Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Pope says we're obsessed with scientific reality!
Options
Comments
-
Nope, those 'philosophers of science' could waste each others time, and impress themselves no end, I'm not the slightest bit interested in that they have to say.ISAW wrote:But if a group of philosophers who have no religious belief sit around and discuss the philosophy of science and nature of "reality" , a science from which they can derive no morality or ethics then that is somehow "better"?
Simply there's no reason whatsoever involved in Aquinas' work. It, like all theology is the study of and pontification about made up Sky Gods. Done for the sole purpose of making himself look big and clever.Please illuminate my understanding by explaining how the "reason" involved in the work of Thomas Acuqinas for example is so alien to the "reason" of scientists.
At best it's pseudo-intellectual drivel, here a few quotes from wiki:
"Aquinas believed in two types of revelation from God: general revelation and special revelation"
Aquinas believed "that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act."
Aquinas defined the four cardinal virtues as prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude.
Come off it, it's bordering on the ravings of a lunatic, bereft of any reason whatsoever, you'd get a better education studying Star Trek than this rubbish.0 -
ISAW wrote:. You have reacted as some muslims have. But in the case of science it IS like Christianity rooted in western rationality unlike other religions.
Christianity originated in the Middle East last I checked......
As for Religion in general its based on Faith rather than rationality. Religion is hardly rational to be fair. A great man in the sky gave us a book etc. I am not saying this man doesn't exist, but its hardly reasonable, when the proof we have is 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand as best. I do believe in a God, but I don't consider it to be really reasonable and hell I may be deluding myself, but its a comforting one if thats the case.0 -
The external origin is not science. I would suggest that it is something that can be explained without reference to theology.ISAW wrote:the external origin is NOT science. You can call it eithic morality but can not discount theology as a valid study of that external field.
I never cited memetics. I did suggest that morality in a society develops over time. If not then the implication is that morals are fixed and immutable. They would therefore be defined and fixed by theo, or defined and fixed by the physical laws of this universe. In either case one would expect greater consistency, or indeed complete consistency, in the moral codes of societies around the world.ISAW wrote:This is just "meme theory" .
I was referring to the formation of moral principles and ethical guidelines for scientists. With respect to the ethical codes drawn up by a society for scientific work carried out within that society, I don't believe that there is any value in drawing authority for a moral stance from a divine source, revealed or not.ISAW wrote:a false dichotomy i.e. you claim that a "scientific worldview" is opposed to "religious influence" . They are not of necessity opposing.
You posted earlier
Absolutely. Their membership of a society allows them to influence those principles. I just happen to think that when the main or sole argument for a moral principle is divine authority, then it devalues the principle that it seeks to support.ISAW wrote:So isnt it just as valid to suggest that moral principles which guide scientists and society be influenced by believers in God as by non believers in God?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
wes wrote:Christianity originated in the Middle East last I checked......
LOL! Touché!
The point is that it was offered to the Jews but spread quickly (by Paul a roman citizen) into Greece. The classical Greko Roman culture was subsumed by christianity in about two or three centuries.As for Religion in general its based on Faith rather than rationality.
Of course belief is based on faith. But rejecting blind faith without reason is really where the theology would sit.Religion is hardly rational to be fair.
Actually to be fair Thomism is rational and is a basis for empiricism and a host of philosophic developments underpinning modern science.A great man in the sky gave us a book etc.
But one can just as replace the "Great man in the sky" with "cause of the laws of physics" and have scientism instead of religiousity.I am not saying this man doesn't exist, but its hardly reasonable, when the proof we have is 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand as best.
But it is impossible to travel to other universes. Even if we could get evidence for them e.g. worm holes it might still be impossible for instruments to travel through them. But "multiple universes theory" is one way to tackle explainations about breaches in causality. As are superstrings. But any evidence is "2nd 3rd or 4th hand at best". Yet some scientists (whether religious ones or not) swear by them.I do believe in a God, but I don't consider it to be really reasonable and hell I may be deluding myself, but its a comforting one if thats the case.
It is rational and acceptable. Where religions should be held up to scrutiny is where their ethical and moral dictats come into conflict with what we find out. But this ALSO applies to science.0 -
Obni wrote:The external origin is not science. I would suggest that it is something that can be explained without reference to theology.
A valid suggestion. Just as valid as the suggestion that theology IS significant.I never cited memetics. I did suggest that morality in a society develops over time. If not then the implication is that morals are fixed and immutable. They would therefore be defined and fixed by theo, or defined and fixed by the physical laws of this universe. In either case one would expect greater consistency, or indeed complete consistency, in the moral codes of societies around the world.
