The Pope says we're obsessed with scientific reality!

ISAW

davros wrote:

But the meaning of "belief" has been watered down so far as to be useless in this discussion.

No. this isnt just a philosophical debate about the idea that there are different "realities" there and we dont understand what is "really real".

It has been done before by Berkley. Matter is therefore a theory without evidence. Since the atheism of Berkeley’s day relied a great deal on materialism, he felt he had laid a knock-out punch!

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/empvsrat.html wrote:

Of course, it’s not just atheists who believe in matter -- nearly everyone does. It’s “common sense.” Dr. Johnson thought he gave the perfect rebuttal to Berkeley’s idea when he kicked a rock as hard as he could: The pain that rock caused him could hardly be denied! But Berkeley would (and did) note that all anyone could know about the rock was its shape, location, color, i.e. information of the senses, including the sense of pain if you are stupid enough to kick it.

Esse est percipi, Berkeley said: To be is to be perceived.

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.


But htis IS the very materialist basis that berkley hammered above. the thing is though that while many skeptics have a certainty about pork chops existing and what they are if one takes a rational empiricist view (i.e. the scientific method and measurement) one has to approach a point when you really dont understand what you are measuring. what are atoms, quarks photons? even einstein couldnt say. They ARE mysterious! At that level is IS a similar type of belief. Including in things we cant see and for which we have no empirical evidence.

also when Wittenstien stated that "philosophy is a consequence of misunderstand language" you have to understand that communication is only a secondary element of language. the main element is thinking internally or philosophy. In that sense he focused on philosoply from this internal language perspective. totally different to using words to communicate.

Roland Barths talks about significance signifier and sign. Words are signposts which point to a concept. The word "atom" and the concept are two different things. And NOW you are into the "how do I know my concept is the same as yours" realm. I was not going there. We may believe that atoms are there even if we dont know what they "really" are. We may also posit dark energy. But I might not believe it dark energy and think their is a rational explaination which can be found from what we already have measured. Just as you might believe there is no God and siience has the tools to explain what we used God for.

So while a pork chop universe is reasonable to conceive, what pork is actually made of isnt all as simple as Johnson's rock.

I'm afraid I've forgotten what the original point being argued was. By the way, I liked the John Locke quote, Playboy

Well i think we went from the pope attacking relativism to the suggestion that empiricism weas not everything, to the fact that people really dont "know" what they think is so certain to scientists believing in mysterious things for which they have no empirical evidence.

Son Goku

At that level is IS a similar type of belief.

Explain how it is similar, aside from very strict metaphysical standards.

We may also posit dark energy. But I might not believe it dark energy and think their is a rational explaination which can be found from what we already have measured. Just as you might believe there is no God and siience has the tools to explain what we used God for.

There is one huge difference. Even if you don't "get" what a quark is, QCD makes verifiable and verified predictions. You may posit that it isn't Dark Energy at work in cosmology, but such theories are demonstratably false.

That lack of personal freedom is a very big difference.

Science and Religion are only similar if you go to the extreme that even believing your chair is there is similar to religious belief.

In terms of practice, operation and even the kind of reasoning involved they are totally different.

Let's say a quark isn't real, that it's only a mathematical entity required to produce results which match experiment. A quark still has nothing in common in transubstantiation. There is pressure on a quark to conform to reality, it has to be the "most real" unreal thing it can be.

Son Goku

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.

I my opinion this is far too strict. Both of the things above are based on theories that have gone before and shown to hold true. There is something to work with. Besides, again, it's really that those researchers have confidence that the treatments above will work.

If that is similar to a religious belief then everything we ever think or do is a religious belief. Even accepting the existence of others. Again this is only true is you're being very strictly metaphysical. If you are then that's fine, but make that qualification.

robindch

Back on topic briefly:

The pope has said (I think), that by believing only in "artificial intelligence", scientists might fall into the sea and drown. He also suspects that:

Contemporary life gives pride of place to an artificial intelligence ever more enslaved to experimental tecnhiques, thereby forgetting that all science should safeguard mankind and promote his tendency to authentic goodness.

What on earth is he talking about? Is he saying that people shouldn't be impartial when researching gene therapies? Or that people should bear in mind the moral implications of the Higgs boson when working at the LHC?

I can't even understand what he thinks he's slagging off.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

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.

Because scientists tend to base their theoretical models, of something like string theory, within the current model of known universe.

Religious people tend to just imagine things that have no connection to the current scientific model of the universe at all, in fact they tend to contradict large parts of it.

For example, Jesus rising from the dead contradicts pretty much every biological model in existence.

If a scientist presented a new theory that for it to be correct requires that all other scientific theorys be nullfied (Creationists do this all the time) he would not be taken seriously. At all. Instead of thinking everyone else is wrong and he is right, the scientific community would more likely think he was wrong.

Myksyk

ISAW wrote:

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.

This doesn't sound logical to me. Surely one (believing that gene therapy may hold the key in a particualr area) refers to the appropriate hypothesising of a scientist based on prior/current knowledge. The other refers to a conviction based on prior belief. The use of the word belief in each context is entirely different.

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

Explain how it is similar, aside from very strict metaphysical standards.

they both may be belief in something for which the believer can produce no empirical evidence.

There is one huge difference. Even if you don't "get" what a quark is, QCD makes verifiable and verified predictions. You may posit that it isn't Dark Energy at work in cosmology, but such theories are demonstratably false.

And belief in god makes predictions also. Even if one does not understand what God is one can predict that moving away from what is good causes damage to individuals and society.

Science and Religion are only similar if you go to the extreme that even believing your chair is there is similar to religious belief.

I have dealt with that already. I am not suggesting the unfalsifable Berklean thesis that reality is only perception. I am not suggetin that! REal things can be thought of as being there. One does not have to say that they only exist because a mind perceives them.

In terms of practice, operation and even the kind of reasoning involved they are totally different.

This brings me back to the Pope. Science is based on western rationality based in turn on the Greek reasoning. Thomism also is.

Let's say a quark isn't real, that it's only a mathematical entity required to produce results which match experiment. A quark still has nothing in common in transubstantiation. There is pressure on a quark to conform to reality, it has to be the "most real" unreal thing it can be.

Do you believe sub atomic particles can suddenly change from one state to another or come into existance out of nowhere? Would you think it is rational to suggest that for a miracle to happen that the alternative explanation to a miracle has to be more improbable than the miracle itself?

Son Goku

This brings me back to the Pope. Science is based on western rationality based in turn on the Greek reasoning. Thomism also is.

This is very generic though. (Bare in mind that I am not saying religion is irrational.)
Thomism and Science are both based on Greek reasoning if you trace them back far enough, but how this this make a paper in theology similar to a paper in science. There are very different aims and modes of thought involved.

they both may be belief in something for which the believer can produce no empirical evidence.

That's just the statement that "some scientists in the very advanced areas of science have unwarrented confidence in what they are doing". How is this a similarity between science and religion. It's just a superficial similarity.

And belief in god makes predictions also. Even if one does not understand what God is one can predict that moving away from what is good causes damage to individuals and society.

So the existence of God or the validity of a certain religion can be experimentally tested?

Do you believe sub atomic particles can suddenly change from one state to another or come into existance out of nowhere?

Yes to the former, no to the latter.

Would you think it is rational to suggest that for a miracle to happen that the alternative explanation to a miracle has to be more improbable than the miracle itself?

Explain this more clearly.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

Back on topic briefly:

The pope has said (I think), that by believing only in "artificial intelligence", scientists might fall into the sea and drown. He also suspects that:What on earth is he talking about? Is he saying that people shouldn't be impartial when researching gene therapies? Or that people should bear in mind the moral implications of the Higgs boson when working at the LHC?

I can't even understand what he thinks he's slagging off.

Ill have a stab at that.
Contemporary life gives pride of place to an artificial intelligence ever more enslaved to experimental tecnhiques, thereby forgetting that all science should safeguard mankind and promote his tendency to authentic goodness.
I think that one element is that science has ethics attached to it which are not part of science. All science has that. One may be impartial when investigating gene therapies or even when working our equations in atomic physics. But if the gene therapy is usable to say give all black people AIDS or if the physics can be engineered to produce a weapon of mass destruction then it isnt really enough to say "I only produced the paper that showed how to do it". so in a sence yes all scientists just like everyone else cant put science before morality. after all would you really like to live in a scientocracy?

