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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
more about Science and Religion
Comments
-
-
Yes AFTER you quoted Kuhn saiud I didnt understanf Kuhn referred to woody allen and claimed I was a relativist.
No, it was the first thing you asked meReally? So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.
Now, please quote where you think I said Creationism is equal to science.So what? i didn't claim you lied about it!
I didn't say you claimed I lied about it.Your actual lie is saying you never claimed I was a relativist or subscribe to relativism as defined by you. that is a lie!
No it isn't. I never claimed you were relativist. I claimed it seemed that you held to the position that if science can be wrong that implies relativism.
I claimed that because you attacked me for relativism when what I said was that science can be wrong.
I stand over that claim.So what this isn't about what you or i think but about whether the claims we made can be shown to be true or not.
This is about you making a faulty assumption over what you think I was saying based on your faulty ideas and then refusing to back down.I am not a relativist. that is a fact.
You claimed I was that is a fact
No it isn't. Once again the imaginary conversation you think we are having in your head has let you down.
Again if I say it seems like you think support Obama makes you a communist I'm not saying you are communist. I'm not saying you are a communist even if we establish that you actually support Obama. I'm saying that you seem to hold the position that supporting Obama makes you a communist.
You seemed (and still seem) to hold the position that science can be wrong means relativism.
I have never charged you with being a relativism (that would make no sense if I did), and I suspect that you are focusing on this so much simply to avoid having to answer my questions properly.
If anything I'm charging you with not understand that science could be wrong, Creationism could be right, and that this doesn't mean you have to take Creationism as equal which is what it strongly seems like you are saying you would have to do if you believed science could be wrong.
Now, what part of that do you still not understand?You are lying if you claim I am or if you say you did not claim I am.
You can't find the quote where I called you a relativist. That should tell you something. You can only find the quote where I said it seems like you hold to the notion that science being wrong means relativism.
That is not calling you a relativist any more than me saying you seem to hold to the notion that support Obama means communism means I'm calling you are a communist.
You do understand what holding to a notion means, right? If I say you hold to the notion that gay people dress well I'm not calling you gay. If I say you hold to the notion that pilots are well trained I'm not calling you a pilot.
I'm at a loss how to explain this to you any clearer :rolleyes:No you are only a liar.
I point out the flaw in your logic and you just keep calling me a liar over and over.
I could resort to your level but I won't.
I've already showed you do and you have no alternative explanation. Your silence on that question and your insistence on focusing solely on the false claim that I said you were a relativist is telling.It is a lie! I don't hold to such a belief and you cant show that I do!Rubbish! "Relativism" was first raised by YOU when you defined it and accused me of it!
In Post 4.
I never accused you of it. I quoted that to show you that science is wrong does not mean relativism. You continued to charge me with believing Creationism and Santa are of equal value to science, something i never stated.I said you endorsed relativists and kooks and I still say that
So you admit it now.
And I say the ONLY way you could reach such a faulty conclusion is if you held to the notion that saying science is fallailble implies relativism. Which is my charge against you.
Yes, of course I do. Again I can't disprove "kook nonsense" and as such I cannot say infallibly that it cannot be right.Do you believe science could be wrong and kook nonsense 100 per cent right?
Let me guess what you are going to say now based on the faulty logic you claim you never adhered to....
THAT MUST MEAN I'M A RELATIVIST AND HOLD "KOOK NONSENSE" AS EQUAL TO SCIENCE.
Ummm, I wonder why you would think that? Perhaps because you hold to the faulty idea I have claimed you do all along?
:rolleyes:That came later AFTER going over this several times. Santa only arrived on page 6 or so!
Yes. After 6 pages you still didn't get it and were still holding to the faulty logic. In fact you still seem to be holding to it.1 and 2 are lies!
I never claimed 2. That is your little straw man. I stand over 1.Because I didnt believe you would endorse kook nonsense by saying it could be true and that was a central principle of science!
And why would you assume saying it could be true is endorsing it?
Because you believe .....
Carefully nowNo it isn't! You say it is a central principle of science that science could be totally wrong ( or even more wrong than alternatives) and kookiness 100 per cent right ( or even better most of the time) . i.e. not equal but the other one more accurate than science.
Calling them equal isnt the only kook option!
I didn't call them equal. You assumed I did. Because .....No . Saying it is right is saying science is wrong! You seem to not be aware of boolean operators.
Please quote me where I said it was right.
Once again you betray your assumptions by making up things I never said based on what you assume my position is.But the real issue is your lying aboiut me being a relativist
No the real issue here is the faulty logic you held entering this discussion, and the lengths you will go to back track. I never called you a relativist and at know point in this discussion did I ever believe you were. Why would I, being a relativist was what you were accusing me of.
Once again using the Obama analogy. I say I support Obama. You assume I must be a communist then, I explain I'm not while saying you seem to hold to this idea that because I support Obama I must be a communist. Now, I'm not calling you a communist you dingbat. Why would I call you a communist.
Replace Obama with science can be wrong and communist with relativist. I never called you a relativist. That would make no sense since I was defending myself from calling me one.
Again you must go through these discussions understanding 10% of what I'm saying :rolleyes:and you deny this but again and agasin rehearse it when you get the chance
If at any point in the future you think I'm calling you a relativist I can tell you categorically I'm not and you have misunderstood me.
I still maintain that until I explained it to you you didn't understand Kuhn. I would be interested in how you plan to prove you did. :rolleyes:0 -
No, it was the first thing you asked me
No it wasnt!
You are again wrong!
The first question I asked you was
"Ever heard of Dogma?"Now, please quote where you think I said Creationism is equal to science.
Already did show wher you equated them:
You said science wasn't certain I asked you to clarify what you mean by that was science not certain but the best way or were kook things to be compared to science and seriously considered as an alternativ. I have clarified what thwe weak non extraordinary claim of "sciecne isnt certain " since ( as I have clarified what the Church position is on unreasonable beliefs = The Church position as related to the SAME Greek rationality on which science is based ) but here is where I asked you if you were seriously saying comparing kook alternatives to science is a principle of science.
Message 6 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68466495&postcount=6
I ask in reply to you sayingOf course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.
Note you are saying two things here
1. that you believe it
2. that it is a principle of science
I asked you to clarify the it:
What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
your answer in 13: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68467333&postcount=13Again, yes.
Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.I didn't say you claimed I lied about it.
There you go again! Off on the straw man!Stop trying to make this out that I'm calling you a liar,
the iterative "you said I said..." turtles all the way down trick wont work on mr.
I didn't say you called me a liar.
I am calling you a liar.
But Ill ask you to produce ANY evidence where i made ANY claim you called me a liar.
Can you do that?
Well then your claim that I claimed you called me a liar is false.
If you re assert it it is an additional lie.No it isn't. I never claimed you were relativist. I claimed it seemed that you held to the position that if science can be wrong that implies relativism.
Backing down now. Fair enough. So
"It seems certain that you are a relativist"
means " you are not a relativist"
LOL http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68495322&postcount=67If you are just going to start swapping words around as if they mean the same thing when they don't this discussion is going to end up being even more pointless than before. I choose my words carefully
What a Humpty Dumpty world you live in.
By the way you DIDN'T just say I believed science is relativism you also claimed I was one!You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Relativist hold to the notion of relativism.
: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.
And you also claimed I misinterpreted Kuhn and knew little of the people to which I refer.I claimed that because you attacked me for relativism when what I said was that science can be wrong.
I stand over that claim.
1. why would you being a relativist or not have anything at all to do with you claiming I am one? Did you not read the reference on the fallacy of http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
appeal to consequences of belief
2. What about the claim I know nothing about Kuhn?You seemed (and still seem) to hold the position that science can be wrong means relativism.
There you go again lying!
What evidence is there that I hold such a position that that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.? Don't straw man it into me later calling you a relativist! Why would you being a relativist or not have anything at all to do with you claiming I am one?