What you stated:Over countless generations certain behaviours are noted as being beneficial or detrimental to the group as a whole, or at least to the dominant sub-group within the larger group. The lessons learned are distilled into moral codes. The moral code then has the authority that the group as a whole allows the dominant group. If the dominant group claims a divine source for its authority, then the moral codes can also be attributable to the same divine source.
Now genetics would suggest that over generations physical manifestations of DNA in particular circumstances give certain members of a species an advantage and so other members would be likely to decline.
But when you mention that behaviours "are distilled into moreal codes" you are turning to genetics as a causal basis for social development. You also like "dominant" genes with "dominant" group. But the grouping here is a social grouping and not a species.
This is what I was saying about mixing up biological evolution with "social evolution". It is basically memetics.I was referring to the formation of moral principles and ethical guidelines for scientists. With respect to the ethical codes drawn up by a society for scientific work carried out within that society, I don't believe that there is any value in drawing authority for a moral stance from a divine source, revealed or not.
so you dont believe there is a "natural law" ? Natural law can also be secular.
But ANY line of questioning asking continulaay "why" will end up with religion or philosophy i.e. all first principles are philosophical in nature.I just happen to think that when the main or sole argument for a moral principle is divine authority, then it devalues the principle that it seeks to support.0 -
Obni wrote:Where the f*** did that come from?
My comment that secular regimes killed more people? from your comments about "moral authority" and ethics and why appeals to God are not you cup of tea. The alternative to religous codes killed more people than the religious did is all I was saying.Unfortunately, not only do you accurately describe the state of things as they are; the reality is that all too often the religious within society have a far greater influence on the moral principles and ethical guidelines for scientists, than those using a scientific worldview as a basis for there moral and ethical guidelines.
i.e. I was saying what is the problem with religious people (or ethical) influencing society when the alternative (non religious people) caused more death?
Also as I pointed out science has to go outside itself for ethical or moral guidelines. Science cant just develop moral and ethical guidelines from basic scientific principles. This argument applies whether one has faith in God or not. It is a secular humanist argument as well.0 -
I don't understand how there is an anology. How would thinking "cause the laws of physics" work in the same way as thinking there is a supreme being. You couldn't base your life around the laws of physics or derive moral lessons from them which effect your everyday life.But one can just as replace the "Great man in the sky" with "cause of the laws of physics" and have scientism instead of religiousity.
ISAW, no scientists swear by those things. The things they swear by have first hand evidence.ISAW wrote:But it is impossible to travel to other universes. Even if we could get evidence for them e.g. worm holes it might still be impossible for instruments to travel through them. But "multiple universes theory" is one way to tackle explainations about breaches in causality. As are superstrings. But any evidence is "2nd 3rd or 4th hand at best". Yet some scientists (whether religious ones or not) swear by them.0 -
Son Goku wrote:
ISAW, no scientists swear by those things. The things they swear by have first hand evidence.
Really? have you seen an atom first hand? Isnt an atom a theoretical construct? have you seen he 70 per cent of the universe we cant detect dark matter or dark energy. No you havent but cosmologists swear that it must be there!
http://www.mkaku.org/Sub-critical_Closed_String_Field_Theory_in_D_(Less_Than_26).pdf
Do the Tachyons mentioned exist? Is there any first hand evidence?
I happen to believe in Dark Matter. Is it as mysterious as believing in God or should I present you with some theoretical mathematical construct? How about a miracle? But there are those who see miracles and still may not believe them.
My point is that some religion at least has the same rationality underpinning it as science has.
there are a number of ways to look at it.
1. the nature of the universe is discoverable and underpinned by laws.
2. the laws can be discovered
3. the laws CANt be discovered.
4. there are no such laws.
all the above fit with philosophies of western science.
5. God had a hand in creating the universe and in humanity.
6. Human beings are not definable by science alone and need to be left to make their own rules about how they should behave.
These are compatable with religions or humanism. they do not have to contradict 1 through 4. If they do contradict them then that is where a skeptic ( or the rationalist) can step in and show the errors in reason.
another element is that we do not exist only to reason. We are no better than the cave man we have only progressed technology andf knowledge but people are not better then they were thousands of years ago. we are just cave men with guns and computers. This fits with both rational religion and science quite well.0 -
Advertisement
-
That paper is in String Theory, that's the point I'm making. Just because something is in a scientific paper and is being researched at the moment doesn't mean we swear by it, it literally means we don't because the fundamentals are still being explored.Really? have you seen an atom first hand? Isnt an atom a theoretical construct? have you seen he 70 per cent of the universe we cant detect dark matter or dark energy. No you havent but cosmologists swear that it must be there!
http://www.mkaku.org/Sub-critical_Cl...s_Than_26).pdf
Do the Tachyons mentioned exist? Is there any first hand evidence?