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

This is very generic though. (Bare in mind that I am not saying religion is irrational.)
Thomism and Science are both based on Greek reasoning if you trace them back far enough, but how this this make a paper in theology similar to a paper in science. There are very different aims and modes of thought involved.

But now you are moving outside science if the "aim" is not defined within science. There is a difference between the "aim" or title of a paper and the "aim" of science. The latter is a meta subject not necessarily subject to he mechanistic or theoretical rigours of science.

That's just the statement that "some scientists in the very advanced areas of science have unwarrented confidence in what they are doing". How is this a similarity between science and religion. It's just a superficial similarity.

there is a myth that all science is about something being verifgiable or falsifable. The point is that some science does not fall into Wheelers catagorisation. Unwarranted unsupported and unjustifiable assertions are made by some scientists. It isnt all cosy and certain.

So the existence of God or the validity of a certain religion can be experimentally tested?

More like the certainty of at least some science cant be falsified no more than than the certainty of God can.

[/QUOTE]

pH

ISAW wrote:

there is a myth that all science is about something being verifgiable or falsifable. The point is that some science does not fall into Wheelers catagorisation. Unwarranted unsupported and unjustifiable assertions are made by some scientists. It isnt all cosy and certain.

Scientists are human, and not everything a scientist does is science. A scientist eating his cornflakes in the morning is not doing science, nor is he breakfasting in a scientific manner.

A human being (who at some stage in his life has been a 'scientist') is not somehow anointed, they can do and say anything they choose, believe anything they want - explain how this has any relevance to 'Science'.

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

Explain this more clearly.

it is i believe a standard criterion for judging a miracle i.e. that the alternative is even more improbable. in fact it is a form of Occam's razor.

when I stated wheeler I was thinking of wheeler but meant Popper.The philosophy of science has moved on from the logical positivists "verifiability" and even from Poppers "falsifability" Lakatos, Kuhn, fyerabend point to things not being all so certain as is claimed science is. The Popperian criterion itself is not falsifiabile.

Kuhn pointed to sociological factors, rather than a strict logically obligatory method as deciding which scientific theory is accepted

fyerabend claimes if there is indeed one is universally valid methodological rule, "anything goes" would be the only candidate. In Feyerabends universe, any special status for science relates to the social and physical value of the results of science rather than its method.

Astrology makes falsifiable predictions every day in the newspapers yet few would argue this makes it scientific.

ISAW

pH wrote:

Scientists are human, and not everything a scientist does is science. A scientist eating his cornflakes in the morning is not doing science, nor is he breakfasting in a scientific manner.

A human being (who at some stage in his life has been a 'scientist') is not somehow anointed, they can do and say anything they choose, believe anything they want - explain how this has any relevance to 'Science'.

But im talking here not about what they do as a person outside of doing science but what they do as scientists. I am also saying that the two are linked, one is not a person who is open to do and say anything they chose one minute and then suddenly the next minute another person who is in a cosy rigidly defined world of science in which they speak "ex cathedra".

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

But now you are moving outside science if the "aim" is not defined within science. There is a difference between the "aim" or title of a paper and the "aim" of science. The latter is a meta subject not necessarily subject to he mechanistic or theoretical rigours of science.

What do you mean "if the aim is outside science"?
A theology paper and a science paper are both written in very different ways with different goals in mind and the kind of reasoning used is quite different.
This makes science and theology very different on a functional level, which is the most important level to science.
Arguing that a QFT is renormalisable is nothing like arguing about what a biblical verse means.

there is a myth that all science is about something being verifiable or falsifiable. The point is that some science does not fall into Wheelers categorisation. Unwarranted unsupported and unjustifiable assertions are made by some scientists. It isn’t all cosy and certain.

Still, how does this make science and religion similar?
The fact that some scientists say stuff that has no support occasionally is a very weak basis on which to claim the two are similar. Also unverifiable and unfalsifiable statements form a vanishingly small amount of scientific statements, so it would be difficult to use them to state something about science in general.

More like the certainty of at least some science cant be falsified no more than than the certainty of God can.

Even so, such stuff is very rare and not investigated anyway. Can you give me an example of some of this stuff that can't be falsified?
Besides you actually said:

And belief in god makes predictions also.

Surely then it could be tested?

Gibs

It's been weeks now, with still no news and the suspense is killing me - Davros, did you have those pork chops or what? How were they? :rolleyes:

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

What do you mean "if the aim is outside science"?
A theology paper and a science paper are both written in very different ways with different goals in mind and the kind of reasoning used is quite different.
This makes science and theology very different on a functional level, which is the most important level to science.
Arguing that a QFT is renormalisable is nothing like arguing about what a biblical verse means.

The Atomic Bomb was developed from the Theory of Physics. Making atomic bombs and WMD all requires the input of scientists. Scientists can describe "yields" and "collatteral damage". the existance of such weapons is wholly dependant on scientists. But it is NOT for science to decide based on ANY "scientific" principle or theory whether such weapons should be created or used! THat lies outside science.

Still, how does this make science and religion similar?
The fact that some scientists say stuff that has no support

It does have support! I just doesnt have empicically verifiable evidence.

...occasionally is a very weak basis on which to claim the two are similar. Also unverifiable and unfalsifiable statements form a vanishingly small amount of scientific statements, so it would be difficult to use them to state something about science in general.

What is science then? a load of nebulous statements? Isnt there some philosophy underpinning science a a unitary endeavour? What is "science in general"? What is this general science that has no definition and cant be put to a test? Is it science at all?

Even so, such stuff is very rare and not investigated anyway. Can you give me an example of some of this stuff that can't be falsified?

i already did! Wormholes;alternative universes; superstrings.

Indeed in the past scientists talked of the springiness of the air. The language used by scientists is not definite and uses a lot of "it seems like" or "it could be that" just like the language of philosophers and theologians. It is from such uncommitted language that theories appear. the rigid definition only comes later. do I really mean "only" here? I probably do!

Besides you actually said:

Surely then it could be tested?

Surley WHAT could be tested?

davros

Gibs wrote:

It's been weeks now, with still no news and the suspense is killing me - Davros, did you have those pork chops or what? How were they? :rolleyes:

Yes, thanks for asking It turns out my belief was quite justified as the chops were indeed consumed with a little apple sauce on the side.

Some philosopher may now challenge me on my knowledge of the experience or the experience of knowledge or something but I'm going to go with Samuel Johnson on this one and "refute it thus" with a tasty piece of slow-fried chop on the end of a fork.

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

The Atomic Bomb was developed from the Theory of Physics. Making atomic bombs and WMD all requires the input of scientists. Scientists can describe "yields" and "collatteral damage". the existance of such weapons is wholly dependant on scientists. But it is NOT for science to decide based on ANY "scientific" principle or theory whether such weapons should be created or used! THat lies outside science.

Yeah, but what has this got to do with a science paper being like a theology paper? If you ever heard of John Polkinghorne, a viccar and a particle physicist, he said that the kind of thinking involved when writing an article on a theological subject was very different to when he wrote about the standard model.
Science can't decide whether weapons can't be used, but how does this make it more similar to religion.

What is science then? a load of nebulous statements? Isnt there some philosophy underpinning science a a unitary endeavour? What is "science in general"? What is this general science that has no definition and cant be put to a test? Is it science at all?

I said some scientific statements made by some scientists may have no support, I don't see why we have to go into what is science?

May I ask, do you think science and religion have these similarities on the philosophical/metaphysical level, but not the practical. I think we may be talking past each other, because all I'm talking about is that when one "does" science it is very different form "doing" religion. I'm speaking at the practical level.

i already did! Wormholes;alternative universes; superstrings.

Wormholes can be falsified by the lack of violent Kerr metrics in our universe, superstrings can be falsified by no observing supersymmtry.
Now alternate universes, how much scientists out of the grand total of scientists actually have this as a research topic. Believe it or not, nobody researches alternate universes.

