, go start a specific thread in biology, aat least it is on topic.

Finally, bright children/parents is most likely environmental. If you truely believe that i t is genetic, please reference me a journal or published paper as a source (peer reviewed, not some website). I've never seen any conclusive work o the matter, in fact, quite the opposite (environment plays the greatest role).

Originally posted by williamgrogan

The point here is that when Philosophy examined the way humans behaved it did not take evolution and the structure of the brain into account. Nor did it understand information processing. Therefore its conclusions had to be wrong.

Really, what about memetics, a theory put forward by some very esteemed geneticists, biologists and scientists that is more philosophy by your definition than amything else.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Have you something against popular science books? Or are you some sort of snob?

Only the badly written ones that cause people to post mis-interpretted (through no fault of their own) or mis-understood science. Its a pet hate of mine.

williamgrogan · 30-12-2003 10:48pm

There is a fundamental difference between scientific theories being disproved and the collapse of much of Philosophy. The Scientific theories were disproved by Science and not by Philosophy whereas much of Philosophy was made redundant by Science.

No one here is arguing the point that science is claiming that it fully understands anything, just that it is the best method by far.

My point re philosophy not being able to investigate how the “mind” works because it never tried to understand it from a scientific perspective is valid. In trying to understand how the brain/mind works it is obviously critical that science is done.

Having the genes to form a brain and being able to think with it are separate issues

Whether or not they are separate issues is irrelevant. I made the point that to understand the workings of a mind, which philosophy tried to do, that for example you needed to understand genetics and evolution. What our brains are and how they work is very much related to genes and evolution which were discovered by Science. Therefore not to know about these matters means not being able to understand the mind. Philosophy was wasting its time on this issue and on most other issues it tackled because the way it went about examining the issues was flawed, it wasn't scientific.

To give an obvious example; Love. Philosophy has discussed this for millennia but it really is all about the selfish genes creating a situation where a man and women co-operate in ensuring the survival of their genes. Love as we know it is only a by-product of these genes.

How minute the differences between a monkey and a human are is irrelevant. It is these very minute differences that make our minds what they are and a monkey’s what it is. One would expect them to be minute as we only separated relatively recently from monkeys.

I said blueprint (data/information) maybe I should have said recipe, blueprint, data, information, coding, formula, wherewithal, etc.. etc………” so as not to give bad example to your students. The point I made would have been the same.

Your precious DNA and genes have the guidelines on making the structure but not the running of the system.

Again not relevant to the point I was making. HOW the genes do their work is interesting but highlighting the detailed mechanism/s does not invalid my point that to understand the brain & its software one needs to do Science. Philosophy thought that it could just “figure out” how the mind worked. This was wrong. To figure out how the mind works and how everything else works you need science and not philosophy.

The reason I started this “attack on philosophy” was because the opinions & linguistic acrobatics of philosophers was being quoted as evidence for the existence of god.

what about memetics, a theory put forward by some very esteemed geneticists, biologists and scientists that is more philosophy by your definition than amything else.

What about it?

Are you saying that because Richard Dawkins has postulated memes that he is now a philosopher and therefore not a scientist? And if so, so what??

I have already made the point, and been attacked for it, that the vast majority of people who believe in god do so and believe in a particular version of god because of cultural reasons – the success of memes perhaps?

Paul Thompson at the University of California at Los Angeles has published a study linking intelligence to hereditary.

Intelligence must be inheritable as it must be linked to genes otherwise our intelligence couldn’t have increased via evolution. If individuals were born equal and environment was all there was then there would be no selective pressure to improve intelligence. I do not believe that genes are everything when it comes to intelligence or most traits but genes are very important.

As regards your swipe at “popular science books”, no scientist or for that matter no person can possibly have the time to investigate every branch of knowledge to the level of an expert. So “popular science books” are critical even to experts. If more people read “popular science books” then maybe less people would fall for the con artists that prey on the public.