A perfect example would be tachyons, nobody swears by them as there is no evidence for them. They're currently a useful idea in Quantum Gravity.
The evidence for the atom is first hand scientific evidence. I can't see them because electromagnetic radiation that I can detect with my optics passes right through them, but the evidence is still concrete and first hand in experimental terms.
Everything in your previous posts aren't things physicists support because they have no experimental evidence, like the atom does.
Also we can detect Dark Matter, I don't know where that comes from.
We swear by the things which have strong first hand-empirical evidence.
What are you talking about? Define clearly what you're saying.Is it as mysterious as believing in God or should I present you with some theoretical mathematical construct? How about a miracle? But there are those who see miracles and still may not believe them.
(I dislike dragging threads off topic like this, but these discussions often contain somebody who misuses physics to prove a point.)0 -
Son Goku wrote:That paper is in String Theory, that's the point I'm making. Just because something is in a scientific paper and is being researched at the moment doesn't mean we swear by it, it literally means we don't because the fundamentals are still being explored.
But Kaku believes in strings:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/99
Not Michio Kaku. One of the world's best-known theoretical physicists, and one of the key players in string theory, he is a professor at the City University of New York. Not only is Kaku 'sold' on string theory - and one of the earliest players in its development - he is also a passionate proselytiser
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spacechat/livechat/michio_kaku.shtmlThe direct proof of superstring theory may lie far in the future,
... We believe that a multiverse of universes exist like bubbles floating in Nothing.
i.e. he believes in something for which theer is no direct proof.A perfect example would be tachyons, nobody swears by them as there is no evidence for them. They're currently a useful idea in Quantum Gravity.
some people indeed some great scientists DO believe in that sort of thing! And they are not necessarily religious.The evidence for the atom is first hand scientific evidence. I can't see them because electromagnetic radiation that I can detect with my optics passes right through them, but the evidence is still concrete and first hand in experimental terms.
No it isnt. You see the Effect which is explained by theoretical constructs. Indeed most peoples (including scientists) model of the atom is not the generally accepted one of scientists actually working in that field.Everything in your previous posts aren't things physicists support because they have no experimental evidence, like the atom does.
Atoms have no first hand evidence. we see secondary effects. we dont see the atoms themselves.Also we can detect Dark Matter, I don't know where that comes from.
Really? where has dark matter been detected? I would suggest we can see effects which could be caused by dark matter. Every time cosmology has wiped out dark matter it raises it head somewhere else. But as it stands it is suggested because we only detect so much matter and there isnt enough. But what about dark energy? where is that when it is at home?We swear by the things which have strong first hand-empirical evidence.
Atoms havent first hand empirical evidence. dark matter and dark energy based on the conjecture that cosmological expansion is at such a rate that more matter is needed to fit the theory.What are you talking about? Define clearly what you're saying.
see the clearly numbered points 1 through 6 above(I dislike dragging threads off topic like this, but these discussions often contain somebody who misuses physics to prove a point.)
If you are saying I am misusing physics to prove a point then please indicate.
A. where i am misusing physics? do you assert this "misuse" is deliberate?
B. what point you think I am proving?.
Above you stated you didnt know what my point was. now you are claiming that I am proving something by deception or with logical fallacy.
this might help. In browsing around on the subject (egged on thanks to your resopnses) I came accross this:
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/~massimo/rationallyspeaking/files/science&religion.pdf
I disagree with slide 13 and 17 and I think things are complicated as slide 16 shows.
I would think of Science and religion as neither being disjoint sets nor an identity.0 -
A man is confident in his research. String Theorists form a vanishingly small fraction of theoretical physicists.ISAW wrote:Kaku
And Theoretical Physicists are a minority of Physicists. This doesn't say anything about the physics community swearing by String Theory.
Who? And not just who has done research on it, or some extreme outlier like Kaku, who has been criticised by other physicists, that you found on google. I mean your average Doctor in a department.some people indeed some great scientists DO believe in that sort of thing! And they are not necessarily religious.
Yes, and? Everything in science is just a theoretical concept which matches evidence. Traces on calibrated devices are considered first hand. For example a mirage/hologram is something your eyes can detect/see, but has no material presence as percieved. What can be detected with our eyes is not first hand in science.No it isnt. You see the Effect which is explained by theoretical constructs. Indeed most peoples (including scientists) model of the atom is not the generally accepted one of scientists actually working in that field.
(Also, I have "seen" one through an electron microscope)
Besides what's your point?
Evidence for atoms and other things physicists "swear by" is far more immediate and several order of magnitudes more solid than evidence for the New Testament, which is what this started with.