I have never charged you with being a relativism (that would make no sense if I did), and I suspect that you are focusing on this so much simply to avoid having to answer my questions properly.
Yes you did!You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
and you added a poke about not understanding Kuhn with the Annie Hall video in an attempt to ridicule me.
And this was directly after you offered a definition of relativism
( YOU brought up the subject)relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretationYou can't find the quote where I called you a relativist. That should tell you something.
I can and you are lying again! Hint: Message 4You can only find the quote where I said it seems like you hold to the notion that science being wrong means relativism.
It certainly seems you are lying.
that message 4 was the first message you brought it up.
Message 23You seem to be holding to this notion that all systems of arriving at belief and knowledge are equal. ...
All of that is nonsense and the opposite of what Kuhn was actually saying.
Message 67:your insistence that because I believe a scientific theory cannot be considered infallible (which you do as well apparently) and I believe that we must always hold that a scientific theory might be wrong even if this seems very unlikely (which you do as well apparently) I must consider science as equal to Creationism.
i.e. you attribute "not believing in perfection = relativism" to me.
message 67:walk me through the logic you are using in your head that gets from any scientific theory might be wrong to every non-scientific idea out there is of equal value to a scientific one and must be entertained equally?
message 75:How do you get from A (what I said) to be B (what you think is the conclusion of what I said) particularly when now (strangely enough) you are saying that science being wrong does not mean non-science is equally valid.
If you genuinely believed that back then as you claim to now how did you get from A to B?
Message 75If you believe that the fact that science can be wrong means it means that non-scientific theories are elevated to the same level of it (which you continuously accuse me of implying by merely saying that science can be wrong) then you hold that if a system is not perfect that means all systems are equal.
This is your faulty logic ISAW, not mine.
I think 5 examples should suffice.
I point out the flaw in your logic and you just keep calling me a liar over and over.
Im calling you a liar because you keep saying something with is just not true and you know it isnt true but you keep ressurecting it later on and re entering it into the discussion.I could resort to your level but I won't.
It isn't a question of levels. You tried to redicule me with woody allen. You tried to redicule me about knowing or talking to Kuhn with an inane comment about Kuhn being dead for 16 years.
All I did was show you something that was clearly false and show how you were making the false attribution to me. If you continue to knowingly do that you are lying.
It is a question of truth. Calling you a liar only came about because I showed you something false and you went away but came back later and kept saying what you had been shown was false.
I don't involve personal ad hominem in debate but if you are going to attack my personal credability I have to respond and show where you are wrong.I've already showed you do and you have no alternative explanation.
1. Look up "burden of proof" I dont need to supply alternatives to your unsupported claims!
2. You have made clasims which are untrue e.g. Kuhn reference in message 4
3. I pointed out they are untrue
4. You later came back with indirect comments like the above "I've already showed you"
No reference to any messages ( I support my claims with references) just rehearsals of the untrue claims. They are lies.Your silence on that question and your insistence on focusing solely on the false claim that I said you were a relativist is telling.
LOL! You cant admit the lie so you go back to the straw man.
And I am NOT focusing solely on the "relativist" claim.
There is the me misinterpreting Kuhn claim as well.
there is the ISAW must not know anything about the history and philosophjy of science claim.
I am only forensically going into the one you keep repeating because you deny you made it and they you re assert it again in a later message.
I am showing you you were wrong. It does not matter if it was 100 claims or one. You don't seem to be able to accept it.I never accused you of it. I quoted that to show you that science is wrong does not mean relativism.
A quote followed directly by the wordsYou do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
An near exact copy of the quote:relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.
And followed by a video of Woody Allen talking to someone who does not know their subject.
Forgive me if I think:I never accused you of it.
Isn't true either.So you admit it now.
I said it then! Saying science could be wroing and alternative kook interpretations like creationism could be right and that science has this notion as a cenmtral principle is endorsing them. Yes I believe that. I showed you how the Regensberg address by ratzinger on reason shows this up.And I say the ONLY way you could reach such a faulty conclusion is if you held to the notion that saying science is fallailble implies relativism. Which is my charge against you.
And I say that is a fallacy!
It isn't necessarily the only way and you have not proved that.
But you could be right that
P all non falliblist interpretations of science are relativist
I would not think it is right though.
Also I could reach a conclusion about what you believed without that having any bearing whatsoever on the statement that P: Fallibleness implies relativist
Did you look up the fallacies based on the consequences of belief?Yes, of course I do. Again I can't disprove "kook nonsense" and as such I cannot say infallibly that it cannot be right.
"cant be logically proven wrong" does not mean "is worth considering by science"
You accept that?
i.e. we can dissmiss it even if we cant disprove it.
This is all aside form the fact that we CAN disprove it. And if we cant disprove it how is it central to science?
Let me guess what you are going to say now based on the faulty logic you claim you never adhered to....
Guess again. If we cant disprove it how is it central to science?
No not necessarily. You might not believe kook nonsense and you might be ignorant to some degree of the history and philosophy of science but you might make statements which endorse the spoonbenders and astrologers of this world and accord to them a place that reason and scientific studies dont.THAT MUST MEAN I'M A RELATIVIST AND HOLD "KOOK NONSENSE" AS EQUAL TO SCIENCE.Ummm, I wonder why you would think that? Perhaps because you hold to the faulty idea I have claimed you do all along?
You have certainly wrongly claimed I am a relativist. A non exhaustive list:
message 4 was the first message you brought it up.
Message 23You seem to be holding to this notion that all systems of arriving at belief and knowledge are equal. ...
All of that is nonsense and the opposite of what Kuhn was actually saying.
Message 67:your insistence that because I believe a scientific theory cannot be considered infallible (which you do as well apparently) and I believe that we must always hold that a scientific theory might be wrong even if this seems very unlikely (which you do as well apparently) I must consider science as equal to Creationism.
i.e. you attribute "not believing in perfection = relativism" to me.
message 67:walk me through the logic you are using in your head that gets from any scientific theory might be wrong to every non-scientific idea out there is of equal value to a scientific one and must be entertained equally?
message 75:How do you get from A (what I said) to be B (what you think is the conclusion of what I said) particularly when now (strangely enough) you are saying that science being wrong does not mean non-science is equally valid.
If you genuinely believed that back then as you claim to now how did you get from A to B?
Message 75If you believe that the fact that science can be wrong means it means that non-scientific theories are elevated to the same level of it (which you continuously accuse me of implying by merely saying that science can be wrong) then you hold that if a system is not perfect that means all systems are equal.
This is your faulty logic ISAW, not mine.
Yes. After 6 pages you still didn't get it and were still holding to the faulty logic. In fact you still seem to be holding to it.
More bald assertion without reference.
I never claimed 2. That is your little straw man. I stand over 1.2. ISAW = a relativist
five examples aboveAnd why would you assume saying it could be true is endorsing it?
Fairies could really exist you know? Science says so !
and pigs might fly.No the real issue here is the faulty logic you held entering this discussion, and the lengths you will go to back track. I never called you a relativist
message 4 was the first message you brought it up.
Message 23You seem to be holding to this notion that all systems of arriving at belief and knowledge are equal. ...
All of that is nonsense and the opposite of what Kuhn was actually saying.
Message 67:your insistence that because I believe a scientific theory cannot be considered infallible (which you do as well apparently) and I believe that we must always hold that a scientific theory might be wrong even if this seems very unlikely (which you do as well apparently) I must consider science as equal to Creationism.
i.e. you attribute "not believing in perfection = relativism" to me.
message 67:walk me through the logic you are using in your head that gets from any scientific theory might be wrong to every non-scientific idea out there is of equal value to a scientific one and must be entertained equally?
message 75:How do you get from A (what I said) to be B (what you think is the conclusion of what I said) particularly when now (strangely enough) you are saying that science being wrong does not mean non-science is equally valid.