Indeed in the past scientists talked of the springiness of the air. The language used by scientists is not definite and uses a lot of "it seems like" or "it could be that" just like the language of philosophers and theologians. It is from such uncommitted language that theories appear. the rigid definition only comes later. do I really mean "only" here? I probably do!

Yeah, but thats acedemic language in general. Again I don't see how any of your arguements single out science. For instance philology is just as much like religion as science is by these standards.
Also, it is more an arguement for how acedemic theology is like theoretical papers in physics, than how religion is like science.

Surley WHAT could be tested?

A belief in God, since in makes predicitions, you were the one who said it.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

But im talking here not about what they do as a person outside of doing science but what they do as scientists. I am also saying that the two are linked, one is not a person who is open to do and say anything they chose one minute and then suddenly the next minute another person who is in a cosy rigidly defined world of science in which they speak "ex cathedra".

You are viewing "science" like a religion, ie a collection of elders who proclaim their views as the dogma of the religion

Science is nothing like that. Who a scientist is has no bearing on if what they say is valid, and vice versa. If a scientists gets up and proclaims he has discovered something it is largely irrelivent who he is or what he has done. The validity of the theory he proposes is determined by the theory itself, not by who said it. Stephen Hawkings can be as right or wrong as a PhD student in South Africa.

This is completely the opposite to religion, where if I stand up and claim God has told me something this carries no weight what so ever, but if the a priest, or the Pope, does the same thing, with the same message, it is given significant weight. The message has no validity on its own, it only is given validity by the person who speaks it. And more importantly if I say the Pope is wrong this holds no weight because he is the Pope and I'm nothing.

You could not have picked a more striking difference between science and religion.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

You are viewing "science" like a religion, ie a collection of elders who proclaim their views as the dogma of the religion

i never stated that! I stated that what a scientist does (as a scientist) is related to what science is. But what he does as a scientist is also related to what he does (or does not do) as a person.

Science is nothing like that.

Funny the last time I spoke to Geffory Burbridge he didnt think that way. He is an athiest by the way.

Who a scientist is has no bearing on if what they say is valid, and vice versa. If a scientists gets up and proclaims he has discovered something it is largely irrelivent who he is or what he has done. The validity of the theory he proposes is determined by the theory itself, not by who said it. Stephen Hawkings can be as right or wrong as a PhD student in South Africa.

and when George Smoot says he saw the "face of God" it made no difference to the academic community?

This is completely the opposite to religion, where if I stand up and claim God has told me something this carries no weight what so ever, but if the a priest, or the Pope, does the same thing, with the same message, it is given significant weight.

A rather naive realist perception of science if i may be so bold to suggest.

The message has no validity on its own, it only is given validity by the person who speaks it. And more importantly if I say the Pope is wrong this holds no weight because he is the Pope and I'm nothing.

Actually tehology would suggest that a Pope can be wrong. even the Bible shows where Peter the first Pope was wrong!

You could not have picked a more striking difference between science and religion.

You have suggested that "science" is some concrete objective coherent system. Are you as sure of that as people are about the existance of God?
You are sure that only internal to sicence and not going outside into politics or personal beliefs that all science is capable of being seperated from society and is concrete and does not change dependent on context?

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

Even if one does not understand what God is one can predict that moving away from what is good causes damage to individuals and society.

But one can form the same prediction without the need for a God. Thus, the prediction you offer as an example has nothing specifically or exclusively to do with religion.

If there is no God, then societal dynamics can still function in the same way that they do if God does exist. Indeed, there is no aspect of societal dynamics or anything else which can demonstrably be shown to be only possible if there is a God.

Thus, the impact of actions on societal dymanics or anythnig else for that matter is independant of the existence of God, and thus religion is not making testable, falsifiable predictions at all.

Astrology makes falsifiable predictions every day in the newspapers yet few would argue this makes it scientific.

Astrology makes falsifiable predictions, yes. Those predictions have been shown to be sufficiently often incorrect that Astrology can be discarded as a valid scientific theory.

There is a distinction between scientific methodology and scientific theory. The methodology requires falsifiable preduictions. The theory is built from the hypotheses which have been sufficiently verified that we can say with reasonable surity that they are not false.

As a parallel, consider that ISO9001 is often considered as a high benchmark of quality. However, you can build a concrete parachute that will kill anyone who will try using it and still be in accordance with ISO9001. All it is is a measure of the quality of your methodology, not your final product.

Astrology can be evaluated using scientific methodology. It fails.

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

More like the certainty of at least some science cant be falsified no more than than the certainty of God can.
...
i already did! Wormholes;alternative universes; superstrings

None of these examples are considered to have been verified by science. They are very much works in progress which may or may not be correct, and which will not be accepted as being correct until such times as we have formed and tested falsifiable predictions which are dependant on these ideas being correct.

So the "certainty" you refer to doesn't exist. Science acknowledges that such things may exist, and indeed should exist if certain conditions are true. We have yet to establish that they do exist, nor that they don't.

So while its correct to say that at the moment they can be no more falsified then God, it will also be correct to say that we will either get to the point where falsifiable tests will be found to evaluate against them, or they will be ultimately discarded as "non-science".

Indeed, many already argue that Superstring Theory is a mathematical field rather than a scientific one, and that at best it could be described as scientific conjecture rather than scientific theory. The same applies for the various multiverse ideas.

@Son Goku

I know this is OT, but doesn't Hawking Radiation require the creation of subatomic particles "from nothing" ?

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

isaw wrote:

...Wormholes;alternative universes; superstrings

None of these examples are considered to have been verified by science. They are very much works in progress which may or may not be correct, and which will not be accepted as being correct until such times as we have formed and tested falsifiable predictions which are dependant on these ideas being correct.

So what? Neither is the Higges Bozon but CERN is spending BILLIONS of Euro's on the LHC. Nor were quarks or the W or Z but that didnt stop them spending billions more on the LEP. Are you sueegsting that because they have not been falsified they can't be scientific? Many thought experiments were not capable of being carried out. some still are not e.g. travelling to other solar systems and finding life. that does not mean xenobiology is nit science does it? Or "relativity" or "evolution" or other "theories"?

So the "certainty" you refer to doesn't exist. Science acknowledges that such things may exist, and indeed should exist if certain conditions are true. We have yet to establish that they do exist, nor that they don't.

But according to falsifability there should be a test which can show any theory is NOT true! Otherwise it isnt science! I have pointed to exampkles which ARE science and also suggested that falsifability is not falsifable.

So while its correct to say that at the moment they can be no more falsified then God, it will also be correct to say that we will either get to the point where falsifiable tests will be found to evaluate against them, or they will be ultimately discarded as "non-science".

isn't that a bit like saying "we will all know whether there is an afterlife after we die"?

And "falsifability" is NOT about that there MAY BE a test it is that for one to provide a SCIENTIFIC theory one MUST supply a test of falsifability with it.

Indeed, many already argue that Superstring Theory is a mathematical field rather than a scientific one, and that at best it could be described as scientific conjecture rather than scientific theory.

If mathematics is not science. Some would suggest it is. Others would suggest it is only a formalised language or logic tool which assists us.

The same applies for the various multiverse ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation along with the other decoherent interpretations and the Copenhagen interpretation.


don't forget the copenhagen interpretation is just that - an INTERPRETATION. Yet we have the silicon chip!

@Son Goku

I know this is OT, but doesn't Hawking Radiation require the creation of subatomic particles "from nothing" ?

Electron-positron pair production and quantum vacuums do not require black holes to exist. so he was using something which does not require black holes in the new context of something near the event horizon in a black hole.
And Hawking said "let there be electromagnetic radiation" and there was light.

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

But one can form the same prediction without the need for a God. Thus, the prediction you offer as an example has nothing specifically or exclusively to do with religion.

Which is why I pointed to the fact that "natural law" is something which is attributed to religious belief but is also humanist and secular belief. Religion is not essential. But science being informed from "outside" is essential. By "outside" I mean that one philosophy of science suggests science is a coherent system which may be complete and if it isn't is capable of being complete and is totally consistent and can explain everything. "ouside" of science are things like religion, values, ethics. some science suggests that even these can be explained by random molocular movements in the brain on memes and things like that but this is not proven and is pushing the envelope.