This arguement is 20 years old and no longer relevantReally? where has dark matter been detected? I would suggest we can see effects which could be caused by dark matter. Every time cosmology has wiped out dark matter it raises it head somewhere else. But as it stands it is suggested because we only detect so much matter and there isnt enough. But what about dark energy? where is that when it is at home?
Fit what theory? General Relativity already predicts it. The Cosmological expansion has been measured it is emphatically not a conjecture. You have this backwards.Atoms havent first hand empirical evidence. dark matter and dark energy based on the conjecture that cosmological expansion is at such a rate that more matter is needed to fit the theory.
I want to know what this means:see the clearly numbered points 1 through 6 aboveIs it as mysterious as believing in God or should I present you with some theoretical mathematical construct?
Making it appear as if New Testament historicity is comparable to fringe theoretical ideas in physics(specifically ideas that 99.99% of physicists don't swear by) in this text:A. where i am misusing physics? do you assert this "misuse" is deliberate?ISAW wrote:
But it is impossible to travel to other universes. Even if we could get evidence for them e.g. worm holes it might still be impossible for instruments to travel through them. But "multiple universes theory" is one way to tackle explainations about breaches in causality. As are superstrings. But any evidence is "2nd 3rd or 4th hand at best". Yet some scientists (whether religious ones or not) swear by them.I am not saying this man[Jesus] doesn't exist, but its hardly reasonable, when the proof we have is 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand as best.
Something vague about religion being as rational as science/science being as "faithy" as religion, through the use of poor examples and begging the question.what point you think I am proving?
I said I didn't understand one single line, don't play the super-literal game.Above you stated you didnt know what my point was. now you are claiming that I am proving something by deception or with logical fallacy.0 -
I claimed that world renowned scientists, respectable scientists believe in things they cant prove. It is not necessary to prove that most scientists or even some scientists do so! I showed that there was at least one. I am sure it is no bother to find many more but the point is that not all scientists follow the idea that something is only true when shown by direct evidence.Son Goku wrote:A man is confident in his research. String Theorists form a vanishingly small fraction of theoretical physicists.
And Theoretical Physicists are a minority of Physicists. This doesn't say anything about the physics community swearing by String Theory.
In fact one case springs to mind from history. eddingtons? solar eclipse expiriment (1905?) where apparently he "proved" General relativity by the apparent position of a star being "bent" by the Suns gravity. Scintists world wide leapt to say it "proved" Einstein. But it didnt! The measurements were not accurate enough. It was only in the 1950 that gravatational lensing by radio scopes confirmed the result of this technique. But because of the mathematical "beauty " of Einsteing theory people believed it WITHOUT evidence!Who? And not just who has done research on it, or some extreme outlier like Kaku, who has been criticised by other physicists, that you found on google. I mean your average Doctor in a department.
I dont see what you are getting at here. You seem to be asserting that I found someone on google. I knew of Kaku for many years, indeed I think he gave a lecture in Trinity college even before Google was set up. But what is the significance of using the phrase "that you found on Google"? Why did you put that in?
It is fairly much accepted that breakthroughs in science are made by "extreme outliers" causing "paradigm shifts". But because you claim an "extreme outlier" does not represent what MOST scientists do you assert that
1. Whatever "truth" science deals with is only discovered by the rump of scientists
2. What science is is to be judged by the criterion of the "averrage academic scientist" . Really? do scientists award the Nobel prize to such people? What are such prizes for if outstanding achievment in science isnt to be applauded?Yes, and? Everything in science is just a theoretical concept which matches evidence.
no it isnt! I have shown you that some theoretical concepts have no evidence at all! Indeed take the field of exo biology which has absolutley no data Aof direct evidence to work on! Yet is IS a SCIENCE.Traces on calibrated devices are considered first hand. For example a mirage/hologram is something your eyes can detect/see, but has no material presence as percieved. What can be detected with our eyes is not first hand in science.
But a machine that does the same job as they eye IS first hand evidence? And our eyes detect the readings of such a machine? Hmmm...
So you now claim for example that the traces left in a cloud chamber are EVIDENCE of atoms. But the point I made was that you dont really know what atoms photons etc. actually ARE. you have constructs which describe how they should behave and what can be observed as a by product of that behaviour. But like the shodows on socrates cave one might move to a greater level of perception. Quantum theiry quarky theory M strings. But no one knows if these are an ultimate "truth". And they are at a level where we can actaully "see" them.(Also, I have "seen" one through an electron microscope)
this is a good point. so have I! But what I saw was a representation that was left behind on my retina after the act of me observing a phenomon.Besides what's your point?
Evidence for atoms and other things physicists "swear by" is far more immediate and several order of magnitudes more solid than evidence for the New Testament, which is what this started with.