If you genuinely believed that back then as you claim to now how did you get from A to B?
Message 75If you believe that the fact that science can be wrong means it means that non-scientific theories are elevated to the same level of it (which you continuously accuse me of implying by merely saying that science can be wrong) then you hold that if a system is not perfect that means all systems are equal.
This is your faulty logic ISAW, not mine.and at know point in this discussion did I ever believe you were. Why would I, being a relativist was what you were accusing me of.
Nope that came LATER
"relativist" was introduced by YOU in post 4.
Don't you remember?
Replace Obama with science can be wrong and communist with relativist. I never called you a relativist. That would make no sense since I was defending myself from calling me one.
Wrong! You introiduced "relativist". How could you be defending yourself from calling you something you introduced and called me?
I later said you endorsed relativism yes I admit that. I believe you play into their hands.
Look at the people who post thanks to you messages and not mine. Look at any debates they have had and you will notice relativism in many of them.
Again you must go through these discussions understanding 10% of what I'm saying
I can only go by the words you posted.If at any point in the future you think I'm calling you a relativist I can tell you categorically I'm not and you have misunderstood me.
Great. so you admit you believe I am not a relativist! That is progress. you admit that Your attribution of me as a relativist is in error.
Please don't ressurect it later and claim I am one.
Now on to Kuhn.
What do you think I dont understand about Kuhn?I still maintain that until I explained it to you you didn't understand Kuhn. I would be interested in how you plan to prove you did.
It would be better if you don't shift the burden of proof onto me and show how I didnt understand Kuhn. Please a no stage go back to assewtiong I am a relativist or support relativism.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Now if you are going to say the point is not about science but about Christianity and you view Christianity as opposing science because science does not make claims and Christianity does then how is this evidence you are not a "preachy anti christian fundamentalist atheists"?
I didn't say I wasn't a preachy anti-christian fundamentalist atheist, I said I don't hold to the certainty of science
The realization within the philosophy of science that positions of absolute certainty cannot be supported is a strength of science. It stops people assuming some area or theory is fully known and there is nothing else to discover. It also stops the embarrassing instances of proclaiming something as infallible that later turns out to be wrong, which as a side is something religion has a poor record of.
Science doesn't consider itself infallible. That is a very good thing, and a corner stone of modern science.
What that means is you never rule something out because you feel that the area has already been show to be this way or that way and other ideas or theories cannot possible be correct because you have already found the absolute truth.
It doesn't mean thought that this something else should be simply accepted as is. I never meant to imply that and if I did or that was the conclusion reached through what I said I can state categorically now that this not my position.
The onus is still on the something else (be is multiverse, or Creationism, or string theory or what ever) do demonstrate its case.
Creationism has utterly failed to do that, and until it can (and I seriously doubt it ever can) it is rightfully ignored by science as kook ideas.0 -
LOL.
Please quote me back where you asked me that, specifically the "seriously considered as an alternative" and quote what I said in reply.
Fair enough.
I asked it and you dodged the answer.
I wont bother forensically going through seven pages and showing where again and again it was directly put to you whether you seriously believed that science could be wrong and kook alternatives be right.
You haven't said a simple NO. You have not answered No you do not believe science can be wrong and kook alternatives therefore right. In fact if anything you have alleged you think No but stated YES. The Mahon Tribunals had an easier time drawing answers from witnessess.
You didn't give an answer it seems.
I suggest me you are scared to admit clearly that you believe science should not seriously consider alternatives.
Whenever pressed on it you claim not to have stated it anywhere! Then I ask you
"is it your position science should not consider alternatives ?"
and all you do is hedge and not answer.
All I am showing is that oif it is your position science should not consider alternatives then where does that put any claim about "science might be wrong"
Wrong but not wrong tht it is worth considering kookish alternatives OR
Wrong toi the degree that it IS worth considering kookish alternatives?
Or are you afraid of committing to believing in anything because you believe "science can always be wrong". ? 0 -
Fair enough.
I asked it and you dodged the answer.
What was there to dodge? You withdrew the assertion that you originally asked me about considering them "serious alternatives"
You - "I am quite happy to didn't use the word "seriously" so Ill ask you again to clarify"
And then asked
1.one can seriously consider alternatives to science in any way?
2. creationism should be seriously considered as an alternative and science be considered as wrong?
To which I replied no and no. What am I dodging exactly?I wont bother forensically going through seven pages and showing where again and again it was directly put to you whether you seriously believed that science could be wrong and kook alternatives be right.
I answered that question on page one (yes and yes) so there should be no need to forensically go through seven pages.
If you like I can summarize for you
Do I believe that science could be wrong?
Yes
Do I believe that alternative theories such as Creationism could be right?
Yes
Do I seriously considered alternative theories such as Creationism to be of equal to scientific theories?
No
Do I consider it likely that alternative theories such as Creationism are right?
No.
Be my question to try and find any quotes throughout this thread that contradict those statements.You haven't said a simple NO. You have not answered No you do not believe science can be wrong and kook alternatives therefore right. In fact if anything you have alleged you think No but stated YES. The Mahon Tribunals had an easier time drawing answers from witnessess.
The only problem here is your assumption of what I must mean based on what I say. I say science can be wrong you assume I hold non-scientific theories as equal to scientific ones. You ask me do I do this and I say no, at which point you get confused as if I'm contradicting myself. I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contradicting your assumption of what I must believe.You didn't give an answer it seems.
To which question? As far as I'm aware I've answered all the questions you have put to me about my position on science but if I have missed one please repeat it and I will be happy to answer it.I suggest me you are scared to admit clearly that you believe science should not seriously consider alternatives.
I believe science should considered all alternatives that can support themselves in a scientific manner. Creationism cannot do this, as such there is nothing for science to considered.Whenever pressed on it you claim not to have stated it anywhere! Then I ask you
"is it your position science should not consider alternatives ?"
and all you do is hedge and not answer.
You asked me that here
You - 1.one can seriously consider alternatives to science in any way?
and I said
Me - That is quite a sweeping statement, but I assume you mean things like Creationism which cannot demonstrate the accuracy (or lack of) of their claims. Then the answer would be no.
How is that not an answer?All I am showing is that oif it is your position science should not consider alternatives then where does that put any claim about "science might be wrong"
It puts it where it always was, a realization at the limitations of science and human knowledge.Wrong but not wrong tht it is worth considering kookish alternatives OR
Wrong toi the degree that it IS worth considering kookish alternatives?
It is never worth considering kookish alternatives unless these alternatives can support themselves scientifically (which I'm assuming when you say they are kookish they can't), because with out this there is nothing to consider.Or are you afraid of committing to believing in anything because you believe "science can always be wrong". ?
I believe in lots of things. It would be foolish of me though to state that any of these beliefs are infallible. I'm not after all a theist 0 -
Im sorry I didnt look at the latest replies. I accept you are rignt and i am wrong about this. You stated position is that alternatives to science should not be seriously considered by science.What was there to dodge? You withdrew the assertion that you originally asked me about considering them "serious alternatives"
You - "I am quite happy to didn't use the word "seriously" so Ill ask you again to clarify"
And then asked
1.one can seriously consider alternatives to science in any way?
2. creationism should be seriously considered as an alternative and science be considered as wrong?
To which I replied no and no. What am I dodging exactly?
But what then is the point in saying science could be wrong and alternatives right and that this is a principle of science is not seriously considering then is also a principle?I answered that question on page one (yes and yes) so there should be no need to forensically go through seven pages.
It didnt copme across that way to me. What I saw was repeated mentions of science could of course be wrong type statements which as I view it lends credencde to alternatives to science and reason.
Do I believe that science could be wrong?
Yes
Do I believe that alternative theories such as Creationism could be right?