The point I am trying to get at is about scientism. How is it any better than religious fundamentalism?

If there is no God, then societal dynamics can still function in the same way that they do if God does exist.

But this assumes that "societal dynamics" is a field within science. It also aassumes that using such a definition that God is unnecessary or irrelevant.

Indeed, there is no aspect of societal dynamics or anything else which can demonstrably be shown to be only possible if there is a God.

Whatever "societal dynamics" may be, such a demonstration would be a proof of God, and, according to douglas Adams God would "disappear in a puff of logic."

But the argument I am making isnt one about necessity of God but about the fact that science isnt all encompassing. And if one claims it is then one has arrived at scientism. How is that any better than religious fundamentalism? furthermore there is ample argument from the philosophy of science that thisgs are not so certian;that science is not oobjective; that politics is part of science etc.

Thus, the impact of actions on societal dymanics or anythnig else for that matter is independant of the existence of God, and thus religion is not making testable, falsifiable predictions at all.

I thjought I got past the "falsifability" criterion when I stated that Poppers criterion does not stand up to falsifiability. Like the Logical Positivists it swallows its own tail.

Astrology makes falsifiable predictions, yes. Those predictions have been shown to be sufficiently often incorrect that Astrology can be discarded as a valid scientific theory.

One point being made was that science makes perdictions. I just pointed to the fact that so does non science or pseudo science like astrology. Making predictions is not sufficient for it to be science. Plainly non scientific stufflike astrology and other bunkum is touted as science and couched in scientific terminology. But it isnt fair to lump CAM astrology parapsychology etc. into the sdsame camp as theology.

Another point I was making is about the other extreme a scientism like following of Popper's falsifyability criterion i.e. "to be a scientific theory it must be measurable and a test to falsify it has to be available".

There is a distinction between scientific methodology and scientific theory. The methodology requires falsifiable preduictions.

Under Popper's philosophy it does. But as I have suggested something can still be scientific and not be even measurable e.g. Alternate Universes. These are used to support theory about causality. Bohm (I think) had a lot of philosophy about causailiy and remained a respected physicist. Kaku the same.

I accept the point in general about the scientific method and falsifability but neither are are absolute axioms when put under scrutiny.

The theory is built from the hypotheses which have been sufficiently verified that we can say with reasonable surity that they are not false.

But Popper's theory is not that science verifies but that one puts up a hypothesis capable of being tested so that the test is capable of showing which shows the theory MUST BE wrong! thats falsifability!

And what is "verification"? Someone could say that based on their experience of the world and on other peoples experience that they are reasonable sure that there is more to people than just physical matter. Others say they are reasonably sure there is only physical matter. Others claim there is evidence to suggest that the vast majority is not made up of physical matter.

As a parallel, consider that ISO9001 is often considered as a high benchmark of quality. However, you can build a concrete parachute that will kill anyone who will try using it and still be in accordance with ISO9001. All it is is a measure of the quality of your methodology, not your final product.

which is related to why I pointed to values from outside science and the example of making an atomic bomb according to sound theory and practice. In your parachute example one might question the motivation of creating a "parachute" which does nothing the generally accepted functioning parachute is meant to do. In the case of the A Bomb it did exactly what was written on the "Little Boy/Fat Man" tin!

Astrology can be evaluated using scientific methodology. It fails.

Yes. But my point was that it makes predictions and that making predictions alone is not science.

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

So what? Neither is the Higges Bozon but CERN is spending BILLIONS of Euro's on the LHC.

Why is it spending the money on teh LHC? Because it will give it the ability to test additional falsifiable predictions.

There is a distinction between saying "falsifiable, if we can put the technology in place" (as is the case with the stuff you mention here) and "might be falsifiable, but we can't even theorise how", which is the case with your aforementioned wormholes, supertstrings and multiverses)

Are you sueegsting that because they have not been falsified they can't be scientific?

I'm suggesting that something which isn't even theoretically falsifiable is different from something which is theoretically falsifiable, but which cannot be currently tested.

I find it curious that your initial examples all fell into one of these classifications (not theoretically falsifiable), but your outrage at my response all fall into the other (theroetically but not practically falsifiable). Its almost as if you knew about this distinction. Uncanny.

Many thought experiments were not capable of being carried out.

At present. You forgot to say they're not capable of being carried otu at present. Thats the distinction.

some still are not e.g. travelling to other solar systems and finding life.

But we can clearly define the necessary test. You've just done so. But how can we falsify string theory? We can't. We don't have the first idea how to. Its not just a case that its not doable now, its a case that we don't know how we could do it at all. Thats not to say that its not falsifiable either, mind. Its to say that at this point in time we cannot even formulate a theoretical[/]i test which if realised would allus to falsifiably test.

But according to falsifability there should be a test which can show any theory is NOT true! Otherwise it isnt science! I have pointed to exampkles which ARE science and also suggested that falsifability is not falsifable.

Huh? TYou;ve lost me. You quotes this as a response where I was criticising your use of the word "certainty" with relation to superstring theory, wormholes and parallel univserses. The point I was making is that you were incorrect to use the word "certainty".

If you want to argue that we shouldn't refer to them as theories, I'd agree. They're not theories. They're conjectures. But all this shows is that some stuff in science is misnamed and that it can sometimes be misleading.

Strangely, precision in the english language is one of the things most lacking in science at times. We see Theories called Laws, even when we know they're not. We see conjectures called theories, again when we know they're not. Time and time again, we hear scientists and non-scientists talk about "proof", even though we know a theory cannot by definition be proven.

isn't that a bit like saying "we will all know whether there is an afterlife after we die"?

No. Its not. There is no test that will allow us to accept that at some point in the future, nor is there any reason to believe that it will be abandoned as an idea because we can't test it.

How you make it to be the same as something which will stand or fall on whether we can - in time - formulate a falsifiable test for it is, frankly, beyond me.

And "falsifability" is NOT about that there MAY BE a test it is that for one to provide a SCIENTIFIC theory one MUST supply a test of falsifability with it.

Yes, but that mean that it must be possible to carry out the test today, merely that one can define the necessary test.

When Einstein formulated his General Theory of Relativity in 1913, he was able to say how to test it. It wasn't tested until 6 years later. The ability to test without being dependant on a solar eclipse didn't arrive until some time later.

By your logic, this would suggest that it started off as "not falsifiable" and therefore not scientific. Then, for a few short minutes in 1919, it was indeed falsifiable, and for those few short minutes was scientific, only to lapse back into non-scientificness straight away as the ability to falsify no longer existed (until 1922 - the next eclipse - if memory serves).

By my logic, it was scientific from the start, as the test could be formulated from the start. That the test couldn't be carried out meant only that it couldn't be evaluated. Naturally, until it was evaluated, many were not willing to accept it. Once it was, many were still not willing to accept it on the basis of a single test. Once it had been verified repeatedly, all but the most irrational or obstinate had accepted it. However, throughout all of this, it was always falsifiable....just not always testably falsifiable.

If mathematics is not science. Some would suggest it is. Others would suggest it is only a formalised language or logic tool which assists us.

Some suggest Creationism or Intelligent Design are sciences. They're wrong.
Some suggest the earth is flat. They're wrong.

Just because some people want to believe something doesn't make it so.

The some who suggest mathematics is a science are wrong too. Its not a science. There's no if about it.

MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy.

Hypothesis, eh?

Also from wikipedia :

The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis.

How can you test this hypothesis of yours?

I would put it to you that the difficulty arising here is that you've taken an interpretation, mislabelled it as a hypothesis, and now expect me to deal with it in its mislabelled state.

It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation along with the other decoherent interpretations and the Copenhagen interpretation.

don't forget the copenhagen interpretation is just that - an INTERPRETATION.

A moment ago you mislabelled an interpretation as a hypothesis. Now you're stressing that they're interpretations. Care to elaborate on what an interpretation actually is, and why this is or is not problematic. rather than just throwing these words around CAPITALISED as though it makes them more significant?

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

Which is why I pointed to the fact that "natural law" is something which is attributed to religious belief but is also humanist and secular belief.