Maybe. But as regards spiritual faith it isnt quantised! One believes ofr doesent. Logic and reason can only progress you so far. After that it may be a little step or a "great leap" of faith but it is Boolean at that level i.e. you believe or you dont!
As regards the NT people believe in somethings Christ said e.g. "blessed are those who do not see yet still believe". Was Christ referring to Kaku? the point is that some scientists believe in things without evidence for them. Indeed we all do. we dont check every time we sit down that the chair is not going to collapse.
Anyway it seems you claim that christians for example should not believe in things they have no direct empirical evidence for. why not make the same claim for scientists? How is it SOME scientists CAN believe in things they have no evidence for?This arguement is 20 years old and no longer relevant
as you are so up to date and I am so out of date please elucidate. what is the evidence for dark matter and dark energy and where before 1986 where that known?Fit what theory? General Relativity already predicts it. The Cosmological expansion has been measured it is emphatically not a conjecture. You have this backwards.
The expansion is measured. But the matter needed to fit with that rate of expansion isnt observed. We dont see it. there is not direct evidence! thats my point. the existance of it is based on conjecture i.e. because the model says there should be Omega and because we only can detect 20 per cent of Omega we say that 70 percent is "stuff we cant detect". You are claiming that a mathematical theory with various possibilities is predicting something for which we have NO DIRECT EVIDENCE other than it musty be there to fit the theory. Isnt this a bit like eddington?I want to know what this means:
QEDMaking it appear as if New Testament historicity is comparable to fringe theoretical ideas in physics(specifically ideas that 99.99% of physicists don't swear by) in this text:
So was Einstein misusing physics when most physicists believed in Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwells equations were sufficient to explain the universe?
You are now claiming that science is what 99,9% of scientists believe. I thought you asserted that science was an objective study and NOt what most scientists believed?
I only picked out Kaku. the point is that scientists believe in things they have no evidence for as part of their science and they are STILL accepted as scientists! You cant have an axiom that ALL science is provable by direct empirical evidence. It isnt! maybe a skeptic sub group of scientists believe this but not all scientists do! that is not to say pseudo science is science. It is to say that religious people may be scientists and believe in things without empirical evidence and scientists can also believe in things without empirical evidence. they may both be rational.Something vague about religion being as rational as science/science being as "faithy" as religion, ...
You fairly much have the idea there. so why ask me what i am trying to say. Chriatianity is rooted in the rational and some scientists believe in things they cant prove.I said I didn't understand one single line, don't play the super-literal game.
Youy claimed I was misusing physics by:
Making it appear as if New Testament historicity is comparable to fringe theoretical ideas in physics
You try to label Kaku as a fringe looney and not a real scientist. He IS a scientist. and I just picked him from the top of my head. What about the doctor who had alternative views on ulsers and was castigated by the medical establishemnt for decades?
How is it "misusing physics" to show that physicists believe in things they do not see? So if a scientist can believe in things he does not see which are part of his science then what is so wrong with someone believing in things they did not see which are not parts of science?
Where is the misuse or dishonesty in that?0 -
this is a weakening of you case. Earlier you stated NO SCIENTIST believe in superstrings spacewarps and other things which cant be shown by empirical evidence.Son Goku wrote:That paper is in String Theory, that's the point I'm making. Just because something is in a scientific paper and is being researched at the moment doesn't mean we swear by it, it literally means we don't because the fundamentals are still being explored.
above you are claiming that MOST (i.e. "we" the accepted authority) scientists do not accept fringe theories.
But
1. By definition a fringe theory is what only a small number have theorised.
2. Your claim that NO scientist believes in somthing which has no empirical evidence has been dropped.
So do you now accept that scientists may believe in things which are part of science and for which no empirical evidence exists?0 -
Son Goku wrote:This doesn't say anything about the physics community swearing by String Theory.
Where did I calim that it does?
I claimed someone can be a scientist and as part of that science believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence. You claimed that there were no such scientists i.e. you definition of science only entertains that for which there is direct empirical evidence.
So is Kaku and others like him NOT a scientist?0 -
Look ISAW, even if your thesis is correct how does it back up evidence for the New Testament?
You know what I mean, there is a difference between being confident in your research and the kind of belief to be found in religion.
You can write prose upon prose, but they are not even remotely the same thing. You're just replacing the word confident with belief, due to the inherent ambiguity of the word belief and then announcing this as some gross feature of science.
Kaku is confident in his research and yes other scientists have called him into question, this is not the same as him being a loon, but he is an extremist in certain ways. However Kaku is an extreme outlier in the way he presents science, not in the way you suggest. He is working on a very mainstream area, Einstein wasn't. He is an extreme outlier in how much he publicizes conjecture, which is not the same kind of outlier Einstein was.