Yes
Do I seriously considered alternative theories such as Creationism to be of equal to scientific theories?
No
It is the second question that bugged me. If it could be considered right it depends on to what level you consider that. any way near equal or better than science is too serious. I would contend almost zero rather than not equal.
I did post the Popes position on this as regards God not breaking the laws of logic or reason.Do I consider it likely that alternative theories such as Creationism are right?
No.
So - Possible but likely to a minuscule degree not worth considering seriously at all?try and find any quotes throughout this thread that contradict those statements.
I accept your position but have problems with accepoting nonsense interpretations as "possible"The only problem here is your assumption of what I must mean based on what I say. I say science can be wrong you assume I hold non-scientific theories as equal to scientific ones.
No no . Not equal but even in any way probable.You ask me do I do this and I say no, at which point you get confused as if I'm contraditing myself. I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contradicting your assumption of what I must believe.
Fair enough. Other interpretations are not worth considering by science then.I believe science should considered all alternatives that can support themselves in a scientific manner. Creationism cannot do this, as such there is nothing for science to considered.
and it is only possible to a degree not worth considering?It is never worth considering kookish alternatives unless these alternatives can support themselves scientifically (which I'm assuming when you say they are kookish they can't), because with out this there is nothing to consider.
that is a fair statement. They could be possible but are never worth considering.I believe in lots of things. It would be foolish of me though to state that any of these beliefs are infallible. I'm not after all a theist
Some things can be considered infallible. That something is either true or not true for example.0 -
-
-
1. I’m not focusing on the certainty of science. I’m indicating how some people might entertain the false dichotomy that science has a more certain view compared to say Christianity. Compared to kook ideas we have already accepted it has a more certain view and kook ideas are not to be entertained. Even if science admits it might be wrong it only does so to the degree that other interpretations like astrology, or paranormalism are effectively nonsense. Christianity isn’t a kook idea.
Being right " almost all of the time" isn't to be compared to pseudo science magic creationism etc. One shouldn't endorse it by saying "it could be right". According to the standards of science saying astrology etc. could be right is disparaging science.
But the quiz does expose a lot of the “science wars” and “postmodern science” debate.
In short
P :“relativism is nonsense not to be entertained by science”
is something on which Kuhn, myself and Wicknight all agree.
If Wicknight thinks I am putting words in his mouth he is welcome to say so I believe he takes this position based on his above comments.
2. Other issues,
I claimed that Popper progressed the idea of the verification principle as used by the Logical Positivists to the falsification principle. the idea being that science proposes a theory and a test which can in theory falsify the idea being proposed.
The whole idea of falsifiability is to get around the idea of "proving a negative" into "disproving a positive claim"Sokal and Bricmont write, "When a theory successfully withstands an attempt at falsification, a scientist will, quite naturally, consider the theory to be partially confirmed and will accord it a greater likelihood or a higher subjective probability. ... But Popper will have none of this: throughout his life he was a stubborn opponent of any idea of 'confirmation' of a theory, or even of its 'probability'. ... [but] the history of science teaches us that scientific theories come to be accepted above all because of their successes." (Sokal and Bricmont 1997, 62f)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Sokal_and_Bricmont
They further argue that falsifiability cannot distinguish between astrology and astronomy, as both make technical predictions that are sometimes incorrect.
3. I wanted to introduce the idea of the Trinity of techne episteme and phronesis. My contention would be postmodern science over stresses phronesis. In doing so some anti religious atheists find themselves in the same camp as kooks and other kooks try to align themselves with rational Christians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis http://books.google.com/books?id=yVBXPf50EV0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22making+social+science+matter%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=CNCTRgLt1z1rRBTbFsPrUf_w_M0#v=onepage&q&f=false
One element of Wicknight’s commentary does lean on techne buy I turned to addressing the epistemological basis for it.
Q: If something can’t be measured or does not exist in our universe it isn't part of science? i.e. what is a “placeholder” in message 45? If “All science is only about accuracy” (message 46) where does that leave such placeholders? In some “only true scotsman’s” world of “accurate measurement”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79146
empiricism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
the think is I have a deal of sympathy for this point of view but the relativist philosophy ( particularly anti christian phronetic arguments) will disagree with it. I don’t expect them to attack it however given the amount of thanks they have for Wicknight’s posts. Wicknight now may find himself in the extraordinary position that I am backing up his beliefs against their attacks!
Curiouser and curiouser!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Scientific theories aren't phenomena. They are conceptual models of phenomena. They are ideas we have as to what we think is happening.
To be considered scientific they must have passed scientific standards, something that I think by definition cannot happen with no evidence.
That is your opinion. Empiricism ( of the instrumentalist variety) for want of a better term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality.
Not all philosophies of science agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_empiricism
Constructive empiricism states that scientific theories are semantically literal, that they aim to be empirically adequate, and that their acceptance involves, as belief, only that they are empirically adequate. A theory is empirically adequate if and only if everything that it says about observable entities is true. A theory is semantically literal if and only if the language of the theory is interpreted in such a way that the claims of the theory are either true or false (as opposed to an instrumentalist reading).
And what is a "scientific standard"?- You observe a natural phenomena.
- You come up with an idea as to what is happening with this phenomena.
- At this point you have an idea as to what that phenomena is but this not a scientific theory because you haven't tested it to scientific standards and as such you can't say you have much confidence in the accuracy of this idea to explain the phenomena.
i.e. it is semantically literal but has yet to confirm empirical adequacy.[*]You then put your idea through the scientific process.
[*]If your idea survives you now have a scientific theory that you have much more confidence accurately explains the natural phenomena you were attempting to explain.
But you are saying Boyle's theory about air was not science until it was measured?
And so was Galileo's theory that the Earth moved not science until we measured the Earth moving? It happened to be true but it was not science? How about the general theory of Relativity or the Higge's Bozon. they are not science until we confirm they exist? We seem to be spending tens of billions on particle accelerators and spaceships and telescopes for all this "non science" don't we?I'm not following how an idea could survived the scientific process yet have not had any confirmation, given the scientific process is about confirmation.
In your view science is only ultimately about confirming by measurement.
So what if the Higges Bozon or general relativity isn't confirmed or found to be wrong like Newton and others were found not to be right? Are they not science? we devote a lot of time in schools learning this "non science" don't we?"They" in that sentence are ideas explaining the phenomena, not the phenomena themselves. Phenomena are just stuff that happens, they don't require us to understand them or to measure them for them to happen (yes there is a slight fudge with that and quantum mechanics but lets leave that out for the moment). Lightening happens even if we think it is charge from rain drops or Thor throwing his hammer.
But if the explanation is semantically literal it has to be true or false!
Ideas that attempt to explain these phenomena (that was caused by charge from rain drops, that was caused by Thor throwing his happen) are not science unless they undergo some confirmation.
So the Higge's Bozon, general relativity, evolution and Newtonian gravity are not science? We seem to spend a lot of time on money on them and call them science.Think of it this way. A riot happens in north Dublin. Then a newspaper writes an article as to what happened. The article isn't the riot. The riot would have happened even if the newspaper article had never been written. And the facts of the riot are a particular way even if the newspaper article got all the facts completely wrong. The confidence in the accuracy of the newspaper article as an accurate representation of the riot increases the more fact checking the author does.
This leads us back to relativism! "The Map is not the territory" type stuff. If science only makes maps and doesn't comment on untimate reality. You have therefore abandoned scientific realism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
for a form of instrumentalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
But you are swinging dangerously close to a constructivist stance which is basically relativist. . Constructivists claim that the concepts of science are mental constructs proposed in order to explain our sensory experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology
Are physicists only Mapmakers or reporters reporting on riots of particles?
Do you see the problems I have with this concept?0 -
-
-
-
That is your opinion. Empiricism ( of the instrumentalist variety) for want of a better term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality.