Again you go off on tangents.

You claimed a belief in God makes predictions. As an example, you mentioned your "moving away from good == bad for society". I was pointing out that this is not a predictio based on a belief in God. Its a test which is independant of the existence of God or not, and independant of ones belief in God.

But science being informed from "outside" is essential.
...
"ouside" of science are things like religion, values, ethics.

I disagree. Science is independant of these things. The quality of work carried out by scientists may be dependant on them, but thats seperate. Whether or not our model of gravity is a good model of gravity is entirely independant of whether those who formulated it were religious, what they held as their values, or what their ethics were. They could be mysogenistic thieving atheists and still form a theory of gravity.

some science suggests that even these can be explained by random molocular movements in the brain on memes and things like that but this is not proven and is pushing the envelope.

Some science suggests it? Really? I would argue that you mean some scientists have suggested it.

The point I am trying to get at is about scientism. How is it any better than religious fundamentalism?

If what you're trying to get at is scientism, then with respect you should be attacking scientism, not science, the scientific method, or anything else other than scientism and its flaws.

But this assumes that "societal dynamics" is a field within science.

You made that assumption when you formulated the initial prediction you said arose from a belief in God - that people moving away from good is bad for society. If you want to argue that its not scientific, then I'll accept that you haven't offered any prediction.

So if its not scientific, you haven't offered a preduiction.
If it is scientific, then your prediction is open to the criticism I've offered and thus not tied to a belief in God.

So whether or not its a field in science, you still haven't offered a prediction tied to a belief in God.

Whatever "societal dynamics" may be, such a demonstration would be a proof of God

You don't know what it is, but do know that whatever it is, a demonstration of it would be proof of God. I'm impressed.

Societal dynamics, by the way, is a genericisation of your prediction that individuals moving away from good is bad for society. What you're describing is a cause/effect which would effect the dynamics of society. Societal Dynamics.

Lets assume you knew that though....you're still making a bald assertion with no reasoning behind it. Why would such a demonstration prove God exists? And what do you mean by "such a demonstration" - what would it involve?

But the argument I am making isnt one about necessity of God but about the fact that science isnt all encompassing.

Science has never claimed to be all encompassing. Anyone who claims science is all-encompassing simply doesn't understand or is misrepresenting science.

I'd wager that the people you'll generally find maknig such claims are people like PapaRazzi himself, decrying what he claims others have said / believe about science.

And if one claims it is then one has arrived at scientism.

Sure. But who claims it is? The only people I ever seem making such claims are not believers in scientism, but rather Christians who want to "defend" Christianity against science. They do this in one (or both) of two ways :

1) Attempt to "steal" the respectability of science.
2) Attempt to drag science down

Allegations of scientism fall into the latter category for me. The Pope will tell us about the dangers of science trying to explain "everything"....but no scientist will ever claim that it does explain everything and I've never met a single person who doesn't believe in God because they think science can answer all of our moral questions.

How is that any better than religious fundamentalism?

Believing science explains everything is arguably worse, because its demonstrably wrong. Religious fundamentalism may or may not be.

On the other hand, I've yet to see people physically subjugated or repeatedly lied to by believers in scientism, whereas I have seen that by believers in many religions - fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist alike.

Actually...to be fair...I've never met a believer in scientism. I've only met Christians who believe we need to fight such believers.

I'd also question the association you're repeatedly making here. It smacks of an attempt to associate science with something distasteful. Y'know...it would be like me constantly asking how religious belief is any different to a consistent delusional state. There are parallels, but the only real reasons I'd have to make the reference constantly would be either to irritate the religious, or to draw a subconscious negative relationship in the mind of the reader.

Neither is a particularly honourable way of arguing my case, even if they're effective.

I'd suggest that if you have honourable reasons for repeatedly asking this question, then you should clearly define what you mean by "better", to make it clear that you're not trying to say there is some sort of moral equivalence between the likes of the Taliban and the atrocities they commit in the name of religion and those (if they exist) who mistakenly believe that science can answer all questions.

Or are you suggesting taht tehre is such a moral equivalence?

furthermore there is ample argument from the philosophy of science that thisgs are not so certian;that science is not oobjective; that politics is part of science etc.

The philosophy of science is not science. Its philosophy.

I thjought I got past the "falsifability" criterion when I stated that Poppers criterion does not stand up to falsifiability. Like the Logical Positivists it swallows its own tail.

Popper's criterion is not science. Its philosophy. So it doesn't get you past anything.

One point being made was that science makes perdictions. I just pointed to the fact that so does non science or pseudo science like astrology. Making predictions is not sufficient for it to be science.

Making predictions is a prerequisite. No-one has ever said its sufficient in and of itself.

But as I have suggested something can still be scientific and not be even measurable e.g. Alternate Universes.

Yes, and no.

It is an idea being persued using the scientific methodology. As far as anyone has modelled it thus far, they have found it is possible to model it in a manner consistent with accepted science (i.e. it doesn't make predictions which clash with established theory). What they haven't done is progressed it either to a state where they can make meaningful-but-as-yet-untested predictions, or (if we talk in general rather than about one specific field) where such predictions can be tested.

Thus, it is scientific, but it ain't scientific theory. There's a gulf of a difference.

I accept the point in general about the scientific method and falsifability but neither are are absolute axioms when put under scrutiny.

If they were absolute axioms, then science wouldn't stop at the point of "theory".

Similarly, you constantly go back to Popper's criterion, but haven't explained where his Criterion has ever been said to be a scientific theory in and of itself. If it isn't, then it doesn't need to be falsifiable.

You've mentioned yourself that its the philosophy[/]i of science, but then attack it as though you consider philosophy to be a science itself.

But Popper's theory is not that science verifies but that one puts up a hypothesis capable of being tested so that the test is capable of showing which shows the theory MUST BE wrong! thats falsifability!

Yes. And if the test repeatedly fails to show that the hypothesis must be wrong, we start to consider the probability that its either right or mostly right. The more its tested, the more confidence we have that we can assume it to be correct.

Surely you're not suggesting you don't accept (or never realised) that "sufficient verification" is an inevitable result of "repeated failure to falsify"?

And what is "verification"?

If you have to seriously ask that question, then quite frankly you're not in a position to be questioning anything about science.

Someone could say that based on their experience of the world and on other peoples experience that they are reasonable sure that there is more to people than just physical matter. Others say they are reasonably sure there is only physical matter. Others claim there is evidence to suggest that the vast majority is not made up of physical matter.

I don't care what people say. I care about whether or not they can provide a model, which generates falsifiable tests by which one can evaluate it. "I believe", or "I think" doesn't meet that. "In my experience" doesn't qualify.

After bangimg on about falsifiable tests for so long, how is it that the first thing you do when wondering what "verification" means is to completely ignore the idea of falsifiable tests and how they may have anything to do with it???

which is related to why I pointed to values from outside science and the example of making an atomic bomb according to sound theory and practice.

But its got nothing to do with science. No-one who knows what they're talking about, with the exception of people deliberately trying to knock science, would suggest otherwise.

Science tells you how to build (or dismantle) an atomic bomb. Science has never claimed to tell you whether or not you should do so.

Never.

And please - don't confuse "what scientists have said" with "what science says".

If I said to you that a bricklayer said building the bomb was wrong, you wouldn't think I was saying that walls had spoken, so please don't tell me about X ro Y scientist having spoken out against the bomb as though it refutes my claim about science's stance on the matter.

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

Why is it spending the money on teh LHC? Because it will give it the ability to test additional falsifiable predictions.

I didnt question the justification of such spending. I pointed to your claim about

... works in progress which may or may not be correct, and which will not be accepted as being correct until such times as we have formed and tested falsifiable predictions which are dependant on these ideas being correct.

I pointed to wormholes, alternate realities, black holes, superstrings etc. and to the LCH which has not yet confirmed the Higges particle. so are these things not part of science?

There is a distinction between saying "falsifiable, if we can put the technology in place" (as is the case with the stuff you mention here) and "might be falsifiable, but we can't even theorise how", which is the case with your aforementioned wormholes, supertstrings and multiverses)

there may well be. But BOTH are still NOT falsified. so are these "works in progress which may or may not be correct" scientific? Are they part of science? Given they havent been falsified (and some may not be falsifable) what makes them part of science?