PS

There is a fundamental concept in evolution, “the phenotype does not affect the genotype”. Therefore intelligence must be primarily genetic. If it wasn’t then intelligence could not increase as environmental factors could not improve the genotype.

ecksor · 30-12-2003 11:03pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The reason I started this “attack on philosophy” was because the opinions & linguistic acrobatics of philosophers was being quoted as evidence for the existence of god.

Most of the philosophers' arguments cited weren't held up as proof of the existence of God, they were held up as arguments regarding the limits of science and of our knowledge.

williamgrogan · 30-12-2003 11:14pm

Most of the philosophers' arguments cited weren't held up as proof of the existence of God, they were held up as arguments regarding the limits of science and of our knowledge

…..but the consequence of this is that people were arguing that science could not disprove the existence of god partially because there are areas it cannot investigate and therefore it was reasonable or logical to believe that their might be a god.

Philosophy cannot tell Science what to study or not to study. Science can study anything it likes. It isn’t reasonable or logical to believe in god and philosophy has nothing to contribute to this matter or for that matter any other matter. Philosophy is a flawed mechanism.

ecksor · 30-12-2003 11:44pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
…..but the consequence of this is that people were arguing that science could not disprove the existence of god partially because there are areas it cannot investigate and therefore it was reasonable or logical to believe that their might be a god.

That is not the same as offering evidence for the existence of god.

Anyway, if you can dismiss the entirety of philosophy then I don't think I, or anyone else, can move you from your faith in the non-existence of a god.

Can you recommend a source for me to read to help back up the assertion that philosophy and economics is BS?

sextusempiricus · 31-12-2003 12:23am

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Philosophy has one major drawback which makes it virtually useless, it is not scientific.

I really cannot understand this blanket dismissal of philosophy. I'm not a philosopher and admit perhaps most of philosophy is airy-fairy nonsense but scientists can still make assumptions which are not scientific but underpin their whole scientific enterprise. For example it has sometimes been claimed that a scientific hypothesis is one which can be confirmed, is one that is highly probable, and even is one that should try and explain everything. Karl Popper rejects each one of these claims. The arguments he makes are NOT scientific and are certainly disputable but still relevent to how scientific knowledge grows and the confidence we can place in it. His 'Conjectures and Refutations' (1963) may be a good place to become familiar with his work.

PS

I'm glad WG's tip won at 10/1 but is he sure that some AM practitioner hadn't rubbed a magnet up and down the horse's legs before the race. Incidentally does anyone know about the placebo response in a horse?

DadaKopf · 31-12-2003 12:55am

Well, I studied philosophy. And policics. I suppose I still study both.

WG poopooed Descartes' "I think therefore I am" proposition. He said he thought it was ASTERISKASTERISK. Yup, I think it is, too. While Decartes' arguments were logically consistent, his assumptions were unsound, so his theory is bollox really. But, being a scientician like yourself, wouldn't it be, uh, invalid for you to condemn ALL philosophy because of one mistake? Of course it would.

I mean, if you had gone back in time and killed Descartes for being a Froggy Fool, whoops! he was Dutch, you'd have killed off the guy who invented Cartesian geometry and then we'd be in doodoo.

And about that genes dictating our Leaving Cert marks, look, when I read up on evolutionary biology, I found out that genes just do some stuff but it's the environment and the functioning of the WHOLE BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM of a particular entity (given certain acquired developmental robustness in various sub-systems) that give rise to like... stuff. So I think you're wrong about the whole genes thing, WG.

And WG, I *did* read the entire thread. I thought everything you said was bollox.

Do yourself a favour: read Popper and Adorno & Horkheimer's 'Dialectic of Enlightenment'. Like, WOW!, two philosophers who followed INTERDISCIPLINARY methods!???!!! ,\../

You see, WG, science (or in your case, SCIENTISM) is incomplete knowledge. Science has to be supplemented with other areas of knowledgeistic endeavour. You're like... people who have blind faith... MAAAN.