Again I really can't be responsible for every branch of science philosophy you can dig up to counter my point. Instrumentalism feel out of favor nearly 60 years ago.
Did you think I was representing the instrumentalist position when you assumed I equated scientific theory with the phenomena itself.
These discussions tend to take a rather predictable yet frustrating path
Me - I don't think there is such thing a scientific theories with no evidence.
You - I don't understand this as to me it appears to contradict "...a phenomena doesn't exist until science has measured it. That was certainly not the impression I meant to give."
Me - Scientific theories aren't phenomena.
You - That is your opinion. ... Instrumentalism ... etc ....
It is my "opinion", but it also explains why I don't think there is such thing a scientific theories with no evidence. makes sense.
It is counter productive to find fault with what I say by assuming I subscribe to obscure philosophical positions when assuming I subscribe to modern mainstream scientific position makes what I say make sense.But you are saying Boyle's theory about air was not science until it was measured?
And so was Galileo's theory that the Earth moved not science until we measured the Earth moving? It happened to be true but it was not science?
Yes. Science is about assessing if a theory is likely to be true. Simply having an idea with an unknown accuracy level is useless.
I could say the multi-verse exists. I could be right. But since I've no idea if I am or not this is of no use.How about the general theory of Relativity or the Higge's Bozon. they are not science until we confirm they exist?
Not sure what you mean confirm they exist in relation to relativity (relativity didn't confirm something existed, it explained something). The Higgs boson on the other hand is something we don't know exists, it is a prediction of theories. Confirming the Higgs particle exists will add support to the models that predicted it does.We seem to be spending tens of billions on particle accelerators and spaceships and telescopes for all this "non science" don't we?
We are spending tens of billions on particle accelerators and spaceships and telescopes so we can do science. Science is the testing of ideas. We have to test these ideas in order say they are scientific which is why we build these things so we can do this.In your view science is only ultimately about confirming by measurement.
You can take anything I say to be my view.So what if the Higges Bozon or general relativity isn't confirmed or found to be wrong like Newton and others were found not to be right? Are they not science?
You keep using that term some what oddly, "not science". Science is a methodology to filter ideas. If an idea fails to pass this methodology it is not considered a scientifically supported idea. If that is what you mean by "not science" then no it is not science.we devote a lot of time in schools learning this "non science" don't we?
I aware of no school other than religious schools that continue to teach ideas that have failed to pass scientific examination.But if the explanation is semantically literal it has to be true or false!
And? That is irrelevant to the phenomena itself.
If the theory of gravity says that on earth something will fall at 9.8m/s/s that theory is semantically literal (that statement can evaluate to true or false)
That is irrelevant to gravity itself. This should make sense to you, a theory can be wrong if it doesn't match the phenomena.
If I say things will fall at 9.8m/s/s that doesn't mean that magically gravity starts working as I said it will.
You are going to have to define what you mean by "not science". You seem to be using that terminology different to me and Morbert.So the Higge's Bozon, general relativity, evolution and Newtonian gravity are not science?
If an idea has either not attempted to pass scientific examination, or has failed scientific examination then it is not scientifically supported. If that is what you mean by not science then no not science.
A map is a comment on reality, as is a scientific theory. They are not the reality. If you change a map of England England itself doesn't change.This leads us back to relativism! "The Map is not the territory" type stuff. If science only makes maps and doesn't comment on untimate reality.Are physicists only Mapmakers or reporters reporting on riots of particles?
Do you see the problems I have with this concept?
Do you believe a physicist can alter a natural phenomena by altering the theory describing that natural phenomena?
Do you see the problems I have with that concept?0 -
-
Again I really can't be responsible for every branch of science philosophy you can dig up to counter my point.
so you accept it is a valid counter?
And you accept that you point isn't what science actually is but merely your opinion as to what it is and how it operates?Instrumentalism feel out of favor nearly 60 years ago.
Classical instrumentalism fell yes but
1. You claim something is valid if it is "in favour" and not proven i.e. it is argued by authority and opinion?
2. I made a clear distinction between the classical and the constructive imstrumentalism.Did you think I was representing the instrumentalist position when you assumed I equated scientific theory with the phenomena itself.
No if so I would call you a "realist" - I supplied the definitions.These discussions tend to take a rather predictable yet frustrating path
Me - I don't think there is such thing a scientific theories with no evidence.
You - I don't understand this as to me it appears to contradict "...a phenomena doesn't exist until science has measured it. That was certainly not the impression I meant to give."
Me - Scientific theories aren't phenomena.
You - That is your opinion. ... Instrumentalism ... etc ....
It is my "opinion", but it also explains why I don't think there is such thing a scientific theories with no evidence. makes sense.
In other words science is only about measuring things and confirmation and not about whether any real thing exists in the first place? "Preserving the appearances" I think the people called it in Galileo's time. Don't you agree that if you view things that way ( as the Church did at the time of galileo) there is therefore no point in arguing about Galileo being right?It is counter productive to find fault with what I say
It is a logical and reasonable thing to do if such a fault exists. what I am trying to do it acquaint you with elements you might not have considered.by assuming I subscribe to obscure philosophical positions
A. I didn't assume. I put extensive effort into clarifying what your position is. I supply plenty of references and definitions and point to the fact that the opinions you express are along the lines of prior thinkers in the field and point out the problems they encountered. Far from being counter productive this is how academic exploration takes place.
when assuming I subscribe to modern mainstream scientific position makes what I say make sense.
What is "modern mainstream science"? Was that the science followed by people when Galileo said they were all wrong? How about the science followed by Newtonian Physicists was that modern mainstream science then? Arew wormholes and the Higges particle modern mainstream science?Yes. Science is about assessing if a theory is likely to be true. Simply having an idea with an unknown accuracy level is useless.
So the Higges bozon and wormholes are NOT science until they can be shown to be! Nor was electromagnetism, relativity, gas laws, etc. And when somebody comes along and shows Newton's theory is wrong then it stops being science and whatever is more accurate (because it lives up to more tests and conformation) suddenly becomes science.
Apparently the "Big Bang" is science. You are aware there are only three or four things which "confirm" the Big Bang and some counter theories ? I would suggest both are scientific but only one is true.I could say the multi-verse exists. I could be right. But since I've no idea if I am or not this is of no use.
It could be! It could force you into doing mathematics which could be used elsewhere to prove something else for example. Who are you to judge the academic freedom of another academic? how can you say what they do is useless?Not sure what you mean confirm they exist in relation to relativity (relativity didn't confirm something existed, it explained something). The Higgs boson on the other hand is something we don't know exists, it is a prediction of theories. Confirming the Higgs particle exists will add support to the models that predicted it does.
And it isn't science! Until it is confirmed. Then suddenly as if by magic let there be a Higge's Bozon! It is part of science.We are spending tens of billions on particle accelerators and spaceships and telescopes so we can do science. Science is the testing of ideas.
That is a contradiction! Either it is the conformation of useful things or it included the ideas before they are tested and confirmed. Which is it?We have to test these ideas in order say they are scientific which is why we build these things so we can do this.
I mean have you considered how you can test things you have not yet thought of?
It doesn't make sense really does it?
You can take anything I say to be my view.You keep using that term some what oddly, "not science". Science is a methodology to filter ideas.
But what happened to your earlier definition? that something isnt part of science until confirmed? Now it is the confirmation process? Does this process in fact involve the idea in the first place? Before the process is even thought of? Bit by bit we are going back to untested hypothesis. BEFORE confirmation or before constructing a confirmation or falsification test.If an idea fails to pass this methodology it is not considered a scientifically supported idea. If that is what you mean by "not science" then no it is not science.
the point is:
Is it a "scientifically supported" idea before any such test is constructed?
I aware of no school other than religious schools that continue to teach ideas that have failed to pass scientific examination.
Newtonian Gravitation is superseded by Einsteinian gravity! It fails to confirm the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. We still teach it!