You're using the ambiguity of English to turn everything I say on its head and you can do it faster than I can correct it, so I’m not going to go through your whole post.
However that doesn't change the fact that the rationality in science is bolstered by the fact that there is empirical evidence for what has occurred. This makes it completely different to religion.
That famous lack of "complete metaphysical spring-cleaning" which all human endeavours suffer from isn't enough to make science and religion comparable.0 -
ISAW, seriously you know what I'm saying.ISAW wrote:Where did I calim that it does?
I claimed someone can be a scientist and as part of that science believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence. You claimed that there were no such scientists i.e. you definition of science only entertains that for which there is direct empirical evidence.
So is Kaku and others like him NOT a scientist?
Even though researches may be confident in their work, doesn't mean it is something that the community swears by. It is only sworn by when it has significant evidence.
I said you were misusing physics. I don't understand where this sentence comes from. Einstein's relativity wasn't trusted until long after it was empirically confirmed and rightly so.So was Einstein misusing physics when most physicists believed in Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwells equations were sufficient to explain the universe?
You're confusing something being researched with it being accepted.
This I don't understand, also:this is a weakening of you case. Earlier you stated NO SCIENTIST believe in superstrings spacewarps and other things which cant be shown by empirical evidence.
above you are claiming that MOST (i.e. "we" the accepted authority) scientists do not accept fringe theories.
What do you mean by just stating "QED".QED0 -
Son Goku wrote:Look ISAW, even if your thesis is correct how does it back up evidence for the New Testament?
You know what I mean, there is a difference between being confident in your research and the kind of belief to be found in religion.
You can write prose upon prose, but they are not even remotely the same thing. You're just replacing the word confident with belief, due to the inherent ambiguity of the word belief and then announcing this as some gross feature of science.
i am QUOTING a scientists actual words "WE believe..." referring to himself and other scientists.
where doe sit relate to the current issue? Ill tell you. Scientists can be rational people and yet believe in things for which they have no empirical evidence. [I keep stating "empirical" because i want to stay with the strict skeptics definition of scientific evidence. of course theologists and humanists would claim ther are other forms of evidence but let us leave that aside for the moment]. Now if scientists can be scientists and be rational even when their science has no direct empirical evidence why is it so hard to accept that religious people CANT be rational? My second point is that science is not only the skeptic element of "only that which is empirically measureable" but is other things as well. and that life and civilisation and society goes beyond these things.
It seems we have got to accept my first point . the second point progresses the debate to the thread title about the Pope being obsessed with rationality or "scientific reality". you may well claim "what other reality is there?" in which case we can then introduce the concept of non empirical "evidence" which we left aside earlier.Kaku is confident in his research and yes other scientists have called him into question, this is not the same as him being a loon, but he is an extremist in certain ways.
and nor are theologians or Biblical scholars loons!However Kaku is an extreme outlier in the way he presents science, not in the way you suggest. He is working on a very mainstream area, Einstein wasn't. He is an extreme outlier in how much he publicizes conjecture, which is not the same kind of outlier Einstein was.
You are cvlaiming that it is not his science but his presentation of it which makes Kaku "fringe". but i already addressed this. Fringe or not he is a scientist and he believes in thisgs he cant see. So you claim that no scientist believes in anything he cant see is false!You're using the ambiguity of English to turn everything I say on its head and you can do it faster than I can correct it, so I’m not going to go through your whole post.
I was quite clear about what I said and used mathematics ( a branch of logic and not a science)
I posited that they are neither disjoint nor unity as a set theory would define it.
Please explain how you think I am purposfully distorting you meaning. It seems to me you suggested I was not clear and I clarified things. It isnt much use claiming a clarification is a purposfull distortion. I am only trying to be honest.
If you think scientists should write like robots and not use suggestive language then you are much mistaken for it is in the use of suggestive language and not in strict definition that science progresses. Boyles references to the "springness of the air" is a case in point.
And if you cant type fast enough dont blame me.However that doesn't change the fact that the rationality in science is bolstered by the fact that there is empirical evidence for what has occurred.
Indeed it doesnt. And that is part of the empirical basis for science (to which rational church people and religious philosophers contributed). But it is not the only part of science. And YOU CLAIM was about scientists not believing in things they cant see. But as I pointed out some of they do.This makes it completely different to religion.
But it doesent. christianity ALSO has that rational basis. Indeed the SAME rational basis developed by the SAME philosophers. The areas they differ on are seperate to this.That famous lack of "complete metaphysical spring-cleaning" which all human endeavours suffer from isn't enough to make science and religion comparable.