I'm suggesting that something which isn't even theoretically falsifiable is different from something which is theoretically falsifiable, but which cannot be currently tested.

Okay now we are getting somewhere. so you are claiming that something which is falsifable or which is capable of being falsified but for which we don't have the current ability to falsify is part of science. What do you mean by "have the ability to falsify"? whjat is the difference between it and "not falsifable"?

I find it curious that your initial examples all fell into one of these classifications (not theoretically falsifiable), but your outrage at my response all fall into the other (theroetically but not practically falsifiable). Its almost as if you knew about this distinction. Uncanny.

Find it as curious and uncanny as you want but answer the questions please.

At present. You forgot to say they're not capable of being carried otu at present. Thats the distinction.

And if they cant be done at present what makes you sure they can be done in the future?

But we can clearly define the necessary test. You've just done so. But how can we falsify string theory? We can't. We don't have the first idea how to.

so then according to your catagorisation string theory is not science?

Its not just a case that its not doable now, its a case that we don't know how we could do it at all. Thats not to say that its not falsifiable either, mind.

Actually it IS! Since doable means "do a test to falsify it". What other meaning are you tring to suggest "doable" means?

Its to say that at this point in time we cannot even formulate a theoretical[/]i test which if realised would allus to falsifiably test.

whats the difference between not being able to produce or even thing of a test and just plainly "no test"? You are beginning to saund like a paranormalist. The unicorns come to my lawn every night. No known test can detect them. But that does not mean that they are not there or that someone someday will ddivise a unicorn test.

I would suggest it no measurable unicorns is no different to NO unicorns!

Huh? TYou;ve lost me. You quotes this as a response where I was criticising your use of the word "certainty" with relation to superstring theory, wormholes and parallel univserses. The point I was making is that you were incorrect to use the word "certainty".

Here is what you stated:

So the "certainty" you refer to doesn't exist. Science acknowledges that such things may exist, and indeed should exist if certain conditions are true. We have yet to establish that they do exist, nor that they don't.

I just pointed out that this is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of the above. above something which is not falsifiable is not science. the grey area is about something which remains yet to be falsified being science. But here you are saying that even given something is not yet falsified you think it is part of science. Now let us just say you believe ONLY falsifiable things are part of science. given you stated superstrings are not falsifiable are they part of science. No doubt you may retort "they are not falsifable NOW but they MAY BE falsifable one day". that isnt acceptable to me. what is the difference between that and unicorns?

If you want to argue that we shouldn't refer to them as theories, I'd agree. They're not theories. They're conjectures. But all this shows is that some stuff in science is misnamed and that it can sometimes be misleading.

whether it shows that or not do you consider falsifability to extend to "not YET falsifable" or not? Sure what is the point of the criterion if it is so watered down and weak can apply to anything unicorns, telekenesis etc. ?

Strangely, precision in the english language is one of the things most lacking in science at times.

they have mathematics for that I thought.

We see Theories called Laws, even when we know they're not. We see conjectures called theories, again when we know they're not. Time and time again, we hear scientists and non-scientists talk about "proof", even though we know a theory cannot by definition be proven.

But we dont see unicorns!

There is no test that will allow us to accept that at some point in the future, nor is there any reason to believe that it will be abandoned as an idea because we can't test it.

But we cant test superstrings either! how can you say we will be capable of testing superstrings, balck holes, wormholes, Higges particles with such scertainty and also say we can not test afterlife, unicorns, telekenesis?

How you make it to be the same as something which will stand or fall on whether we can - in time - formulate a falsifiable test for it is, frankly, beyond me.

But you are only saying you BELIEVE there will be a test for something you think now is science bt for which we havent a test e.g. wormholes yet you dont believe in a test ever being made for unicorns. How come wormholes are science and unicorns are not?

Yes, but that mean that it must be possible to carry out the test today, merely that one can define the necessary test.

Care to l define for me me the test for superstrings or alternate realities?

When Einstein formulated his General Theory of Relativity in 1913, he was able to say how to test it. It wasn't tested until 6 years later.

it wasnt tested then either! They fudged the results!

The ability to test without being dependant on a solar eclipse didn't arrive until some time later.

the ability was always there. The test wasnt!

By your logic, this would suggest that it started off as "not falsifiable" and therefore not scientific.

I never stated that. Note what I did. I asked questions. It is called a Socratic dialogue. I pointed out what falsifability was and what Popper defined it as. I assume you adhere to Poppers definition. do you?

Then, for a few short minutes in 1919, it was indeed falsifiable, and for those few short minutes was scientific, only to lapse back into non-scientificness straight away as the ability to falsify no longer existed (until 1922 - the next eclipse - if memory serves).

Actually if memory serves me it wasnt testable until Radio telescopes. The possibility of gravatational lensing as not measurable by optical means! But was the lensing effect is a CONFIRMATION test and not a falsification test. Can you give me a test that will show if relativity is false? i.e. a measurement that you will get a positive result if the theory is wrong and not a negative one if it is true. Gravational lensing comes about because the theory may be true not because anything is false.

By my logic, it was scientific from the start, as the test could be formulated from the start.

How is lensing a falsifability test? "NO LENSING" is the falsifability test.

That the test couldn't be carried out meant only that it couldn't be evaluated. Naturally, until it was evaluated, many were not willing to accept it. Once it was, many were still not willing to accept it on the basis of a single test. Once it had been verified repeatedly, all but the most irrational or obstinate had accepted it. However, throughout all of this, it was always falsifiable....just not always testably falsifiable.

Actually you picked an excellent example of the sociology of contextual science as opposed to the hypo deductive and scientigfic methodology of the objective observer. The Eclipse experiment was not accurate enough to measure geavatational lensing but because scientists believed the theory "Must be" correct it didnt stop them claiming they had "found the proof" and other scientists telling the whole world Einstien was proved correct!

Some suggest Creationism or Intelligent Design are sciences. They're wrong.
Some suggest the earth is flat. They're wrong.

Yes but they are they falsifable? The flat Earth Theory is falsifable and so could be regarded as scientific. "God made the universe" isnt really part of science since God cant be scientifically proven can he?

Just because some people want to believe something doesn't make it so.

Would that be like gravatational lensing ? Or how about Burbridge and the Big Bang and expanding Universe? There are about three pieces of evidence for the Big Bang and the expansion is constantly being patched up with "inflation" and "dark matter" and "dark energy". Isnt it?

The some who suggest mathematics is a science are wrong too. Its not a science. There's no if about it.

And i take it you can prove that then? Whayt isnt mathematics a science?

The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis.

How can you test this hypothesis of yours?

It isnt MINE but I take it youare suggesting Many worlds and superstrings are not science than?

I would put it to you that the difficulty arising here is that you've taken an interpretation, mislabelled it as a hypothesis, and now expect me to deal with it in its mislabelled state.

and I would put the following to you. are you saying many worlds and superstrings are not science?

A moment ago you mislabelled an interpretation as a hypothesis. Now you're stressing that they're interpretations. Care to elaborate on what an interpretation actually is, and why this is or is not problematic. rather than just throwing these words around CAPITALISED as though it makes them more significant?

The "Copenhagen Interpretation" is accepted as science. It is the basis of modern quantum physics. Many worlds tries to get around the problems arising with causailty. It is sound science but I dont accept it as true!

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

Again you go off on tangents.

You claimed a belief in God makes predictions. As an example, you mentioned your "moving away from good == bad for society". I was pointing out that this is not a predictio based on a belief in God. Its a test which is independant of the existence of God or not, and independant of ones belief in God.

But it ISNT independent of Morality, values, natural law etc. which are outside science and not derivable from science. Natural Law may be secuLar.The underlying principles are not proven by science.

I disagree. Science is independant of these things.

A very callous attitude ascribed to scientists here! One can accept that the atomic bomb was "efficient application of science". Yo would be pushing it to suggest that the AS Bomb was independent of values and science should operate in that vein.

The quality of work carried out by scientists may be dependant on them, but thats seperate.

actaully tyhe "quality" of a WMD can be arrived at without recourse to any moral values at all.

Whether or not our model of gravity is a good model of gravity is entirely independant of whether those who formulated it were religious, what they held as their values, or what their ethics were.

this isnt true. The model is dependent on people and people on theior society. If humanity diodnt exist the universe might still be here ( without someone to interpret it?) but being a society does not al biol down to interpreting the laws of physics.

The idea that science is progressing and that it is arriving at an ultimate laws of the universe is also questionaable. "progress" is socially defined not defined by science. But how can you say science progresses from a science point of view. Measuring things more accurately and rapidly and stroing and processing information more is that 2progress"?

Also there is also the argument that they may not be an "ultimate law". #indeed there may not be any laws or principles - just close approximations.

They could be mysogenistic thieving atheists and still form a theory of gravity.

But they couldnt be racist facists and form a theory that the gene pool ios not significantly different between black and white people. that by the way i think is called falsification by counter example.

Some science suggests it? Really? I would argue that you mean some scientists have suggested it.

Memetics may be on the bring of extinction by constructionism isnt! von Glasersfeld, Stephen Pinker...

By the way when Einstein suggested Relativity was that science or just a scientists suggestion?

If what you're trying to get at is scientism, then with respect you should be attacking scientism, not science, the scientific method, or anything else other than scientism and its flaws.

The belief that the scientific method or any other principle is sacroscant can be regarded as scientism.

You made that assumption when you formulated the initial prediction you said arose from a belief in God - that people moving away from good is bad for society. If you want to argue that its not scientific, then I'll accept that you haven't offered any prediction.

It was a counter example. astrology also offers predictions as religion. that does not meke it science does it?

So if its not scientific, you haven't offered a preduiction.
If it is scientific, then your prediction is open to the criticism I've offered and thus not tied to a belief in God.

Prediction may be necessary but it is not sufficient for something to be sicence as yo seem to be suggesting.

So whether or not its a field in science, you still haven't offered a prediction tied to a belief in God.

What I believe is beside the point. but one could predict that ther is an afterlife.

You don't know what it is, but do know that whatever it is, a demonstration of it would be proof of God. I'm impressed.

And you quoted me and completly ignored the context . Im not impressed!
Emphasis added in bold by me
You r original words

Indeed, there is no aspect of societal dynamics or anything else which can demonstrably be shown to be only possible if there is a God.

it is quie simple really. If only God implies "something" and one can produce this "something" then that amounts to proof of god.

Societal dynamics, by the way, is a genericisation of your prediction that individuals moving away from good is bad for society. What you're describing is a cause/effect which would effect the dynamics of society. Societal Dynamics.

But how society changes or the underlying sets of beliefs and values are outside of science (save some other ontological and epistemological beliefs associated directly with science)

Lets assume you knew that though....you're still making a bald assertion with no reasoning behind it. Why would such a demonstration prove God exists? And what do you mean by "such a demonstration" - what would it involve?

QED. and I already showed I was referring to a subset of "anything else" and not "sicietal dynamics"

Science has never claimed to be all encompassing. Anyone who claims science is all-encompassing simply doesn't understand or is misrepresenting science.

Scientism is an ideology which holds that science has primacy over other interpretations of life (e.g., religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations).

But in any case "the defining characteristic of the conservative is that he knows what he doesn't know." Reviewer on this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060188774?tag2=wwwandrews%20u0a-20

I'd wager that the people you'll generally find maknig such claims are people like PapaRazzi himself, decrying what he claims others have said / believe about science.

http://www.edge.org/documents/whatnow/whatnow_taylor1.html

"Science dos not think" and "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful."


Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind: ROM 15:5

Ziman goes through all sorts of definitions of science and all fall short of the mark.

Science as the Mastery of Man's Environment;Science as the Study of the Material World;Science is the Experimental Method;Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations (very like your assertions is this one);Science is based upon verifiable evidence ( Dawkings) etc.

Sure. But who claims it is?

Dawkings does! he claims it is all that is necessary. That does not mean it explains or ever will explain everything but science is all that is necessary for society. The humanistic or religious ethics he views as harmful.

The only people I ever seem making such claims are not believers in scientism, but rather Christians who want to "defend" Christianity against science.

Rteally the ONLY?
and swans are only white until you see something different. Does that mean
black swans dont exist?

They do this in one (or both) of two ways :

Who is this "they"? You wouldnt be referring to ME would you?
could yo give two or three examples of "they"?

1) Attempt to "steal" the respectability of science.
2) Attempt to drag science down

So this is what you think the Pope was up to is it?

Allegations of scientism fall into the latter category for me. The Pope will tell us about the dangers of science trying to explain "everything"....but no scientist will ever claim that it does explain everything and I've never met a single person who doesn't believe in God because they think science can answer all of our moral questions.

so then you believe that science is NOT suffuicient for society? You believe that something else outside of science is necessary?

Believing science explains everything is arguably worse, because its demonstrably wrong. Religious fundamentalism may or may not be.

My point was not that it explains everything as much as it was all that was necessary. That there might be "unknowable truths" but withut science one can do no better than with it.

On the other hand, I've yet to see people physically subjugated or repeatedly lied to by believers in scientism, whereas I have seen that by believers in many religions - fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist alike.

Galileos problem was not as much with the church but with the academic establishment of the day. Burbridge is similarly critical of the "establishment" today. He is an athiest and is quite prepared to admit that the scientific mafia (my words but I dont suppose he would decry it) are quite prepared to ruin careers or prevent them getting off the ground.

Actually...to be fair...I've never met a believer in scientism. I've only met Christians who believe we need to fight such believers.

So scientism like God doesn't exist then? You can prove that also I expect?:)

Is eugenics science?

I'd also question the association you're repeatedly making here. It smacks of an attempt to associate science with something distasteful. Y'know...it would be like me constantly asking how religious belief is any different to a consistent delusional state. There are parallels, but the only real reasons I'd have to make the reference constantly would be either to irritate the religious, or to draw a subconscious negative relationship in the mind of the reader.

Oh so it is okay to say people with so called religious beliefs the church were
tyrants and murderers but not to say the same of those that believed in scientific principles and also murdered sometimes using science to justify it? I NEVER stated i find science distastefull. I am only trying to arrive at the point that one should not pout science up on a pedestal to replace religion ethics humanism or whatever else informs science.

Neither is a particularly honourable way of arguing my case, even if they're effective.

Please dont try to allege that you are an honurable person and that I somehow have discredited myself and am dishonourable. Keep the p[ersonal comments out of it and deal with the issue of theology also being reasonable and steer away from reification of science.

To paraphrase churchill on democracy ther may be problems but science is the better than any other system we have come up with.

I'd suggest that if you have honourable reasons for repeatedly asking this question,

and I'd suggest you don't suggest that I am dishonourable by stating "IF" and stick to answering the question rather than casting aspersions on the questioner. If you dont like the message you dont have to shoot the messenger.

then you should clearly define what you mean by "better", to make it clear that you're not trying to say there is some sort of moral equivalence between the likes of the Taliban and the atrocities they commit in the name of religion and those (if they exist) who mistakenly believe that science can answer all questions.

the truth is that MORE slaughter was caused by non religious regimes and dictators than by religious ones.

Or are you suggesting taht tehre is such a moral equivalence?

No I am suggesting that non believers caused MORE death and destruction than believers. Way more. and the figures are there to prove it!

The philosophy of science is not science. Its philosophy.

So what? Things thought to be certain in science are not so certian; science is STILL not objective where an uninvolved experimenter stands back and observes the experiment without interfering (indeed science itself supports this one); politics is also part of science whether you think philosophy of science is science or not.

Popper's criterion is not science. Its philosophy. So it doesn't get you past anything.

science is BASED on the philosophy of science! Scientists get PhD's doctorates in PHILOSOPHY! Falsification which you have suggested was the basis of science comes from POPPER and his philosophy of science! If you dont think falsification is an acceptable criterion then why do you keep on about it? and if you dont accept it then care to please tell me what is science?

Making predictions is a prerequisite. No-one has ever said its sufficient in and of itself.

You intimated it was. I specifically pointed that out several times and this is the FIRST time you accepted that.

Yes, and no.

so science has a "yes and no" answer now? Can something be science and yet not be empirically measured? If it can then care to please explain on what criterion is it based which makes it science? If it cant then could you please tell me what science is?

It is an idea being persued using the scientific methodology. As far as anyone has modelled it thus far, they have found it is possible to model it in a manner consistent with accepted science (i.e. it doesn't make predictions which clash with established theory).

But all sorts of paradigm shifts clashed with established theory. Galileo's moving Earth and Heliocentric cosmology, Einsteins Relativity. etc. Were these not science when they had no empirical support and clashed with accepted measurable science?

What they haven't done is progressed it either to a state where they can make meaningful-but-as-yet-untested predictions, or (if we talk in general rather than about one specific field) where such predictions can be tested.

But i already showed you that religion, humanism and non science can make meaningfull but as yet untested predictions and you above agree that doing so is not sufficient for science.

Thus, it is scientific, but it ain't scientific theory. There's a gulf of a difference.

You have lost me here. something can be "scientific" but has to progress to being "scientific theory"? And the big gulf is jumped when a prediction is made?

If they were absolute axioms, then science wouldn't stop at the point of "theory".

Similarly, you constantly go back to Popper's criterion, but haven't explained where his Criterion has ever been said to be a scientific theory in and of itself. If it isn't, then it doesn't need to be falsifiable.

I brought it up because I mentioned about scientists believing in things they could not measure i.e. empiricism isnt sufficient and Sun gokus reply was

Sun goku wrote:

That's just the statement that "some scientists in the very advanced areas of science have unwarrented confidence in what they are doing". How is this a similarity between science and religion. It's just a superficial similarity.

this prompted reintroducing the Popperian criterion in that how could then be doing science according to it?

AS far as axioms are concerned that are like religion taken to be true arent they? But I am only trying to arrive at what people see as the basis for science and then showing that these foundations are as ealily undermined as those of religion. I usually dont spend so much time pointing that out except to people who "have a go" at religion and it is assumed that science is somehow "safe" from similar attacks. It isnt! Knowing them and not being so prepared to convey an air that "science supercedes religion" is a worthwhile exercise, in my humble opinion anyway, however honourable that is.

One can be a skeptic and be religious. The underlying point in practice is that if one is to "have a go" at the Pope by claiming something about "scientific reality" one had better be prepared to delve into what this "scientific reality" is.
The best I can offer is that I know what I don't know and I dont think that is dishonourable or illogical.

You've mentioned yourself that its the philosophy[/]i of science, but then attack it as though you consider philosophy to be a science itself.

It is the basis from which science proceeds. and I didnt suggest there was one! there are many philosophies of science.

Yes. And if the test repeatedly fails to show that the hypothesis must be wrong, we start to consider the probability that its either right or mostly right. The more its tested, the more confidence we have that we can assume it to be correct.

this is what Ziman calls "the inadequacy of the 'logico-inductive' metaphysic of Science."
[quote=PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
An essay concerning the social dimension of science
J. M. ZIMAN, F.R.S. Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Bristol
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1968.]

The graduate student is given his "problem": "You might have a look at the effect of pressure on the band structure of the III-V compounds; I don't think it has been done yet, and it would be interesting to see whether it fits into the pseudopotential theory." Then, with considerable help, encouragement and criticism, he sets up his apparatus, makes his measurements, performs his calculations, etc. and in due course writes a thesis and is accounted a qualified professional. But notice that he will not at any time have been made to study formal logic, nor will he be expected to defend his thesis in a step b step deductive procedure. His examiners may ask him, why he had made some particular assertion in the course of his argument, or they.may enquire as to the reliability of some particular measurement. They may even ask him to assess the value of the "contribution" he has made to the subject as a whole. But they will not ask him to give, any opinion as to whether Physics is ultimately true, or whether he is justified now in believing in an external world, or in what sense a theory is verified by the observation of favourable instances. The examiners will assume that the candidate shares with them the common language and principles of their discipline. No scientist really doubts that theories are verified by observation, any more than a Common Law judge hesitates to rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
[/quote]

Surely you're not suggesting you don't accept (or never realised) that "sufficient verification" is an inevitable result of "repeated failure to falsify"?

If you have to seriously ask that question, then quite frankly you're not in a position to be questioning anything about science.

You question the reason of beinging up the falsifability criterion but you cant tell me what "verification" is? you also can decide what question is worthy of contempt and based on it pass judgment on the questioner? i thought science was meant to be about answering questions and making definitions and not about cslighting the person who asks you to verify a definition.

I don't care what people say. I care about whether or not they can provide a model, which generates falsifiable tests by which one can evaluate it.

If you dont care what people say then why do you display contempt at being asked "What is 'verification'".

"I believe", or "I think" doesn't meet that. "In my experience" doesn't qualify.

you would want to read some history of science and how people arrived at pressure laws. e.g. Robert Boyle. Full of "it seem like" "as if" etc. Indeed that is how theory begins. With suggestive rather than concrete language. Air isnt really full of little springs is it?

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

After bangimg on about falsifiable tests for so long, how is it that the first thing you do when wondering what "verification" means is to completely ignore the idea of falsifiable tests and how they may have anything to do with it???

What my motivation was or was not is beside the point. I was asking you for your definition since you used the word "verification". have you got one?

But its got nothing to do with science. No-one who knows what they're talking about, with the exception of people deliberately trying to knock science, would suggest otherwise.

Here you go again with the personal attack! You are suggesting I am deliberately trying to knock science? whatever do you mean by that? I thought that you believeds that sicence was about being objective and dealing weith the issues and what people state and not about what their motivation may be?

In any case I suppose you can produce some convincing evidence that I am trying to "knock science" whatever that is. Can you do that?

Science tells you how to build (or dismantle) an atomic bomb. Science has never claimed to tell you whether or not you should do so.

and the duty of a scientist ends there? he is seperate from the WMD and is only doing objective science? And if science ends there then you now accept that there is something outside of science which guides whether science should do something or not? So if this drives and informs what science does is it not superior to science since it determines what science does?

... please don't tell me about X ro Y scientist having spoken out against the bomb as though it refutes my claim about science's stance on the matter.

does science have a stance on the matter? I thought above you state it couldnt since

Science has never claimed to tell you whether or not you should do so.

Son Goku

ISAW, how is science like religion? You've wrote an awful lot, but it's just standard philosophy of science stuff. I still don't see how science is like religion.

AS far as axioms are concerned that are like religion taken to be true aren’t they? But I am only trying to arrive at what people see as the basis for science and then showing that these foundations are as easily undermined as those of religion. I usually don’t spend so much time pointing that out except to people who "have a go" at religion and it is assumed that science is somehow "safe" from similar attacks. It isn’t! Knowing them and not being so prepared to convey an air that "science supersedes religion" is a worthwhile exercise, in my humble opinion anyway, however honourable that is.

Nobody is talking about that though. All we're saying is that Science isn't like religion in practice. You're criticising things from an extremely removed metaphysical level, where everything is shaky. That isn't an interesting position because it doesn't say anything new about either subject.

There are obviously differences between science and religion, but if you claim them to be the same and then attempt to prove it by moving into the super-philosophical you destroy any meaningful discussion.

For instance I know that the foundations of science are totally water-tight and I said several times I wasn't having a go at religion. However sciences foundations are shaky on a level so abstracted from the practice of the subject that I don't really care about them, similar to how there are questionable assumptions made when I attempt to eat a sandwich. Similarly any similarities with religion are on an equally removed scale.

Call me crazy, but if a theory says X and Y should be observed at time T with properties o,n,m and when you run the tests in every scenerio that is what comes out, then the theory is as good as you're going to get. I am amazed that humans can be as correct about the universe as the Standard Model's success has shown.
All this philosophy of science stuff is very tangential, because although correct the arguement doesn't really matter at the end of the day. It still doesn't answer "Why is your kettle working". Only Feyerabend really attempted to answer this.
In essence "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite".

To me you've just sprung into "Defend Religion"-mode without listening to whats being said.

I understand that the Pope is a very intellignet man and on societal issues he has keen insight, but in this case he has said something silly.