That is irrelevant to gravity itself. This should make sense to you, a theory can be wrong if it doesn't match the phenomena.
Like Newtonian Gravity and Mercury's perihelion?If I say things will fall at 9.8m/s/s that doesn't mean that magically gravity starts working as I said it will.
Yes a genetic fallacy - confusing origin with cause - so what?You are going to have to define what you mean by "not science". You seem to be using that terminology different to me and Morbert.
You - science is about measurement and confirmation.
Me- what about things not measured and not confirmed are they NOT science?If an idea has either not attempted to pass scientific examination, or has failed scientific examination then it is not scientifically supported. If that is what you mean by not science then no not science.
Newtonian gravitation is therefore not science!
And dowsing is because people have "attempted to pass scientific examination"?A map is a comment on reality, as is a scientific theory.
More contradiction. The instrumentalist says "we just make maps we dont comment on the territory" A realist says "science is trying to understand the territory" that there is a real world out there we can understand.
When you say a comment "on reality" you make a gesture to your pewrsonal confirmation of a "reality". You aren't arguing about maps anymore but admitting the real world is there and you can find out about it.They are not the reality. If you change a map of England England itself doesn't change.
so there IS an objective reality just as there is an England? and science is about discovering that reality or not? You have changed position to one of realism now?
What happened to "the Map is not the territory and science only being about making maps"Do you believe a physicist can alter a natural phenomena by altering the theory describing that natural phenomena?
That is an excellent question. It presupposes a realist stance and not a relativist one so I will answer it in that sense. No.
A relativist would however say reality is all about description that we can't talk about objective natural phenomena and that knowledge is constructed by us. To a relativist objective phenoma dont really exist!Do you see the problems I have with that concept?
Well?0 -
-
so you accept it is a valid counter?
To what exactly?
You said my posts were contradicting themselves. You wheeled out instramentalism to justify that idea, yet didn't establish I actually hold to the ideas of instramentalism, which I don't.
So where is the contradiction?And you accept that you point isn't what science actually is but merely your opinion as to what it is and how it operates?
We have been over this before. When I say "science" I mean the mainstream modern philosophy, not the entire body of philosophical discussion that has taken place over the last 400 years.
Instrumentalism is not, as far as I'm aware, in favor by anyone these days.
Instrumentalism also isn't actually a counter to the idea that a theory is the phenomena and vice versa. Instrumentalism is the view that the theory is considered correct if it can explain the observations of the phenomena even if how it was producing matching results is different to how the phenomena produced them.
To use a map making terminology, if you the woods are green and your map is green that is enough, you don't have to represent on your map that the territory is green because there are trees there.
It still didn't mean the theory was the phenomena. But all that is some what irrelevant since I don't hold to instramentalism anyway.Classical instrumentalism fell yes but
1. You claim something is valid if it is "in favour" and not proven i.e. it is argued by authority and opinion?
I don't claim something is valid if it is in favour. I suggested that this discussion would move faster if to support points about me contradicting myself you stuck to current in favour modern mainstream science instead of digging out any obscure philosophical position and assuming I hold to it in order to find a contradiction in what I'm saying.In other words science is only about measuring things and confirmation and not about whether any real thing exists in the first place?
Define "real things". Why are the things you are measuring if they are not real?
And what does this have to do with the frustrating path our discussions take?
The fault only exists if you assume I subscribe to an obscure out of favour philosophical position. Given that this produces a contradiction in what I say wouldn't be more logical to assume I don't hold to this philosophical position since not holding to it makes the contradiction disappear.It is a logical and reasonable thing to do if such a fault exists.
Its like me saying I love a good beef roast on Sundays to have you say that a contradictory position, have use debate for a while until I discover you are assuming I am vegetarian.what I am trying to do it acquaint you with elements you might not have considered.
It seems to me you are trying to retro-actively justify claims of contradiction.So the Higges bozon and wormholes are NOT science until they can be shown to be!
Both those things are predicted phenomena. They wouldn't be "science" even if they were shown to exist. Science is a methodology for sorting ideas about the natural world. Ideas are scientific or not scientific based on whether they are survived scientific examination. Phenomena are not considered scientific or not-scientific.
A lightening bolt is not "science". The theory explaining what a lightening bolt is is a scientifically verified theory, ie an idea of explaining a lightening bolt that has passed rigorous scientific examination.And when somebody comes along and shows Newton's theory is wrong then it stops being science
Again you are going to have to explain what "being science" means as as I said in my previous post you are using that term in a some what weird way.It could be! It could force you into doing mathematics which could be used elsewhere to prove something else for example.
Groan. I didn't think this had to be clarified, but when I said "use" I mean use in explaining the natural world, which is the purpose of science.
My idea about the multiverse could inspire me to have a baby with my girlfriend, but that obviously (or so I thought) wasn't what I meant.
You are getting back to being needlessly argumentative now.And it isn't science! Until it is confirmed. Then suddenly as if by magic let there be a Higge's Bozon! It is part of science.
Science is a process an idea passes through.
You might as well say a law "magically" becomes constitutional once it is passed by the President.That is a contradiction! Either it is the conformation of useful things or it included the ideas before they are tested and confirmed. Which is it?
What are you talking about?
Science is a process of filtering ideas so we are left with ones we have high confidence in and we throw away the ones we don't. We build particle accelerators and telescopes to do this, to test our ideas.
Bad ideas enter this process along with good ideas, that is the purpose of the process because at the start we don't know if they are bad ideas or good ideas.
I'm really failing to grasp your problem with this, but I would suggest that what ever you THINK I'm saying that isn't what I'm saying since what ever you think I'm saying seems to be tying you up in great knots when in fact all of this is pretty simple.I mean have you considered how you can test things you have not yet thought of?
Why would need or want to?But what happened to your earlier definition? that something isnt part of science until confirmed?
Define "part of science". Again this is your increasingly wonky terminology not mine.
Science is a methodology, a process. I have never suggested otherwise. An idea is scientific verified if it has gone through this process and survived.
Think of it like assessing if a law is or isn't constitutional.Is it a "scientifically supported" idea before any such test is constructed?
You seem to be getting into this quasi-philosophical realm of is a painting beautiful before it has been painted ponderings. Or is a law constitutional before anyone came up with the law?
Is that really necessary?Newtonian Gravitation is superseded by Einsteinian gravity! It fails to confirm the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. We still teach it!
What has teaching got to do with anything? Did I ever say you can't teach non-scientific ideas, or teach that an idea was once considered highly scientifically accurate but has now be superseded by much more accurate ideas?
Yes. Gravity didn't change to fit Newton's ideas of gravity.Like Newtonian Gravity and Mercury's perihelion?Yes a genetic fallacy - confusing origin with cause - so what?
It is not confusing origin with cause, it is confusing a model with the thing it is representing.You - science is about measurement and confirmation.
Me- what about things not measured and not confirmed are they NOT science?
Again you are going to have to confirm what you mean by not science.
Science is a thing you do. Asking is an idea not science is like asking is a mountain not geographical survey. Such a question by itself does not make sense. If the mountain has not be geographically surveyed then it is not geographically surveyed. The mountain still exists but our understand of it is less that it would be after the survey.Newtonian gravitation is therefore not science!
Newtonian gravitation is not considered scientifically accurate anymore. General relativity is a much more accurate explanation for the phenomena of gravity.
In the same way that the 1850 geographical survey of Wicklow is not the one that pops up when you load Google Maps.
Only you can answer does that mean the 1850 geographical survey of Wicklow is or isn't geographical survey since only you seem to be following that line of terminology.More contradiction. The instrumentalist says "we just make maps we dont comment on the territory" A realist says "science is trying to understand the territory" that there is a real world out there we can understand.
No that isn't what either says. An instrumentalists says it doesn't matter how you make the map so long as the map looks like the land.