SkepticOne · 31-12-2003 5:30am

Originally posted by DadaKopf
And about that genes dictating our Leaving Cert marks, look, when I read up on evolutionary biology, I found out that genes just do some stuff but it's the environment and the functioning of the WHOLE BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM of a particular entity (given certain acquired developmental robustness in various sub-systems) that give rise to like... stuff. So I think you're wrong about the whole genes thing, WG.

I think he said that genes were important but not everything in determining intelligence:

I do not believe that genes are everything when it comes to intelligence or most traits but genes are very important.

This would be consistant with what you are saying with perhaps a bit more emphasis on the genes part.

I would agree the idea that intelligence is a combination of genetics and non-genetic factors. If you lock someone up in a room for 20 years with no stimulation, they will not do very well in an IQ test even if they have the genes to form a good brain within the right environment. The brain needs the approprate stimulation in addition to genes to develop. It needs genes too since variation in genes also affect the development of the brain just like other parts of the body. The wrong set of genes and we don't develop a brain at all. This would certainly affect someones Leaving Cert results.

However these questions belong to the realm of science. They are empirically testable statements. (In principle, although there may be some ethical issues

)

Agent Smith · 31-12-2003 5:32am

the glass will always be half empty, not half full!

williamgrogan · 31-12-2003 11:02am

I thought everything you said was bollox

Its obvious from this statement that DadaKopf studied Philosophy.

e.g. at the very least does Bindaree not exist?

Here you lot are trying to proof that the very minor possibility that certain statements cannot be proven exactly 100% and you make a statement like that. You obviously do not believe in Philosophy either.

I think some people are missing the point. Asking questions like, "Why are we here?", cannot be answered without dirtying your hands. It was a profound question UNTIL we discovered evolution, competition, genetic mutation, the changing of species, the gradual improvement of life. Now it’s a lot simpler question and we are starting to answer it. The Philosophers actually contributed nothing.

the glass will always be half empty, not half full

To me this is not a puzzle, nor is “what is the sound of one hand clapping” or “does a falling tree make a sound when no one is there”. There is nothing but very slight humour in these statements.

Aside: I couldn’t stop laughing some years ago when I read that the Professor of Logic in Trinity was a priest. That tells me an awful lot about how illogical Logics must be.

ecksor · 31-12-2003 8:03pm

This is becoming most enlightening. Further to your example of the professor of logics, what do you think of Paul Kurtz, professor of philosophy and the founder of many skeptics groups? Particularly apt considering the title of his latest book, I don't suppose anyone has read it?

http://www.secularhumanism.org/home/kurtz/

williamgrogan · 01-01-2004 4:08am

Do you mean "Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?"

If so sounds interesting.

Available from amazon.co.uk, reviews on amazon.com

ecksor · 01-01-2004 6:47am

Well, I'm expecting you to blow it out of the water already, given your opinion of philosophers.

williamgrogan · 01-01-2004 1:52pm

Well, I'm expecting you to blow it out of the water already, given your opinion of philosophers.

I have a bigger problem with people quoting philosophers as an argument for the point of view that there are areas Science cannot investigate.

As far as I can see the Philosopher, Kurtz, is merely acting as a compiler of essays and therefore the fact that he is a philosopher is not relevant. In fact one hopes he is a better and fairer compiler/editor than a philosopher.

Religion is under serious assault from Science and as a rearguard action it is trying to block scientific access to the last few remaining areas that Science has not demolished of its beliefs. In fact the statement, "There are areas that Science cannot investigate", is more a religious statement than anything else.

Up to now we have taken the argument to the religious/philosophers (this is a bit like the Sinn Fein/IRA coupling). Why not look at it from the perspective of the Scientist?

So far the studies carried out by scientists show an orderly universe. All known laws are logical and bereft of magic. If this IS how the universe is then there cannot be areas that are not open to investigation and understanding. If the universe is as simple and straightforward as it seems to be from science then all laws can be deduced. We can therefore know everything about the mechanisms that make things they way they are.

Typedef · 01-01-2004 4:54pm

Hmm.

The one and only philosopher I know, is at least as far as I can tell a convinced athiest, which is, I'd venture as a direct result of his envronmental upbringing. Indeed most of his studies seem to revolve around 20th century left wing philosophical studies of some form or other, I've been presented with books entitled "An introductory guide to non-fascit thinking", which I thought was droll.

To be honest, I don't see a large degree of seperation from a philosopher claiming god exists (without scientific evidence) to a priest claiming the same thing, bar, a philosopher would most likely sound, more reasoned and learned, when doing it.

Moreover, as far as I remember, in "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking, Professor Hawking, never once said he didn't think god existed. Indeed Professor Hawking says a deity might exist or might not. Perhaps, the universe really is some sort of mathematical probability, however until such time as it is 'proved' to be so, it is as valid a proposition to postulate that "god" made the universe as "mathematical probabality implies the universe would 'probably' exist at some point", in a theoretical (aka philosophical) sense.

DadaKopf · 01-01-2004 5:07pm

[Thomas] Kuhn argued that science is not a steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge. Instead, science is "a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions" [Nicholas Wade, writing for Science], which he described as "the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science." After such revolutions, "one conceptual world view is replaced by another"

According to Kuhn, paradigms are essential to scientific inquiry, for "no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism." Indeed, a paradigm guides the research efforts of scientific communities, and it is this criterion that most clearly identifies a field as a science. A fundamental theme of Kuhn's argument is that the typical developmental pattern of a mature science is the successive transition from one paradigm to another through a process of revolution. When a paradigm shift takes place, "a scientist's world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory."

Kuhn also maintained that, contrary to popular conception, typical scientists are not objective and independent thinkers. Rather, they are conservative individuals who accept what they have been taught and apply their knowledge to solving the problems that their theories dictate. Most are, in essence, puzzle-solvers who aim to discover what they already know in advance - "The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly."

During periods of normal science, the primary task of scientists is to bring the accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. As a consequence, scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm. For example, Ptolemy popularized the notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and this view was defended for centuries even in the face of conflicting evidence. In the pursuit of science, Kuhn observed, "novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."

Kuhn also took issue with Karl Popper's view of theory-testing through falsification. According to Kuhn, it is the incompleteness and imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that define the puzzles that characterize normal science. If, as Popper suggested, failure to fit were grounds for theory rejection, all theories would be rejected at all times.

As to whether progress consists in science discovering ultimate truths, Kuhn observed that "we may have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth." Instead, the developmental process of science is one of evolution from primitive beginnings through successive stages that are characterized by an increasingly detailed and refined understanding of nature. Kuhn argued that this is not a process of evolution toward anything, and he questioned whether it really helps to imagine that there is one, full, objective, true account of nature. He likened his conception of the evolution of scientific ideas to Darwin's conception of the evolution of organisms.

from here and summary of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions here.

ecksor · 01-01-2004 7:21pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
So far the studies carried out by scientists show an orderly universe. All known laws are logical and bereft of magic. If this IS how the universe is then there cannot be areas that are not open to investigation and understanding. If the universe is as simple and straightforward as it seems to be from science then all laws can be deduced. We can therefore know everything about the mechanisms that make things they way they are.

There's that word 'if' !!

So, if the world works according to the scientific theories we have, then Science can answer all questions, eventually. We just have to work out which questions to ask (but we have to do this without asking the philosophers if I'm reading you correctly).

Can you give me an example of a scientific theory that answers something of a very fundamental nature about how the universe works that doesn't break down at certain scales and for which the body of evidence supporting it puts it beyond all doubt?

I would tend to view scientific theories as a collection of tools and models to be used depending upon the particular job on hand, not as a view into how the universe actually is (mind you, what is that idea except perhaps a mental model, or is there such a thing as an objective reality? Oops, no philosophising allowed, sorry. Let's keep that sort of talk away from science until it becomes mature and well understood questions that the scientists start to contribute to).

ecksor · 01-01-2004 7:27pm

As for Paul Kurtz, he seems to have written quite a lot about the question of science and religion, and his conclusions mirror yours. I haven't seen him discuss the existence of god, but I haven't searched at length.

I mentioned the book as a possible source of interest on this thread, not as the only thing he has ever done. You might as easily have said that you hope he's a better former and leader of skeptical groups than he is a philosopher.

sextusempiricus · 01-01-2004 7:46pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan

So far the studies carried out by scientists show an orderly universe. All known laws are logical and bereft of magic. If this IS how the universe is then there cannot be areas that are not open to investigation and understanding. If the universe is as simple and straightforward as it seems to be from science then all laws can be deduced. We can therefore know everything about the mechanisms that make things they way they are.

I share with WG the confidence that science offers the best hope of getting to the truth of our questions and solving of our problems. It just won't do however to dismiss philosophical examination of the assumptions that underpin scientific progress. Sceptics surely should ask themselves questions like, 'What makes a good theory?' or 'Is a highly probable theory better science than a much more unlikely but far more daring one?'. These are philosophical not empirical questions. He states that the universe is orderly. As far as I'm aware no 'studies carried out by scientists' have shown this. The 'uniformity of nature' (UN) is an assumption that makes sense of INDUCTIVE reasoning which many (not Popper) would place at the kernel of scientific discovery. For example if I find all the swans in Ireland are white inductive reasoning leads me to claim that ALL swans are white. UN is accepted by the same inductive reasoning i.e. it has always worked to date. But the 'swan theory' foundered on the discovery of black swans ( was it in New Zealand?). What confidence can we have in the hope that the uniformity of nature will hold in the future? David Hume (1711-1776) argued that our confidence in induction is just BLIND FAITH. He was merely a philosopher (who, I suspect, would have found the philosophy/religion coupling WG makes highly amusing) but most sceptics consider him a secular 'patron saint' ( I know its yet another oxymoron). The main point I'm trying to make is that there are non-empirical questions that we can philosophically argue about but which science cannot answer and may indeed determine not just what makes a good theory but whether it makes sense to make any theories at all! For myself I think that we can get closer to the truth (but not have that totality of knowledge that makes sense of everything) and that largely, but perhaps not exclusively, science advances by imaginative ideas and subjecting them to severe criticism. Perhaps this is a scientist's faith (?oxymoron again). I suspect WG has a faith like that too.

PS If you have had a book-token for Christmas an excellent introduction to this subject is 'The Philosophy of Science' by Samir Okasha (2002). This is one of the 'A
Very Short introduction' series. It is short, clearly written, very basic for those of us with no philosophical background, and usefully gives lots of examples from the history of science. Its also cheap.

Despite the theme of this thread I've refrained from using the G-- word. Apologies.

DadaKopf · 01-01-2004 8:00pm

This is worth a read: http://mentalhelp.net/books/books.php?type=de&id=1511. It's a summary of one of the world's leading radical empiricists and philosophers of science. He's very skeptical of the objectivity of scientific models - basically anything that can't be empirically perceived.

His ideas are informed by tiangulating a number of different metaphycical approaches, or stances, to understanding the world, including science and religion.

He develops his ideas not through inventing his own wishywashy foundations - he leaves that up to perception - but through analytic philosophy, i.e. LOGIC.

The fact that he's alive should probably excite williamgrogan. He's alive and well and climbing mountains when he's not lecturing or writing books. And he's got a cool beard.

GuanYin · 03-01-2004 3:45pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
There is a fundamental difference between scientific theories being disproved and the collapse of much of Philosophy. The Scientific theories were disproved by Science and not by Philosophy whereas much of Philosophy was made redundant by Science.

Is there? What about early "scientific" concepts osuch phlogiston luminiferous ether? Its not that long ago that the greatest scientists believed wholeheartedly in such things. The point is surely not that philosophy was made redundant by science but that nothing in science is an unbreakable axiom.

Philosophy doesn't try to tackle things in the way of science, it doesn't look to prove everything else wrong in most cases, but it encourages thinking and asks deep and often important questions.

Science should quetion everything, but it should question itself, a scientist should have the courage to question his own beliefs and not casually dismiss others. Everything is worth investigating.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
My point re philosophy not being able to investigate how the “mind” works because it never tried to understand it from a scientific perspective is valid. In trying to understand how the brain/mind works it is obviously critical that science is done.

I would say that memetics has probably been alot more insightful than you realise. The beain is perhaps alittle like the computer that you descibe in mechanics, but in operation it is nothing like a computer. The brain it seems on current evidence works in separate parallel sections and independant of each other (yes computer have parallel processor but the work synchronously). Brain image scanning has showed that brain activity seems to independently consider a task until a decision is reached and even then the task may be initiated before the conciousness becomes aware of it. This has been shown in studies where volunteers were asked to make certain motions. Brain activity fires in several areas before the consciousness decides to start the process. So our body moves before we offically decide to. This would seem to conflict with our idea of conscious free will, as we may not be in control as we think we are.

One critic likens it to a circus, where a ringmaster oversees all the acts carrying on around him. The ringmaste isn't actually in control of any of the procedings, but he acts as though he is. This seems to be the role or consciousness plays to our brain activity, to put order and structure to the proceedings.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Whether or not they are separate issues is irrelevant. I made the point that to understand the workings of a mind, which philosophy tried to do, that for example you needed to understand genetics and evolution.

But genetics tells you nothing about how the mind works. It tells you about structure, not about how anything actually occurs. There is no gene for emotion. You can say that emotion is the result of an evolutionary process, as is our consciousness but there is no environmental pressure to develop such.

Pseudo-philisophical ideas such as memetics give us a much better insight into how the mind developed than genetics or evolution. Perhaps we developed bigger brains due to an evolutionary arms race or an abundance of NEFA's and language most likely developed from grunts and calls to warn against impending dangers. But the gap between that and shakespeare can't be answered with genetics or evolutionary theory. It would be very narrowminded to think otherwise.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
What our brains are and how they work is very much related to genes and evolution which were discovered by Science.

This simply isn't true on any level but the most simplistic. You have simplified an idea down to a level that makes it a "lie to children". this is the worst sort of science and the sort of thing you see in typical journalism.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Therefore not to know about these matters means not being able to understand the mind. Philosophy was wasting its time on this issue and on most other issues it tackled because the way it went about examining the issues was flawed, it wasn't scientific.

What philosphy? Buddhism says question everything and employs a stong ethos of logic? Lets take a case example of two very different approaches to theology.

Polytheists tended to explain things they observed with intricate stories about gods and mortals interacting. Lightening was the prduct of an angry god etc etc. Monothesist don't have that luxury and historically made a far better attempt to connect evidence. They spotted that lightening was related to changes in weather. Ok, the associated it with a single god, but they made the basic association. These are very different philosophies and one clearly shows reasoning but you woulddismiss them offhand becauseits not the perfect explanation.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
To give an obvious example; Love. Philosophy has discussed this for millennia but it really is all about the selfish genes creating a situation where a man and women co-operate in ensuring the survival of their genes. Love as we know it is only a by-product of these genes.

Oh dear jesus. Ok, explain to me in terms of genetics howlove works?
What is the base pair sequence for the gene that causes love? Go have a look at my earlier point and think for a second about how overly simplistic you are being. NOBODY!, no scientist has any idea how why humans fall in love. They can explain the chemical signalling involved, but they cannot explain the consciousnes associated. You look at life as if it were a serious of machines and its pathetic. there is order, there is chaos, there is structure but life is not the devoid automaton that you imply.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
How minute the differences between a monkey and a human are is irrelevant. It is these very minute differences that make our minds what they are and a monkey’s what it is. One would expect them to be minute as we only separated relatively recently from monkeys.

How about a whale? or a Dog, the genetics aren't that dissimilar and again its not the point. Genetics of brain structure aren'thalf as important as the material available. Genetically mammalian brains are very similar. Its other factors most notably non essential fatty acid availability that makes the difference. The more you use you mis-understanding of genetics to make your points the more you make yourself look foolish.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I said blueprint (data/information) maybe I should have said recipe, blueprint, data, information, coding, formula, wherewithal, etc.. etc………” so as not to give bad example to your students. The point I made would have been the same.

No, again its your complete lack of understanding of what you are referring to. Genes are self referremtial. They don't give you enough details to be a blueprint. They say, stick A and B togetehr to make Unit X. Of course they neglect to discuss timing, temperature, resources etc etc. ther eis far more at work than just genes. As a simple experiment, try isolate DNA from yeast. Crack open the cells, spin it down. Look at all the junk thats left over (nonot junk DNA) You have a soup of ions, proteins and prions in there. Life is comlex, its ordered and despite what you may think, genetics, evolution and science hasn't got al the answers. It can paint a nice theory but its still not far off some some orders of philosophy.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Again not relevant to the point I was making. HOW the genes do their work is interesting but highlighting the detailed mechanism/s does not invalid my point that to understand the brain & its software one needs to do Science. Philosophy thought that it could just “figure out” how the mind worked. This was wrong. To figure out how the mind works and how everything else works you need science and not philosophy.

Read above aout ringmaster etc. Think about memetics. These are bordering closer to philosophy than science. Yet these are what tell us more about how our mind works than genetics or evolution that you cite so strongly. Philosophy has given science abetter insight into how the mind has evolved than science and most cognitive scientist and neuroscientist (and I was at some the New Orleans Neuroscience conference this winter, so I'm well up on it) contributions. Everyone but you seems ok to acknowledge this. Are yo the foremost scientist in the world?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
What about it?
Are you saying that because Richard Dawkins has postulated memes that he is now a philosopher and therefore not a scientist? And if so, so what??

No, I'm saying memetics and such theories are such that canot be investigated "scientifically" much like philosophical ideas. So do you utterly reject them offhand? If not why not? If so, why? I think its ironic, that memetics gives us a good idea as to why humans are taken in by such ridiculous philisophical ideas, but, as a philisophical idea itself, is something that, by your arguement, should be discounted.

GuanYin · 03-01-2004 3:46pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Intelligence must be inheritable as it must be linked to genes otherwise our intelligence couldn’t have increased via evolution. If individuals were born equal and environment was all there was then there would be no selective pressure to improve intelligence. I do not believe that genes are everything when it comes to intelligence or most traits but genes are very important.

The structure to gain what you call intelligence is there, but not the intelligence itself. You don't automatically pass on the sum knowledge or experience to offspring. Nor will offspring learn any problem solving skills without stimulation. Genes play a small role I'll give you but not nearly as important as environment.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
As regards your swipe at “popular science books”, no scientist or for that matter no person can possibly have the time to investigate every branch of knowledge to the level of an expert. So “popular science books” are critical even to experts. If more people read “popular science books” then maybe less people would fall for the con artists that prey on the public.

Who is tryingto be an expert in all areas? You? The limits of popular science books is that they are not current and they often dumb down areas so as to get them across to the lay person. This doesn't lessen their worth but makes them invalid as a source for the sort of arguements you are making, especially if they mis-represent ideas in genetics such as you have.(no offense meant, I'm not tryingto have a go at you, but you are arguing with false information, which is infuriating when you don't realise or accept it).

Originally posted by williamgrogan
There is a fundamental concept in evolution, “the phenotype does not affect the genotype”. Therefore intelligence must be primarily genetic. If it wasn’t then intelligence could not increase as environmental factors could not improve the genotype.

Intelligence isn't classed as a phenotypical trait so that pretty much blows that out of the water doesn't it?

williamgrogan · 03-01-2004 9:20pm

….phlogiston luminiferous ether

Science never proved such things existed. It was theory that was not accepted because it could not be proved. In fact the opposite happened, when experiments were done there was no phlogiston or ether, they were dis-proved. It wasn’t philosophy that dis-proved the ether, it was normal common or garden science.

Studying genetics does tell you how the mind works as does other sciences.

It doesn’t tell you EVERYTHING about how the mind works and that’s not what I said. I did say that you cannot fully understand or probably even begin to understand how the mind works without knowing about how it evolved. This is why Philosophy is lame without Science.

The primary mechanism for evolution is DNA, chromosomes and genes. The brain in which the mind resides is an end product of evolution. Therefore it is hard to believe that it could ever be understood without understanding evolution.

The mind works using the structure that the brain evolved. So evolution was critical for the way the mind works and for how it works, the brain’s limitations & speed, the traits we have, the skills, the lack of skills say in comparison to a computer, the different emphasis on senses between animals (see & hear with us, smell with dogs etc.) are all related to evolution.

Some scientists have even tried to create AI by trying to get programs to evolve.

Oh dear jesus. Ok, explain to me in terms of genetics howlove works?

Firstly I think praying is trying to gain an unfair advantage.

I cannot on a thread fully explain how love works, nor do I know. However, I’ll have a go.

Sex evolved in more primitive species (a billion years ago?)
2 separate creatures had to attract each other for it to work
mutations in genes that produced an advantage evolved that made this more efficient and successful
mechanisms evolved that were coded in the genes that attracted the other sex
when we receive signals that subconsciously tell us that a potential mate has a good prospect of helping spread our genes we have sex with them
we then stay with this mate and help nurture the small bundles of genes (50% of which are ours)

This entire procedure above in humans is known as “Love”.

PS When I told my wife this she wasn’t too happy…………

How about a whale? or a Dog, the genetics aren't that dissimilar and again its not the point. Genetics of brain structure aren'thalf as important as the material available. Genetically mammalian brains are very similar. Its other factors most notably non essential fatty acid availability that makes the difference. The more you use you mis-understanding of genetics to make your points the more you make yourself look foolish.

We separated a lot earlier from the whale and dog than from the other primates. Whales could have had evolved an intelligence equal to ours in “functionality” by a different route in the same way as the eye evolved to solve the same problem in different species. If they had it would be interesting to understand how their minds worked but to understand that we would have to understand their evolution too. Dogs don’t build aeroplanes because their minds cannot build things because they didn’t evolve the software to do so because they didn’t evolve hands. The way our mind works when it imagines building things, planning them and actually building them is related to how we evolved. We wouldn’t have the skills we have and our minds wouldn't work in the way they do unless we evolved the way we did.

The construction & development of the brain and how the mind works is intrinsically interwoven into our genes and the information they carry.

are self referremtial. They don't give you enough details to be a blueprint.

Oh but they do.

I have no difficulty in understanding that the information needed to build a human’s brain is primarily encoded in the genes. It is not encoded in the same way the instructions are in a human produced blueprint on how to make say a house but the “steps” needed to build a brain are there. They got there blindly by evolving.

What “dumb down” popular science books are you referring to? Can you give us an example? I might add, that it has been said that it is more difficult to write a science book for a layman on a complex topic than the original technical work for an expert.

Intelligence isn't classed as a phenotypical trait so that pretty much blows that out of the water doesn't it?

No. I think you are wrong.

I quote from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics

Research in behavioural genetics examines the effects of genotype and environment on a range of phenotypic traits such as anxiety, intelligence, sexual orientation and antisocial behaviour.

Genotype
An individual's genotype is his or her entire complement of DNA.

Phenotype
An individual's phenotype consists of all his or her measurable or observable properties and characteristics aside from his or her genes. These could include characteristics such as hair colour, height and IQ score. Researchers in behavioural genetics often include such diverse traits as marital status, taste in music and religious beliefs as part of the phenotype.

In Summary:

I think that you cannot tell the hard fibrous lignified matter under the bark for the gymnosperms and angiosperms.

Are skepticism and Belief in God mutually exclusive?

Comments