But I have given you several references (including the presentations from someone who is "anti" religion and wrote for Skeptic Magasine where even he shows the commonality and common history. and I dont mean like pseudo science astrology has a comon history with astronomy. I mean where the rationalle is exactly the same!0 -
Son Goku wrote:ISAW, seriously you know what I'm saying.
Even though researches may be confident in their work, doesn't mean it is something that the community swears by. It is only sworn by when it has significant evidence.
Youo stated NO SCIENTIST could believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence. did you not?I said you were misusing physics. I don't understand where this sentence comes from. Einstein's relativity wasn't trusted until long after it was empirically confirmed and rightly so.
You're confusing something being researched with it being accepted.
Not true! the eclipse experiment went world wide and scientists accepted it as true. It wasnt till decades later (indeed after WWII) that empirical confirmation of gravitational lensing was made!
What do you mean by just stating "QED".
I mean "as already demonstrated" .Look at the paragraph directly above where QED is! The answer is there.0 -
Advertisement
-
ISAW, come on would you quite being so literal.Youo stated NO SCIENTIST could believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence. did you not?
The scientist stated they believed, which means they are confident in the accuracy and empirical correctness of what they are working on, even though it has yet to be confirmed.
I don't understand how a few scientists being confident in what they are doing makes science anything like religion.
My argument isn't with your statement that religion is rational, it was with your use of certain unconfirmed examples of things from high-energy theoretical physics and then using this to demonstrate some sort of similarity between science and religion.
Just because certain scientists are confident these things are real, doesn't mean this confidence is comparable to religious faith or that science is comparable to religion.
For instance I am fairly confident/I believe that P!=NP, even though it hasn't been demonstrated. Yet you could hardly call this similar to believing that Jesus Christ came to Earth and the New Testament is his word.
I am also confident/I believe that there exists well defined QFTs on R^4, but this isn't like believing that if I follow Jesus I will be lead to life everlasting.0 -
Son Goku wrote:ISAW, come on would you quite being so literal.
Nut empiricism is based on definition and being clear about what one means and what is being measured. How many times in this discuaaion have you asked me to be more clear and to clarify myu definition and not be verbose? And now you are asking me not to be rigid in definition?The scientist stated they believed, which means they are confident in the accuracy and empirical correctness of what they are working on, even though it has yet to be confirmed.
i.e. they believe in something for which they have no empirical evidence?
"yet to be confirmed" means "NOT confirmed" i.e. no empirical evidence
So are you chainging you position now and do you now accept that scientists can believe in something which is part of their science for which no empirical evidence exists?I don't understand how a few scientists being confident in what they are doing makes science anything like religion.
I only took Kaku as an example. It isnt a few. But my point is not about how many . My point is a counter example to your assertion that no scientist could believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence and assert it is true and still be a scientist. This is a false assertion.My argument isn't with your statement that religion is rational, it was with your use of certain unconfirmed examples of things from high-energy theoretical physics and then using this to demonstrate some sort of similarity between science and religion.
so you accept religion (well the popes one) is rational?
Do you accept that scientists can believe in things to do with science which have no direct empirical evidence? Do you then accept that christians can believe in things for which they have no empirical evidence and that they can discuss and analyse these beliefs in a rational way?Just because certain scientists are confident these things are real, doesn't mean this confidence is comparable to religious faith or that science is comparable to religion.
Actually it does. Please explain how a scientist can believe in something for which they have no empirical evidence and that this is rational and acceptable but a religious person believing in something for which they can produce no empirical evidence is not rational and unfair.
you are a fringe believer then. Most computer scientists believe that P≠NPFor instance I am fairly confident/I believe that P!=NP, even though it hasn't been demonstrated.Yet you could hardly call this similar to believing that Jesus Christ came to Earth and the New Testament is his word.
You may produce document after document but you cant really proive P=NP can you? And you cant prove that a proof must exist can you?
Furthermore while mathematical constructs may be virtual, superstrings are posited as real entities.
And if christ had the solution to all problems he had the solution to P=NP.I am also confident/I believe that there exists well defined QFTs on R^4, but this isn't like believing that if I follow Jesus I will be lead to life everlasting.
Again dark energy and superstrings are posited as real things not virtual constructs. Scientists that propose things like this believe in them but have no empirical evidence for them. You are adding in beliefs. Believing Jesus existed is one thing. Sayint that that necessitites following him or believing in everlasting life is adding to that.
People that believe Jesus existed may or may not believe he was God or may or may not believe in the Bible but they believe he existed with more "evidence " (including empirical evidence) than superstrings have!
Also, to mix up social standards with absolute measurement scales is not comparing like with like no. But the fact of believing in something for which one has no empirical evidence is common to both.
Also, you are bringing in the idea of values and social mores by talking about following a life like Christ. In doing so you go outside of science and go into "evidence" of a different kind.0 -
!= means not equal to.you are a fringe believer then. Most computer scientists believe that P≠NP
Yes, you can. That was proved in the 80s.And you cant prove that a proof must exist can you?
What ISAW?And if christ had the solution to all problems he had the solution to P=NP.
I'm not even arguing about that.so you accept religion (well the popes one) is rational?
I'm also not arguing about this.Do you then accept that christians can believe in things for which they have no empirical evidence and that they can discuss and analyse these beliefs in a rational way?
There is no strict metaphysical difference, but there is a massive difference in day to day terms.Actually it does. Please explain how a scientist can believe in something for which they have no empirical evidence and that this is rational and acceptable but a religious person believing in something for which they can produce no empirical evidence is not rational and unfair.
Do you genuinly believe, in reality, that my belief that there exists well defined QFTs on R^4 is similar or identical to the belief that if one follows Jesus Christ one will be lead to life everlasting?0 -
ISAW they have confidence in their research. It isn't the same kind of belief. All these things follow from previous very succesful frameworks, they aren't posited out of the blue.Again dark energy and superstrings are posited as real things not virtual constructs. Scientists that propose things like this believe in them but have no empirical evidence for them.
Why are you picking Superstrings, a single current attempt at quantum gravity? Why didn't you pick something like QM, which the entire community swears by. You also seem to think that because something which hasn't been observed appears in a theory paper that people believe in it without any evidence.People that believe Jesus existed may or may not believe he was God or may or may not believe in the Bible but they believe he existed with more "evidence " (including empirical evidence) than superstrings have!0 -
ISAW wrote:when you mention that behaviours "are distilled into moreal codes" you are turning to genetics as a causal basis for social development. You also like "dominant" genes with "dominant" group.ISAW wrote:This is what I was saying about mixing up biological evolution with "social evolution". It is basically memetics.
No, you are again inserting and arguing against assertions concerning genetics, where I have made none. I find rather tenuous evidence of a genetic argument your extraction of the term "dominant" from my post, because it is a term commonly used to describe the traits of the expression of certain genes, even though it was used in a different common usage to describe the upper tier of a social group. Why not isolate the word 'distill' and suggest I'm really arguing that spirits of an alcoholic rather than a supernatural type are the source of moral codes?
I have never suggested that driving force behind the development of moral codes in a society is genetics, acting as an unconscious force to drive human development forward without intention. I used the term 'distill' to imply a conscious agent observing, identifying, and selecting various contructive and destructive behaviours. The attribution of credit to a divine source at some stage of the code's development is incidental and does not reduce the value of the code.
Really? Can't you simply end up at the limit of our scientific understanding and then simply and honestly reply to the next "Why?" that we don't yet know?ISAW wrote:But ANY line of questioning asking continulaay "why" will end up with religion or philosophy i.e. all first principles are philosophical in nature.0 -
Dear, SON GOKU and ISAW.
Enjoyable thread, well argued and well expressed, but in danger of spiralling into infinity.
"belief", "believe", "believing"...
Wittgenstein.
Language games.
Need I say more.....0 -
-
I think a wise man once said
We should have a great fewer disputes in the world if words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things themselves. ~John Locke0 -
Son Goku wrote:Do you genuinly believe, in reality, that my belief that there exists well defined QFTs on R^4 is similar or identical to the belief that if one follows Jesus Christ one will be lead to life everlasting?
But most scientists have beliefs which are not expressed or understood by them in a rigedly formal language like mathematical. My examples were from physics and astronomy which ARE closer to that level of formality.
What about the belief that understanding ion channels is the key to developing a cure for myelin sheath illnessess? Or what about the belief in a gene therapy which can prevent ageing. thats a bit more like "life everlasting" isnt it?
Short answer YES they are similar beliefs . Even in the extreme case when the only thing they have in common is people believe in things without empirical evidence.0 -
Advertisement
-
But the meaning of "belief" has been watered down so far as to be useless in this discussion.ISAW wrote:Short answer YES they are similar beliefs . Even in the extreme case when the only thing they have in common is people believe in things without empirical evidence.
I believe I'll be having pork chops for dinner tomorrow because there are pork chops in the fridge and I'd hate to throw them out. I can't prove it at the moment. Nevertheless, 24 hours will pass and then I'll know if I was right or not. If I'm wrong, no big deal, I just ate something else instead. I can't equate this belief with a religious belief in the afterlife. Same word, different type of belief.
I'm afraid I've forgotten what the original point being argued was. By the way, I liked the John Locke quote, Playboy
0
Advertisement