So an instrumentalist might color in an area of the map green.
Where as a non-instrumentalist (which covers a range of other ideas and philosophoies) would instead of coloring in the area green right "trees"
An instrumentalist might put a large square brick textured shape beside a black wide line on the ground, where as a non-instrumentalist would say "house" along a "road"
The instrumentalists is saying it is enough that the map produces the same outcome as viewing the actual territory, where as a non-instrumentalist would say that you have to understand why the model is making this output and see if it is making this output for the same reason as the real world. That red brick structure is a house, and the map should reflect that.
Both are comments on reality, but the instrumentalist believes it is important to simply get it to look like reality without needing to know why it does.
I'm not an instrumentalist.When you say a comment "on reality" you make a gesture to your pewrsonal confirmation of a "reality". You aren't arguing about maps anymore but admitting the real world is there and you can find out about it.
You have lost me. Can you point out a map maker who didn't believe the real world existed? If so what was he mapping?so there IS an objective reality just as there is an England? and science is about discovering that reality or not? You have changed position to one of realism now?
My position has never changed. There is England and there are maps of England. There are natural phenomena and there are scientific theories explaining natural phenomena.
Once again we come to the rather tiresome need to say ISAW what ever you think I'm saying, I'm not. :rolleyes:What happened to "the Map is not the territory and science only being about making maps"
Nothing happened to it. The map is not the territory (if you destroy a map of England England doesn't disappear). If you rip up a book on general realtivity the universe doesn't implode.That is an excellent question. It presupposes a realist stance and not a relativist one so I will answer it in that sense. No.
So why do you have such trouble understanding when I say the same thing?A relativist would however say reality is all about description that we can't talk about objective natural phenomena and that knowledge is constructed by us. To a relativist objective phenoma dont really exist!
Since neither of us are relativists that is some what irrelevant.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
While technically that is the instrumentalists position that is not what makes it the instrumentalists position (ie it is not the thing unique to instrumentalism)
so you are only technically an instrumentalist?nor is that position exclusive to instrumentalist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Scientific_realism_and_instrumentalism
Scientific realists claim that science aims at truth and that one ought to regard scientific theories as true, approximately true, or likely true. Conversely, a scientific antirealist or instrumentalist argues that science does not aim (or at least does not succeed) at truth and that we should not regard scientific theories as true.[7] Some antirealists claim that scientific theories aim at being instrumentally useful and should only be regarded as useful, but not true, descriptions of the world.[8]
When you sayscience is about maps and confirmation and all about accurate measurement.
It isn't about describing a real territory. when you totally reject things which cant be observed or for which you can't measure or produce evidence and which are just theories or models without confirming backup you are accepting only that which can be measured. What help is it to say a real thing may well exist if you believe that in the absence of measurement of this "real thing" it is not part of science?The instrumentalists position is that a theory does not have to explain why it produces accurate results that match observation, the fact that it does is good enough. Non-instrumentalist position would be it does matter that the model produces the accurate results for the same reason the phenomena does.
So what?First of all I'm not an instrumentalist.
But you believe anything which cant be observed and measured is not part of science?Second of all saying I'm an instrumentalists doesn't contradict that science is about models of natural phenomena. Both instrumentalists and non-instrumentalist positions view science as the process of constructing accurate models of natural phenomena, but instrumentalists hold a particular position on how the model produces this accuracy (ie it doesn't matter how the model produces this accuracy just so long as it does).
It might be impossible to say how it does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesisI haven't made an argument about instrumentalism
how about the argument where all that matters in science is accurately measuring things as opposed to theories and hypothesis describing unmeasured or unmeasurable things which are not to be regarded as science?other than I don't subscribe,
[/quoter]
That isn't an argument it is an opinionit isn't used very often if at all in modern science and given that I'm puzzled as to why you would assume I did subscribe to it.
considering dating from the early twentieth it is about as modern as relativity or quantum physics I would wonder what you mean by "modern science"? Recent developments in constructive instrumentalism date from the 1980s. ( Van Fraassen, The Scientific Image.) Several times you have pushed out this idea as if it is a jaded theory rejected by authority. I think you have stated that all that matters in science is accurately measuring things as opposed to theories and hypothesis describing unmeasured or unmeasurable things which are not to be regarded as science. that is why I say you have instrumentalist tendencies.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+instrumentalism
instrumentalism or experimentalism
Philosophy advanced by John Dewey holding that what is most important in a thing or idea is its value as an instrument of action and that the truth of an idea lies in its usefulness.
Mind you I would call this pragmatism.In the instrumentalist view, consciousness (or intelligence, in Dewey’s terms) is a means of adaptation to changing environmental conditions: logical concepts, ideas, and scientific laws and theories are all simply instruments (hence the name “instrumen-talism”), tools, “keys to situations,” or “plans for action.” In thus rejecting the objective content of knowledge and the view that truth is a reflection of material reality, instrumentalism regards truth in purely functional respects as something that “assures success in a given situation.” The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979)
No that is not the claim it makes.
[i.e.. does not claim to describe the real world?]
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Instrumentalism
Instrumentalism is a view in philosophy of science that claims scientific theories are merely useful tools for predicting phenomena instead of true or approximately true descriptions of the physical world.
Instrumentalists believe they are modeling the real world in that they are modeling the results of phenomena, but not worrying about how they get those results.
I disagree. I have made my point clear.
http://moderndilettante.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/instrumentalism-and-the-embarrassing-history-of-science/This sad state has fostered a philosophical position known as instrumentalism; the thesis that scientific theories should not be interpreted literally–i.e., that the constituents of the theory should not be taken to be referring to ‘real’ components of reality and that, therefore, the theory should not be taken to be an attempt to genuinely and accurately describe reality as it exists apart from the theory. Thus, science, according to the instrumentalists, whatever it is, is not the attempt to accurately describe the world we inhabit. The task of the scientist is to generate and enumerate predictively successful theories in any way possible. This means that the entities posited by our best scientific theories should not be taken literally because the instrumentalist theorist does not really believe in the reality of the entities posited.This is why instrumentalism feel out of favor, most scientists now believe that this isn't enough, it is unsatisfactory to look solely at making your results line up with phenomena even if you don't know why.
If you really believe that then why do you hold that science is ultimately and only about measuring things accurately?( message 46)Instrumentalism is about modeling the real world. What do you think they were attempting to model if not the real world?
No it isn't!
Bolding added by me:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k6m3524q634v4g52/In general the division is equivalent to
that between scientific realists who affirm the existence of entities supposedly
denoted by the terms scientists use in their explanations and
predictions, and scientific instrumentalists who claim that because for the
kind of explanation science requires no entities need be assumed, the
purely theoretical terms of science are nonreferring symbolic devices that
function solely as integral parts of inference rules to warrant inferences
among observation statements This debate between scientific realists and instrumentalists is about the reality of theoretical entities,Yes I can quote Wikipedia too but you actually understand what that means?
Hmmm. QED!The phenomena is still in the "real world".
To a realist.This discussion is quite lacking attempts by you to get me to define my position.
I wont rehearse the numbers of questions i have asked and outlines I have presented and asked you to verify.Most of it is made up with me attempting to explain to you that my position isn't what you assume it to be.
i can only go by what you state! e.g. "ALL SCIENCE IS ONLY ABOUT ACCURACY"We have gone from you thinking am I realist to you assuming I'm an instrumentalist. I'm neither.
I didnt define you as either .
You have leaned on radically opposing philosophies in support of your position. You can't subscribe to two mutually contradictory philosophies. Well you can, as Kuhn pointed out, but in the end you ultimately have to reject one paradigm.
Do you still believe all science is only about accuracy?I'm well aware of the problems instrumentalists encountered, it is one of the reasons I'm not an instrumentalist. I find the whole idea profoundly unsatisfactory, as did a lot of other people.
so science is not just about measuring things accurately? It is about other things? Might it not even be about unobservables, unmeasurable things, or things that exist only as hypothesis or theory?Going back a few posts there is actually nothing contradictory in what I was saying at all. You asserted I held to instrumentalism and then charged me with contradicting myself, when in fact I don't hold to instrumentalism at all so there is no contradiction
So all science is not just about measuring things accurately? It is about other things? Might it not even be about unobservable things, unmeasurable things, or things that exist only as hypothesis or theory?
You are aware these are the central criticisms foisted on instrumentalism?Again can you see why I find these sort of arguments by you to be deeply frustrating.
Maybe because they point out contradictions in your position and while you rely on concepts from a particular philosophy you claim to reject that philosophy? So I put these concepts to you and you adhere to them yet still claim not to follow that philosophy and offer a differing definition of it than found in reference work. Finally I point to why I thought you had such notions in the first place and how the "all about measurement"
empirical ideals of instrumentalism had been critiqued in the past. But in spiote of direct question I still have no answer to "Do you still believe all science is only about accuracy?"I don't hold any contradictory position. What ever position you think I hold that is contradictory I assure you I don't.
that may be what you believe but do you also still believe all science is only about accuracy? Accurate instrument is what science is all about?This time I'm not sure what the heck you think I subscribe to that is contradicting something else, but perhaps you should have learnt a lesson from the last time.
Yes that I should ask you to clarify things before I proceed. It took several pages to nail down your claims on relativism. I accept you aren't one but this is problematic if you believe science is about accurate measurements and not about theories or hypothesis on relality.Instruments are not processes and processes are not instruments so that question doesn't make sense.
The argument isnt linguistic!
Synthese
Volume 25, Numbers 1-2, 82-128,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k6m3524q634v4g52/
page 84(7) If theoretical terms of science are unnecessary, then there is no
reason to postulate the existence of any referents of theoretical terms,
i.e. any theoretical entities.
(8) If there is no reason to postulate the existence of any theoretical
entities, then it is unreasonable to believe that there are any theoretical
entities, i.e. it is reasonable to accept scientific instrumentalist.It may seem I'm being overly pedantic but you have tendency to take what I saw based on exact literal meaning so from no one I want you to define things very carefully lest me agreeing or not agreeing with you is simply turned around as something else to attack me with.
Ironically Hegel called "synthesis" i.e. thesis ->antithesis ->.
The think is while you may say I don't know what I am talking about and don't understand instrumentalism I would say "go by what I write". I think I have demonstrated I do have some idea about the subject. I am going by what you claimed and you "science is all about accuracy" position was the one that setr me of exploring what the basis for that position was.Not accurate descriptions of the real world (as if there is another kind)
Other kind of description or other kind of world? what do you emphasise?Again I'm very fuzzy as to what context you are using instrument through out this discussion so I'm ignoring questions that ask me to say something is or isn't an instrument.
Having not replied to you remarks that I don't understand what "scientific instrumentalism" is need I remind you that it views science as an instrument - hence the name?They accurately describe the real world. We can never tell if a model is describing the real world (ie 100% accurate)
But we can. Let me first ask you if you accept the fact that experimental error has nothing to do with this? i.e. just because we measure something plus or minus one percent isn't anything to do with the "not 100 per cent accurate" argument?
Now While I cant say the number of air molecules in a room I can say with 100 per cent accuracy that the room contains air and not poisonous gas. I can say with 100 per cent accuracy that the earth has been going round the Sun for the last year.You say those things as if they are mutually exclusive. They aren't. I really don't think you understand instrumentalism.
So you may believe. What evidence do you have to support that thesis?Closest to scientific realism, mainly because constructive empiricism is very badly defined as far as I can tell from reading about it on the internet (it is claimed it is an anti-realist argument, which may be true, but has parts which fit with realism)
Relativists tend to be like that. Watch out!
As for me I hate constructivism but find it very difficult to disprove.I can't see anyway to do science without spending money. Are you saying we should never explore new ideas, only ideas that have already been scientifically established?
Nope I accept a pragmatic approach. I am aware much Chemistry is funded by computing budgets. But im saying that you have suggested science is not those things on which much if not most of our science money and science education money is spent.
Does that not lead you to question your definition of science?Surely then we will never develop new scientific ideas if you refuse to spend money testing an idea unless you already know it will pass scientific processes?
If they already knew they would have a prototype. But I agree with you. We test things
to see if they pass our instrument. But the problem I have is that BEFORE the test you are suggesting these things are not scientific but AFTER the test they are. I would think they always were. And if you are a realist what magically happened when these things become confirmed? How have they changed if they always existed?Standford put it better
Scientific realists hold that the characteristic product of successful scientific research is knowledge of largely theory-independent phenomena and that such knowledge is possible (indeed actual) even in those cases in which the relevant phenomena are not, in any non-question-begging sense, observable
In this view science is attempting to describe the world as it is. I think the problem you are making is not realising that science can also get it wrong and when getting it wrong realists don't believe the natural world itself changes to fit this wrong model.
No i asking you how is it you reject a model of something which has not been observed as not part of science as you did with wormholes etc.? How is only things which are measured accurately are part of science in your view? And if it does not matter HOW that is but it just is then how are you not an instrumentalist?Science is a methodology. The only "parts" of it are the parts of the process
Only a method? Only an instrument? Or is science also hypotheses and theories even when these theories have not yet been confirmed or falsified?It was never not a process.
I have to admit you are confusing me here. How is science only a process and also not an instrument?
Here read this and tell me what you think about it:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.115.8174&rep=rep1&type=pdfNeither say science isn't a process. I'm not aware of any philosophical concept of science where science is not a methodology or process. They argue about what the process is and what the conclusions of it are.
there is the process content dichotomy.
But Ros Driver is one of these arch constructivists.
To make yoursewlf aware of a philosophical concept of science where science is not a methodology or process see page 414 Millar and Driver (1987),
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t78564h854314643/
Nice woman though. RIP. The pupil as scientist? ( 1983) is well worth a read.And I'm not an instrumentalist.
In denial now ? Joking aside, I think I have made my point about that clear.I don't know how to answer that because I don't know what you think something being science is. You have to define that first then I can answer that question based no your idea of something "being science"
No I don't really! I don't have to offer my definition. we are discussing your idea of science not mine. Ill quite happily tell you what I believe though. I believe hypotheses theory and measurement are all part of a scientific world view or paradigm. This is personalised by the observer but doesn't mean that an objective real world out there does not exist.
The difference is what they think their maps should do.
Ah now that would be utilitarianism!
"should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena"
The land is the phenomena. The difference is the level of understanding of the land.
Hmmm. Im beginning to get a different concept of your position. It now seems realist. But why cant you entertain objective reality in absence of measurement of it? i have difficulty with this too. Sagan's dragon.What do you think a mapping process is if it isn't exploring the real world?
The Classical answer is "An instrument for preserving the appearances"You don't have to see something to measure it. You can for example measure it through the effect it has on other things, that is how we detect extra-solar planets, by observing the pull they have on stars.
Indirect measurement is still measurement NB "by observing the pull they have on stars"?I would consider that observing extra-solar planets, though I'm pretty sure you will dig up some obscure philosophical position that says I'm wrong :rolleyes:
It isn't non observable if you observe an effect it has!
That seems obscure to you??England still exists. With out getting into the realm of quantum physics, it doesn't go puff! and disappear just because people stop looking at it.
And if nobody never went there it would still exist? In the absence of any evidence for it it would still exist? So how come you cant say this for wormholes or theoretical particles or alternate universes. Personally I have different levels of or criteria for what I accept like this as science but not necessarily on a scientific basis. e.g. i might accept the Higges Bozon but not tachyons or dark energy and I might not accept parallel universes but accept wormholes.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement