Religion and Science
Tyagi Morgoth NagaSiva
k...@news.neosoft.com (Kurt Arbuckle) writes:
|To me it seems obvious that the only difference between religion and
|science is their respective vocabularies.
Some of the goals and results appear to differ also, depending on what
you include in each.
|If you describe elctrons
|as tiny gods, you can come up with a religious sounding explanation
|for electricity, but it is still the same set of phenomenae.
Ah, but our *feeling* about these electrons will change, won't it?
Our *relationship* with the gods will be much different. This is
the essential experiential difference between religious and scientific
establishments, even though it isn't cut and dried. There are of course
those within the scientific establishment who feel devotional or that
their role is 'sacred' in some way.
There are also those within conventional religion who are as cold and
analytical as the most disgusting of today's modern 'scientists'. :>
|Likewise,
|describing something that is usually thought of as religious, in
|scientific terms still describes the same thing.
Large body of argument against you here. If all a thing *is* is thoughts
about it, then as their description changes, so do the things which they
are looking at change, even while given the same referent.
|I have always thought
|it strange that some people express greater *faith* in science. Science
|can be wrong, too.
Here I speak not of modern Science but of Science as a discipline and a
tool. Science cannot be 'wrong', or 'inaccurate'. This kind of thinking
results from placing it in a role with respect to humans as unbefits its
station. Science is a friend and a process, a tool of coming to know, that
is better left outside the Temple unless smothered in artistry.
|Whatever leads to greater knowledge is valid.
Profound.
|Who cares
|what it is called. (I am refering to the conventional aspect of language,
|not the sound aspect.)
If you think that by naming we do not change a thing, or if you think that
all of these 'approaches' as you appear to be categorizing them, are in any
sense 'the same way', please explain yourself. Thanks.
|Kurt Arbuckle
Tyagi Nagasiva
Kurt Arbuckle
: k...@news.neosoft.com (Kurt Arbuckle) writes:
: |To me it seems obvious that the only difference between religion and
: |science is their respective vocabularies.
: Some of the goals and results appear to differ also, depending on what
: you include in each.
Off hand, I cannot think of a goal or result of one that could not be
a goal or result of the other. Greater knowledge, a better life, etc.
If I say the goal of religion is to become closer to God, is that really
very different than saying the goal of science is to give wo/man a
better sense of her/his place in the universe? The goals may sound different
because the vocabulary used is different.
Within a given historical setting, the use to which scientific and
religious vocabularies are put may differ, and may even run contrary
to the stated goals in vogue at the time, _eg_ using religion to start
a war and science to make it more deadly :-(
The "advances" of science *could* have been achieved by religious theories,
and the fact that they were not is really just historical happenstance, IMO.
Likewise, a scientific proposition such as Bell's inequality with its
implication that reality is not local, certainly could lead to some insights
heretofore considered to be reigious in nature.
: |If you describe elctrons
: |as tiny gods, you can come up with a religious sounding explanation
: |for electricity, but it is still the same set of phenomenae.
: Ah, but our *feeling* about these electrons will change, won't it?
: Our *relationship* with the gods will be much different. This is
: the essential experiential difference between religious and scientific
: establishments, even though it isn't cut and dried. There are of course
: those within the scientific establishment who feel devotional or that
: their role is 'sacred' in some way.
: There are also those within conventional religion who are as cold and
: analytical as the most disgusting of today's modern 'scientists'. :>
I contend that the feeling that we get from science or religion is not
intrinsic to that vocabulary, as the diversity you discribe here would
tend to support. To the extent that there may be some uniformity to
those feelings between some people is a cultural circumstance but not
a necessity.
: |Likewise,
: |describing something that is usually thought of as religious, in
: |scientific terms still describes the same thing.
: Large body of argument against you here. If all a thing *is* is thoughts
: about it, then as their description changes, so do the things which they
: are looking at change, even while given the same referent.
Well I don't necessarily agree with your assumptions, but no matter, because
ideas can very amongst religions or scientists as to how to describe
somehting, so it can not be contended that the vocabulary is exact enough
in either case to demark a fundamental difference.
: |I have always thought
: |it strange that some people express greater *faith* in science. Science
: |can be wrong, too.
: Here I speak not of modern Science but of Science as a discipline and a
: tool. Science cannot be 'wrong', or 'inaccurate'. This kind of thinking
: results from placing it in a role with respect to humans as unbefits its
: station. Science is a friend and a process, a tool of coming to know, that
: is better left outside the Temple unless smothered in artistry.
:
Except for the part about the Temple, the same thing could be said of
religion. (In my original post, I should have said that the people who
claim to do science can be wrong, too.)
The part about the Temple, begs the question. You are saying that
science and religion are best kept seperate. That assumes that they
are really different, which I contend is really illusory.
: |Whateve leads to greater knowledge is valid.
: Profound.
You flatterer :-)
: |Who cares
: |what it is called. (I am refering to the conventional aspect of language,
: |not the sound aspect.)
: If you think that by naming we do not change a thing, or if you think that
: all of these 'approaches' as you appear to be categorizing them, are in any
: sense 'the same way', please explain yourself. Thanks.
Well I hope what I just wrote does that to some extent:-)
My original point was that TM can be explained in religious or scientific
vocabularies, and that there is nothing deceptive about that.
Kurt Arbuckle
Fritz Lehmann
is that most (not all) religious beliefs are false
and most (not all) scientific beliefs are true.
This is intended to include beliefs of people
throughout the world.
Yours truly, Fritz Lehmann
=======================================================
Kurt Arbuckle
: A current difference between religion and science
This is getting away from a.m.t. but two questions:
1. As a scientist, how do you prove your claim that
most scientific beliefs are true without using scientific
principles (which would be circular reasoning). If you were
to use legal principles, for example, you would have to prove
*them* valid (without using science or law), and on it would go.
If on the other hand you accept the idea on faith, how is that
dofferent from religion?
2. Science meets the quantum mechanical definition of a system,
but that means that the truth of scientific beliefs (states of the
system) are *objectively* uncertain. So even using scientific
principles, your statement is really a matter of faith. How is
that intrinsically different from a religious belief?
TM -- science or religion? They are the same thing.
I am that, you are that, this is that, and that is that.
Kurt Arbuckle
arnold v. lesikar
>: A current difference between religion and science
>: is that most (not all) religious beliefs are false
>: and most (not all) scientific beliefs are true.
This struck me as an odd claim, for "true" is a word that does not
seem to be much used in the practice of science. A scientist would be
more likely to describe a model as "well confirmed," rather than true.
Meaningful theories must be open to disproof, and the fact that a
theory has passed a number of tests offers no certainty that further
observations may not disprove the theory.
"Truth" seems to have a tentative character in science, but Fritz
seems to be representing scientific truth as an absolute. Fritz
claims too much, but Kurt chose to question the claim on different
grounds than the question of "truth."
In article <2sdqcj$f...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, k...@starbase.neosoft.com (Kurt Arbuckle) writes:
>This is getting away from a.m.t. but two questions:
>1. As a scientist, how do you prove your claim that
>most scientific beliefs are true without using scientific
>principles (which would be circular reasoning).
The point here would seem to be the validation of the scientific
method. It seems to me that the validation comes from experience: it
works in the sense that the pictures of nature we derive from it allow
us to make successful predictions. Looking at nature through the lens
of science, the concept of "God" seems to have remarkably little
meaning. You can explain anything with that idea without having any
chance to disprove the "God" model at all.
There are grounds for further discussion here. Kurt might have some
hope of constructing an arguable case along these lines. But he should
quit when he is at least close to being even.
This next argument strikes me as utter nonsense!
>2. Science meets the quantum mechanical definition of a system,
Say what?!
Now just what do you mean by "science?" What kind of quantum
mechanical definition are you thinking of that "science" would
satisfy?
Stick with your first point or discuss the nature of truth, and you
will do a lot better.
with regards,
arn
les...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661
-:Fritz Lehmann (fr...@rodin.wustl.edu) wrote:
-:: A current difference between religion and science
-:: is that most (not all) religious beliefs are false
-:: and most (not all) scientific beliefs are true.
-:: This is intended to include beliefs of people
-:: throughout the world.
-:
-:: Yours truly, Fritz Lehmann
-:: =======================================================
-:
-:This is getting away from a.m.t. but two questions:
-:1. As a scientist, how do you prove your claim that
-:most scientific beliefs are true without using scientific
-:principles (which would be circular reasoning). If you were
-:to use legal principles, for example, you would have to prove
-:*them* valid (without using science or law), and on it would go.
-:If on the other hand you accept the idea on faith, how is that
-:dofferent from religion?
-:
-:2. Science meets the quantum mechanical definition of a system,
-:but that means that the truth of scientific beliefs (states of the
-:system) are *objectively* uncertain. So even using scientific
-:principles, your statement is really a matter of faith. How is
-:that intrinsically different from a religious belief?
-:
-:TM -- science or religion? They are the same thing.
-:I am that, you are that, this is that, and that is that.
-:
-:Kurt Arbuckle
-:
Man! I will propose you 2 for the 'Most Clueless Debate' Award!
maurizio
Sam Sengupta
I would make an attempt to explain what Kurt is saying. That religion is
based on a set of beliefs is well known. But, so is "Science" -- it, too,
is rooted on a set of beliefs. What "science" does allow us is a "consistent"
approach to extrapolate this domain of belief and conclude something.
But, that conclusion, one should not forget, is essentially anchored on a
set of beliefs which may be quite flimsy. In science, we elect to work with
domains which are empirically tested and retested to check if it makes
"sense" to lean on it based on what we know so far. So, in most cases, one
finds that in science one could advance a theory based on evidences which
are pretty well statistically REPRODUCIBLE.
Is TM a science or a religion? Is the effect of TM reproducible? Statistically,
yes! TM as a technique is a methodology which says that if I am at some state
X to start with and I carry out some set of exercise E over a period of time
T, I would be in a state Y at that time. But, then, one could achieve the
same endgame by many other different techniques which have nothing to do with
TM per se.
I think this is not the real issue one should be concerned about. Who cares
whether TM is science or religion, or none of the above, or both? Particularly,
when the difference between "science" and "religion" is quite fuzzy, could
we not ask, instead, questions which are more meaningful to our existence, to
our day-to-day challange of living? So, the first thing we should enquire is:
What is the most pressing thing in our lives and how TM can fulfill that need,
if at all.
Is floating-in-the-air our most pressing need? It is cheaper and less
time-consuming to board an aircraft and fly. Could TM make us rich? Perhaps
there are faster ways to attract fame and fortune. Could TM make us relax?
Sure, as long as we take it easy -- otherwise, jogging, swimming, playing
soccer, or even having a candle-light dinner with our heartthrobs may be
a better alternative. But, what is it that interests us most? Should we
not ask that question as well?
Saumen (seng...@sunyit.edu)
--
Warmest regards
Sam Sengupta (seng...@sunyit.edu)
Kurt Arbuckle
: In article <IV001.94M...@ipinocio.nibh.go.jp> iv...@nibh.go.jp
: (Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661) writes:]
: > Man! I will propose you 2 for the 'Most Clueless Debate' Award!
: >
: > maurizio
: Maurizio
: I don't know... I've seen a lot of clueless debates posted that would give
: this one a run for its money.
: Jason
[See also other posts with similar thoughts.]
Hi all you scientists out there lurking around a.m.t. Caught you
listening. If you think I did not have a clue before, wait 'til
you read this.
The only difference between the specification of scientific principles
and the specification of a physical system is vocabulary.
BTW, the way you feel about my heresy toward science (that I obviously
don't have a clue, I am ignorant of the ways of science, etc.) is
*exactly* the way a religious believer feels toward people who try to
introduce ideas contrary to the mainstream. Most scientists would
and did reject my assertions without a thought. Isn't that unquestioning
loyalty that is supposed to be the lot of the poor misguided faithful.
Sure science seems to work, but so does religion. I for one am against
neither, and they are the same human enterprise.
I could go on, but I will give you all the last word on this.
Kurt Arbuckle
arnold v. lesikar
>
>BTW, the way you feel about my heresy toward science (that I obviously
>don't have a clue, I am ignorant of the ways of science, etc.) is
>*exactly* the way a religious believer feels toward people who try to
>introduce ideas contrary to the mainstream. Most scientists would
>and did reject my assertions without a thought. Isn't that unquestioning
>loyalty that is supposed to be the lot of the poor misguided faithful.
>Sure science seems to work, but so does religion. I for one am against
>neither, and they are the same human enterprise.
>
I think most felt that your post showed such ignorance that it was
just too big an effort to educate you. They felt, I am sure, that you
were incapable of understanding substantive criticisms of your post.
Stephen Christopher Allison
Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
>BTW, the way you feel about my heresy toward science (that I obviously
>don't have a clue, I am ignorant of the ways of science, etc.) is
>*exactly* the way a religious believer feels toward people who try to
>introduce ideas contrary to the mainstream. Most scientists would
>and did reject my assertions without a thought. Isn't that unquestioning
>loyalty that is supposed to be the lot of the poor misguided faithful.
>Sure science seems to work, but so does religion. I for one am against
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>neither, and they are the same human enterprise.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you're saying science and religion set out to do the same
thing ? Well, I don't think they have the same purpose at all, science
never claims to know or to be able to explain everything (or indeed
_anything_ for certain), science provides a description of the world and
universe around us no more no less. Scientists would never claim that a
theory is absolutely true, merely that observations make their theory
plausable, and depending on the amount of conformation obtained
experimentally, more or less probable. So electrons _may_ not exist, but
by postulating that they do we can build a very accurate model of atomic
behaviour, if another theory could achieve such predictive accuracy
without postulating electrons then it would be just as correct as the
electronic theory.
Does religion set out to do this ? Science doesn't touch on the
spiritual - religion does , scince provides no moral structure - religion
does, religion doesn't explain the world around us - science does. There
isn't the slightest overlap between the two, it would be very arrogant to
say that science explains everything, and religion has no place in the
world. To quote Hamlet, "There are more things in heaven and earth
than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio", science has an excellent
track record in explaining the thing s on earth, but doesn't even _think_
about those things in heaven (whatever _that_ is).
Summising, we need both. All religions I have encountered divide
the human experience into the physical and the spiritual, thus we have
science ordering the first, religion the second. Religion and science do
not approach the same problems.
--
"Being nice is just Steve
as easy as being spooky, sc...@st-andrews.ac.uk
and it's much more fun" - Death
mathew alan hartfield
>The scientist's faith is in testable, verifiable experimental data,
>rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
>This scientist's faith has been genuinely earned, and is not a faith
>"in things not seen." This is why the Christian faith does not have
>the same validity as the scientist's faith. For instance, aspirin
>reliably cures most headaches, whereas prayer is of little use.
Well, for me, certain types of meditation and prayer work just fine on
headaches of all kinds.
Now then, would you, as a scientist, discount Love? Does anyone know
of a pertinent proof of Love, in Nature, Science, or other journals?
HAve you EVER made a decision based on Intuition or Love? Would you
confess before all these netgroups that you, as scientist, have ever
done such a dastardly deed?
There are MANY things still to be revealed by science. Know this, they
existed long beforehand and will exist long after science has come and
gone on this Rock (tm).
john markey
jma...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
David Gudeman
]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>,
]David Gudeman <gud...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
]#If you knew of a genuine logical difference between the two bodies of
]#belief, you would surely have presented it, instead of giving such a
]#weak rhetorical reply (one that proved the point of the person you
]#were responding to). The fact is that there is no such difference.
]#The only difference is that you are a believer in one and not in the
]#other.
]There are big differences. One is that scientific theories are
]vulnerable to evidence; that is, it may be possible to disprove
]them in a reasonably objective and public way. Religion is
]not vulnerable to evidence in the same way that scientific
]theories are.
This is true only if you define "evidence" as physical demonstrations
that are more readily explained by one theory than by another. But
this difference is an accident of the subject matter, it has nothing
to do with the logical status of theories in either area. People are
just as liable to be open-minded or dogmatic in religious subjects as
in scientific subjects. The only difference is that the "evidence" in
science often involves physical demonstrations, while the evidence in
religion usually does not. The logical nature of the arguments in
both areas is identical, the only difference is the subject matter.
]The proof that this makes a difference is that
]when atheists practice science they come to pretty much the
]same conclusions as do Christian scientists, Jewish scientists,
]Muslim scientists, Buddhist scientists, Hindu scientists, and
]scientists of other religious persuasions.
Even if that were true (and it isn't) it would not be any evidence in
your favor. When atheists go to basketball games they demonstrate
pretty much the same sympathies as do Christian fans, Jewish fans,
Muslim fans, Buddhist fans, Hindu fans, and fans of other religious
persuasions. This does not suggest that selecting a favorite
basketball team is a more objective or logical enterprise than
selecting a religion.
]There is no perfect
]unanimity, of course, but at any given point in time, on most
]questions, there is a strong consensus that is independent of
]the religious persuasion of the individual scientist.
So? Among fundamentalist Christians, at any point in time, on most
questions, there is a strong consensus that is independent of the
profession of the individual fundy. What does this prove? Only that
fundamentalists are largely defined by the consensus that they share.
Part of your problem in understanding the similarity of science with
other religions is that you persist in begging the question. You
contrast "scientific enterprise" with "religious enterprise". You
note that scientists have a greater consensus than religious people as
a whole. But this is illegitimate, since my whole point is that
science is just another religion (in a manner of speaking). You can't
compare the consensus and unanimity of science with that of all other
religions taken together, you have to compare it with that of each
individual sect, since science is a sect. If I were to compare the
unity of Christian fundamentalism with all other religions taken
together, and group science in with the other religions, science and
the rest would come in a poor second.
]On the
]other hand, no such consensus exists, even amongst devotees of
]a given religion. Witness the great number of Christian sects,
]which result because they differ so profoundly on points of
]belief that each considers crucial.
This is just an accident (or a deliberate effect) of the
classification you choose. You can find any level of consensus or
disagreement you want by choosing the classification appropriately.
]#The only difference is that you are a believer in one and not in the
]#other.
]Speaking as a Christian who is also a scientist, I find this
]quite offensive. One can be a scientist and also be religious.
If you are looking for offense, you can find it as easily as you can
find a classification to prove your point. But the truth is that I
have said nothing at all to imply that there is anything the least bit
problematic in being both a scientist and being religious. Quite the
contrary, since the two areas are so similar, they are quite
compatible.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Carl J Lydick
=I don't see what significance this observation has to the point under
=disucssion, since it applies equally well to people who deny the truth
=of any religion. That is, it isn't just half of the "religious"
=people in the world who are wrong, it is half of everyone who has
=opinions of any sort on religious subjects. And the same may be said
=of scientific ideas as of religious ideas. The only conclusion that
=may be drawn from observations of this type is that a lot of people
=must be wrong about a lot of things. It in no way favors one branch
=of ideas over another.
The point is, there's no way to tell which, if any, of the sets of religious
beliefs are valid. The same is not true of scienific theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Jason Hodin
(Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661) writes:]
>
> maurizio
Maurizio
Uma B Keshavan
> Summising, we need both. All religions I have encountered divide
>the human experience into the physical and the spiritual, thus we have
>science ordering the first, religion the second. Religion and science do
>not approach the same problems.
>
You obviously haven't encountered Hinduism. Hinduism in it's purest
form does not divide, but unifies the Universe, and does indeed
encompass the physical and the spiritual. Hinduism is not a religion
in the manner in which Western religions are. The ideas of Hinduism
are open to criticism and revision. It may not be exactly the same as
Western science is, but it is much in common. TM is a form of Hindu
thought, as it is derived from Hindu ideas. The exploration of
consciousness via TM can indeed be a scientific venture. It is what
one makes of it.
--
Rango Keshavan "IN THE SECRET SPACE OF DREAMS
WHERE I DREAMING LAY AMAZED!" R. Hunter
Mark Rupright
>
>I dunno. There's corruption in religion. There's corruption in the
>scientific world. I don't think anyone holds the high ground.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. That only means that humans
are not perfect. Ignoring corruption, science starts out on the
high ground because of predictability, falsifiability, repeatability,
etc. The results of scientific experiments are the same in New York,
London, Beijing, and even MIU, if the experimental conditions are the
same. None of the above can be said about religion.
>
>*.....Sparky
>+-------------------------------------+------------------------------+
>| Previous .sig destroyed by mystical | This message formed on your |
>| particles from the warp core. | retinas entirely by recycled |
>| Will you be my .sig? | photons. |
>+-------------------------------------+------------------------------+
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright | "Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it
UNC Physics | were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
rupr...@physics.unc.edu| That's logic." Lewis Carroll
Uma B Keshavan
*religion* tries to explain what life is along with the physical
world, while science ignores life, ignores consciousness. This I
found distressing when studying physics. All the mathematical
equations and formulaes and theories explain behaviour within the
physical, measurable world. But how do you measure what life is,
what consciousness is? This is the realm of philosophy, of religion,
which is in essence organised philosophy. Can the two intersect? I
don't see why not. It's in the grand fashion of human endeavour to
explore new ideas and take them to their limits, with the hopes that
they either are correct or that their faults will shed new light on
new ideas which will better explain the phenomenon they are attempting
to explain. If you take the ideas of, since this is an a.m.t
discussion to begin with, TM, which for you who don't know, is a
subset of the ideas of Hinduism, which I assert is not a true religion
in the manner that religions are known in the West, and correlate them
to the ideas of quantum physics, which seems to be drawing the most
scorn here by former and non TMers, in a pragmatic fashion, is that
not practicing science? What is wrong with postulating ideas with the
hopes that these ideas will be a catalyst for other ideas to emerge
which may be more on target with what reality really is? Instead of
being scared of such wierd ideas as correlating Vedic ideas to quantum
physics, it should be explored with the hopes that it brings fruit to
better understanding reality so that humanity as a whole can gain in
the knowledge, just as it has gained as we have better understood our
relationship to the cosmos around us. You know I'm tired, I'm
rambling. Good night, and hello to all you new folks who've never
read my posts! Don't mind me too much, I'm a Dead Head!
Ken Arromdee
David Gudeman <gud...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
>Part of your problem in understanding the similarity of science with
>other religions is that you persist in begging the question. You
>contrast "scientific enterprise" with "religious enterprise". You
>note that scientists have a greater consensus than religious people as
>a whole. But this is illegitimate, since my whole point is that
>science is just another religion (in a manner of speaking). You can't
>compare the consensus and unanimity of science with that of all other
>religions taken together, you have to compare it with that of each
>individual sect, since science is a sect. If I were to compare the
>unity of Christian fundamentalism with all other religions taken
>together, and group science in with the other religions, science and
>the rest would come in a poor second.
If a scientist says that putting together masses of a certain kind of uranium
in a certain way has a certain effect, and demonstrates it on a nonscientist,
the nonscientist's eyes will melt, his skin will burn, his flesh will char,
and he will generally be forced to admit that the scientist has actually done
what he claimed he can do.
Needless to say, this doesn't work the other way around.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
"You, a Decider?" --Romana "I decided not to." --The Doctor
James J. Lippard
:In article <2sif57$m...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
:]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>, gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
:]=The response is the same for scientists as it is for any other
:]=fundamentalist sect. Take for example one response I saw: that the
:]=important difference between science and religions is that most of
:]=ideas of science are true and most of the ideas of religions are
:]=false. That is _exactly_ what a Christian would say about an atheist.
:]=So what is the essential difference between the scientism attitude
:]=toward religion and the Christian attitude toward atheism?
:
:]Well, for one thing, if you take the tenets of all the major religions of the
:]world, and subdivide things into a minimal set of mutually exclusive belief
:]systems that don't contradict each other, you find (or at least I did a couple
:]of decades ago) that no such belief system accounts for a majority of the
:]religious population of the world. That means that at least half the
:]religious people in the world are wrong.
:
:I don't see what significance this observation has to the point under
:disucssion, since it applies equally well to people who deny the truth
:of any religion. That is, it isn't just half of the "religious"
:people in the world who are wrong, it is half of everyone who has
:opinions of any sort on religious subjects. And the same may be said
:of scientific ideas as of religious ideas. The only conclusion that
:may be drawn from observations of this type is that a lot of people
:must be wrong about a lot of things. It in no way favors one branch
:of ideas over another.
Sure it does. It favors areas of knowledge where there is a strong
consensus, which was Carl's point.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Dave Batchelor
> batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) writes:
>>The scientist's faith is in testable, verifiable experimental data,
>>rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
>>This scientist's faith has been genuinely earned, and is not a faith
>>"in things not seen." This is why the Christian faith does not have
>>the same validity as the scientist's faith. For instance, aspirin
>>reliably cures most headaches, whereas prayer is of little use.
>
>headaches of all kinds.
>
>Now then, would you, as a scientist, discount Love?
Not at all. I'm married and love means a lot to me. However, it does
not reduce my confidence in science.
MH> Does anyone know
>of a pertinent proof of Love, in Nature, Science, or other journals?
>HAve you EVER made a decision based on Intuition or Love?
Sure! But not a scientific decision.
MH>Would you
>confess before all these netgroups that you, as scientist, have ever
>done such a dastardly deed?
I wouldn't call it that. Why do you?
MH>There are MANY things still to be revealed by science. Know this, they
>existed long beforehand and will exist long after science has come and
>gone on this Rock (tm).
Well, science is here to stay, but your other statment is accurate ;-)
Regards,
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David Batchelor Space Science Data Operations Office Mail Code 632
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD 20771 USA
batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov * personal opinions only, not NASA policy *
Theorem: Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.
Hey! They're all gone!! Oh, well, never mind...
Carl J Lydick
=: A current difference between religion and science
=: is that most (not all) religious beliefs are false
=: and most (not all) scientific beliefs are true.
=: This is intended to include beliefs of people
=: throughout the world.
=
=I'd have to disagree with this. In my view, religious beliefs are
=unfalsifiable (they cannot be proven false, or proven true for that
=matter).
That may be true. That does not, however, necessarily prevent one from
demonstrating that most religious beliefs are false. Suppose, for example,
that all religious beliefs could be grouped into three mutually contradictory
sets. Then at least two out of those three sets must be false. You don't know
which (if any) of the beliefs are true, but you do know that a majority are
false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Fritz Lehmann
---------begin quote----------
If a scientist says that putting together masses of a certain kind of uranium
in a certain way has a certain effect, and demonstrates it on a nonscientist,
the nonscientist's eyes will melt, his skin will burn, his flesh will char,
and he will generally be forced to admit that the scientist has actually done
what he claimed he can do.
Needless to say, this doesn't work the other way around.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
-----------end quote-----------
This presumes that the religion is a false one. If
the Greek religion were true, Zeus could blast you with
a thunderbolt. For a (the?) true religion, your distinction
between religion and science evaporates, and it would work
the other way around.
Fritz Lehmann
Kurt Arbuckle
: Ugh. Here's a question. When is the last time you saw your hand?
: Nope, you saw photons reflecting off of your hand, so the observation
: is indirect. If you think the existence of you hand is mythological
: there is no point in discussing science with you.
Well I had intended to bow out of this, but this is too choice to pass
up. This is what ususally happens to people who call others "idiots".
Mr. Rupright,
WHat is a hand according to science? Is it not simply a set of subatomic
particles? The hand is mythological, as is the "sense" with which we
"see" it, as are the tools we use to comfirm that all we "really" see
is the reflected protons, as are the protons. Science is just as
subjective as any religion. Scince must ignore this to cling to its
proclaimed objectivity. Some scientists recognize and accept this
as part of the game. This is not an indictment of science, it is just
the way it is.
Your choice of the word "mythological" is particularly interesting.
Joseph Campbell once pointed out that myth is defined as everyone elses
religion. In other words, our religion is true, the others are just myth.
In fact the idea of religion as an enterprise seperate from life in
general, comes from the scientific attitude that there is a difference
between objective and subjective reality. Science says, "I am capable of
knowing the universe in a verifiable way. The rest is just religion."
BTW did you know that Mharishi Mahesh Yogi graduated in math and physics
from Allahabad in India in 1939? Maharishi contends that subjective
experience is just as studiable as that which is thought to be
objective, with equally practical results. He also claims to know how to
do that. Part of it involves something that it is very difficult for
a scientist to accept; namely, that there is such a thing as group
consciousness, which requires a large enough group to tap its
potential. The maintainance of such a group requires support, which is
unavailable, because such support is controlled by the scientific
establishment, which of course does not engage in such things, as they
are only religion.
: Are you intentionally trying to be an idiot? If you think that "true
: scientists" must re-verify every single thing which had been previously
: discovered, then there can be no such thing as scientific advancement.
: We would all be repeating Faraday's experiments instead of enjoying
: the benefits of electronic communication.
There is nothing wrong with the way scientists go about doing what they do.
But it must be understood that whether science works or is beneficial, is
purely a judgement based on assumptions about what is good. Science
creates many side effects. The good may outweigh the bad, but that
is a value judgement as to what is more importamt.
Incidently, as the person who started this in the first place, I never
said science is a religion (at least I never intended to). What I did
say was that science and religion are the same thing. I believe that
the best we can say is that what we experience are perterbations [sp?] of
consciousness which we interpret scientifically or religiously or
materialistically or spiritually. Our mistake is that we convince ourselves
so well, that we mistake the interpretation for the reallity. The Vedas
call this maya, mainstream science has not caught on *yet*. Someday it
will, and then we can talk again about whether I have a clue.
Kurt Arbuckle
George Kambic
|> batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) writes:
|> >The scientist's faith is in testable, verifiable experimental data,
|> >rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
|> >This scientist's faith has been genuinely earned, and is not a faith
|> >"in things not seen." This is why the Christian faith does not have
|> >the same validity as the scientist's faith. For instance, aspirin
|> >reliably cures most headaches, whereas prayer is of little use.
|>
|> Well, for me, certain types of meditation and prayer work just fine on
|> headaches of all kinds.
|> of a pertinent proof of Love, in Nature, Science, or other journals?
|> HAve you EVER made a decision based on Intuition or Love? Would you
|> confess before all these netgroups that you, as scientist, have ever
|> done such a dastardly deed?
Not topic for discussions here since they are subjective. Intuition is an
important part of science, because when I look back at it, I can usually
see a logic to it, why my mind jumped that way, and then it makes some
sense. Intuition is very useful. I'm at 2.3 on the intuition scale. Where
are you?
|>
|> There are MANY things still to be revealed by science.
Sure hope so. Will be a damn boring world when we run out of things to
look at.
|> Know this, they
|> existed long beforehand and will exist long after science has come and
|> gone on this Rock (tm).
Ahh..just a minute ago you were telling us about warm and fuzzies and now
you are telling us that you know something concrete. How do you know
that? By faith? Can you provide any evidence for your belief?
However you did point out something important. Humans are transitory in
this universe, as dinosaurs were, and as the Greys will be since they
are our descendents, and come back by time travel to find out why their
lives are so screwed up (a different form of past life regression - they
come and look at their ancestors.)
Know this John, the God who created this universe *had* to have a sense
of humor - he created Humans.
--
George X. Kambic Allen-Bradley
gxka...@cs.hh.ab.com 747 Alpha Drive
"Standard Disclaimer" Highland Heights, OH 44143
"Koyaanisqatsi" V:(216) 646-3269
Kurt A. Kistler
Wellllll, here's my $.02.
Back in about 1982, there were two things that were of interest to me.
One was that the Shroud of Turin was being deeply studied with such
things as spectroscopy and whatnot other advanced-for-the-time scientific
techniques. There was a book that had just been published on it.
For those of you that don't know, the Shroud is a VERY old piece of
cloth which has the image of a bearded man on it. The Catholic Church
claims it is Jesus's image.
Another interesting thing was there was a preacher man named Jed who
would come to the U of I, Urbana, and talk about Ja-heeeezus and our
sins and the U of I being a modern-day Sodom, etc., etc., etc.
He was SO INTO the TRUTH of Ja-heeezus, that I thought after his
sermonizing he would want to sit down for a friendly little chat
about the Shroud.
Nothing doing. He did not care AT ALL about it, and in fact, he thought
that any God-fearing Christian should have NOTHING to do with any
information about the Shroud. Science is science and Faith is Faith
and ne'er the twain shall meet.
So for me, and I speak for myself,
Science = the search for proof of an event or idea.
Religion = the faith that this event or idea is true without proof.
One can almost make a yin-yang kind of application to almost EVERYTHING
we do or think, as this dichotomy of thinking continually crops up.
Again, just my $.02.
Kurt
--
|| |
\\ || // | Kurt A. Kistler
\\||// | University of Pennsylvania
//||\\ The way of water. | Department of Chemistry
// || \\ | kis...@a.chem.upenn.edu
// \|| \\ |
Dave Batchelor
>batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) writes:
>
DG>]>The response is the same for scientists as it is for any other
>]>fundamentalist sect. Take for example one response I saw: that the
>]>important difference between science and religions is that most of
>]>ideas of science are true and most of the ideas of religions are
>]>false. That is _exactly_ what a Christian would say about an atheist.
>]>So what is the essential difference between the scientism attitude
>]>toward religion and the Christian attitude toward atheism?
>
DB>]The scientist's faith is in testable, verifiable experimental data,
>]rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
>
>"proof of natural religion" are part of the mythology of Christianity.
>
DB>]This scientist's faith has been genuinely earned, and is not a faith
>]"in things not seen."
>
DG>Yeah? How many quarks have you seen? When did you last see an ice
>age re-working the geography of the plantet? How many dinosaurs have
>you seen getting fossilized? Heck, let's get closer to home. When
>was the last time that you personally observed blood circulating in
>the blood vessels? When was the last time you measured the movements
>of the planets? When was the last time you saw a radio wave enter
>your TV antennae? 99.99% of what you believe in is "things not seen".
Good points. The closest personal experiences of mine which are relevant
are the semesters I spent in physics lab at MIT. We made measurements of
basic physical phenomena like the speed of light and the electron's mass.
On the basis of these experiences I have concluded that the methodology
and results of such experiences are sound. I also have used high-powered
telescopes to see details of the Sun and planets, convincing me that the
people who routinely do this are performing sound investigations. Most
of my knowledge of science is admittedly indirect, acquired through
reading descriptions of experiments and results from credentialed sources.
I see my faith in these sources as validated by some time spent in the
performance of the discipline, reaching results that affirm the results
I receive from colleagues.
DB>]This is why the Christian faith does not have
>]the same validity as the scientist's faith. For instance, aspirin
>]reliably cures most headaches, whereas prayer is of little use.
>
DG>Of course, as a scientist, you would not make such a statement without
>having first performed a controlled experiment to verify it. Surely,
>you would not make assumptions based on untested theories or on an
>unverifiable cosmology. Only tested, verified experimental counts for
>you, right? So please point us to the empricial proof of this
>statement.
Well, you can always attack science by pointing out that no scientist
can perform every experiment to verify it. My response is that I would
rather know the findings of a community I trust to carry out arrays of
interesting experiments and report the results in good faith over the
sayings of faithful mystics who never perform scientific experiments at
all.
Mark Rupright
>
>Mr. Rupright,
>WHat is a hand according to science? Is it not simply a set of subatomic
>particles? The hand is mythological, as is the "sense" with which we
>"see" it, as are the tools we use to comfirm that all we "really" see
>is the reflected protons, as are the protons. Science is just as
>subjective as any religion. Scince must ignore this to cling to its
>proclaimed objectivity. Some scientists recognize and accept this
>as part of the game. This is not an indictment of science, it is just
>the way it is.
That was my point. If the hand is mythological, then everything is.
Fine, but science still makes excellent predictions about the
'mythological constructs' most people consider reality. Give an
example of how a religion can match this ability.
>Your choice of the word "mythological" is particularly interesting.
>Joseph Campbell once pointed out that myth is defined as everyone elses
>religion. In other words, our religion is true, the others are just myth.
I did not choose the word mythological. The previous poster claimed
that science was mythological. I agree with Campbell's definition.
>In fact the idea of religion as an enterprise seperate from life in
>general, comes from the scientific attitude that there is a difference
>between objective and subjective reality. Science says, "I am capable of
>knowing the universe in a verifiable way. The rest is just religion."
Science refuses to deal with subjective reality because there is no
way to quantify it, use it, or refute arguments involving it. No scientist
would try to disprove the possiblity that we are all figments of my dog's
imagination. There is simply no point in arguing, because any evidence
against (including the fact that she has been dead for two years) could
also be imagined by her. Science deals with the *falsifiable* and tries to
ignore the rest. There are simply better ways to spend the day.
>BTW did you know that Mharishi Mahesh Yogi graduated in math and physics
>from Allahabad in India in 1939?
Yes. Did you know Robert E. McElwaine graduated in physics from UW-EC?
>Maharishi contends that subjective
>experience is just as studiable as that which is thought to be
>objective, with equally practical results. He also claims to know how to
>do that. Part of it involves something that it is very difficult for
>a scientist to accept; namely, that there is such a thing as group
>consciousness, which requires a large enough group to tap its
>potential. The maintainance of such a group requires support, which is
>unavailable, because such support is controlled by the scientific
>establishment, which of course does not engage in such things, as they
>are only religion.
How convenient. This is no different from the 'skeptic's influence' on
psychic phenomena: when an unbeliever is present, the negative
vibrations screw with psychic abilities. Forgive me if I don't hop
around on a rubber mattress in the lotus position just yet.
Incidentally, I have a sure-fire way to rid of all crime if
every person on earth would send me one dollar. If I don't get it
from everyone, I'm afraid it just won't work.
I'm sorry to sound so disparaging about TM, but your own examples
prove my point. Maharishi may believe in "group consciousness", but
this 'hypothesis' is not scientific because:
1. It predicts results only under the most unrealizable circumstances;
namely, when a large enough group of people suspends disbelief.
2. Even if the conditions were met, it is non-falsifiable. We could
always argue that a large percentage of our group was not *truly*
supportive.
This difference between Maharishi's belief and scientific theories
superbly illustrates the difference between science and religion.
>Kurt Arbuckle
GUEST-Arun Gupta(CUTS)
Exactly the problem. No one has demonstrated a true religion.
-arun gupta
David Gudeman
]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>, gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]=I don't see what significance this observation has to the point under
]=disucssion, since it applies equally well to people who deny the truth
]=of any religion. That is, it isn't just half of the "religious"
]=people in the world who are wrong, it is half of everyone who has
]=opinions of any sort on religious subjects. And the same may be said
]=of scientific ideas as of religious ideas. The only conclusion that
]=may be drawn from observations of this type is that a lot of people
]=must be wrong about a lot of things. It in no way favors one branch
]=of ideas over another.
]The point is, there's no way to tell which, if any, of the sets of religious
]beliefs are valid. The same is not true of scienific theories.
This is obvoiusly false. There is no way to tell if any of the sets
of scientific theories are true (no religious beliefs or scientific
theories are valid). Science has at least as many schisms, parties,
and cliques as any religion. In fact, as soon as a consensus develops
in an area, that area becomes barren for scientific research.
And even if it _were_ true that there is a general consensus in
science, appealing to a consensus is not scientific, and no
respectable scientist would say that science must be true because so
many people agree on it.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
David Gudeman
]In article <2sj9oo$c...@newswire.etdesg.TRW.COM> Sparky <spa...@strikebase.feast_of_vultures.com> writes:
]>
]>I dunno. There's corruption in religion. There's corruption in the
]>scientific world. I don't think anyone holds the high ground.
]Corruption has nothing to do with it.
Agreed.
]That only means that humans
]are not perfect. Ignoring corruption, science starts out on the
]high ground because of predictability, falsifiability, repeatability,
]etc. The results of scientific experiments are the same in New York,
]London, Beijing, and even MIU, if the experimental conditions are the
]same. None of the above can be said about religion.
This is one of the metaphysical or "religious" faiths of science. You
can't criticise religious ideas by assuming the truth of an idea that
is of the same character. Science begins with the assumption that a
certain methodology will lead to certain results. But this assumption
cannot be proven to be true.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
William H. Jefferys
#The response is the same for scientists as it is for any other
#fundamentalist sect. Take for example one response I saw: that the
#important difference between science and religions is that most of
#ideas of science are true and most of the ideas of religions are
#false. That is _exactly_ what a Christian would say about an atheist.
#So what is the essential difference between the scientism attitude
#toward religion and the Christian attitude toward atheism?
#
#If you knew of a genuine logical difference between the two bodies of
#belief, you would surely have presented it, instead of giving such a
#weak rhetorical reply (one that proved the point of the person you
#were responding to). The fact is that there is no such difference.
#The only difference is that you are a believer in one and not in the
#other.
There are big differences. One is that scientific theories are
vulnerable to evidence; that is, it may be possible to disprove
them in a reasonably objective and public way. Religion is
not vulnerable to evidence in the same way that scientific
theories are. The proof that this makes a difference is that
when atheists practice science they come to pretty much the
same conclusions as do Christian scientists, Jewish scientists,
Muslim scientists, Buddhist scientists, Hindu scientists, and
scientists of other religious persuasions. There is no perfect
unanimity, of course, but at any given point in time, on most
questions, there is a strong consensus that is independent of
the religious persuasion of the individual scientist. On the
other hand, no such consensus exists, even amongst devotees of
a given religion. Witness the great number of Christian sects,
which result because they differ so profoundly on points of
belief that each considers crucial.
#The only difference is that you are a believer in one and not in the
#other.
Speaking as a Christian who is also a scientist, I find this
quite offensive. One can be a scientist and also be religious.
Bill
Dave Batchelor
>ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>
>]The point is, there's no way to tell which, if any, of the sets of religious
>]beliefs are valid. The same is not true of scienific theories.
>
>of scientific theories are true (no religious beliefs or scientific
>theories are valid). Science has at least as many schisms, parties,
>and cliques as any religion. In fact, as soon as a consensus develops
>in an area, that area becomes barren for scientific research.
Evidently enough of computer science is true that we are reliably provided
with your postings of specious harangues against it ;-) Do you still
think that the scientific principles which are demonstrated by the
functioning of the Internet are in question? Would you say that there
"is no way to tell if" the Internet works?
GUEST-Arun Gupta(CUTS)
Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
>Mark Rupright (rupr...@physics.unc.edu) wrote:
>
>: Ugh. Here's a question. When is the last time you saw your hand?
>: Nope, you saw photons reflecting off of your hand, so the observation
>: is indirect. If you think the existence of you hand is mythological
>: there is no point in discussing science with you.
>
>Well I had intended to bow out of this, but this is too choice to pass
>up. This is what ususally happens to people who call others "idiots".
>
>Mr. Rupright,
>WHat is a hand according to science? Is it not simply a set of subatomic
>particles? The hand is mythological, as is the "sense" with which we
>"see" it, as are the tools we use to comfirm that all we "really" see
>is the reflected protons, as are the protons. Science is just as
>subjective as any religion. Scince must ignore this to cling to its
>proclaimed objectivity. Some scientists recognize and accept this
>as part of the game. This is not an indictment of science, it is just
>the way it is.
Nope, hand is not mythological according to science. It is just as
real as photons and protons. The point is that there is really no
difference between observing a proton and looking at the back of your
hand.
>
>Your choice of the word "mythological" is particularly interesting.
>Joseph Campbell once pointed out that myth is defined as everyone elses
>religion. In other words, our religion is true, the others are just myth.
>
>In fact the idea of religion as an enterprise seperate from life in
>general, comes from the scientific attitude that there is a difference
>between objective and subjective reality. Science says, "I am capable of
>knowing the universe in a verifiable way. The rest is just religion."
No, the idea is that religion has nothing to do with objective reality.
There is no notion that religion is separate from life. In fact, it is
far too much mingled, especially with the political and social aspects of
life.
>
>BTW did you know that Mharishi Mahesh Yogi graduated in math and physics
>from Allahabad in India in 1939? Maharishi contends that subjective
>experience is just as studiable as that which is thought to be
>objective, with equally practical results. He also claims to know how to
>do that. Part of it involves something that it is very difficult for
>a scientist to accept; namely, that there is such a thing as group
>consciousness, which requires a large enough group to tap its
>potential. The maintainance of such a group requires support, which is
>unavailable, because such support is controlled by the scientific
>establishment, which of course does not engage in such things, as they
>are only religion.
So what about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's academic degrees ? Doesn't mean much.
In any case, in the religious tradition that the Maharishi is exploiting,
the Universal Conciousness is accessible to individuals and there is no
need for groups. It is just that groups give him more clout. Finally,
the kind of religious life that the Maharishi is talking about is supported
by most Hindus in India. It involves no grand mansions and universities.
It involves giving up all material things, and relying on charity for
sustenance. When Hindus give to a beggar, they do so under the tradition
of supporting this kind of spiritual searcher.
>
>: Are you intentionally trying to be an idiot? If you think that "true
>: scientists" must re-verify every single thing which had been previously
>: discovered, then there can be no such thing as scientific advancement.
>: We would all be repeating Faraday's experiments instead of enjoying
>: the benefits of electronic communication.
>
>There is nothing wrong with the way scientists go about doing what they do.
>But it must be understood that whether science works or is beneficial, is
>purely a judgement based on assumptions about what is good. Science
>creates many side effects. The good may outweigh the bad, but that
>is a value judgement as to what is more importamt.
>
>Incidently, as the person who started this in the first place, I never
>said science is a religion (at least I never intended to). What I did
>say was that science and religion are the same thing. I believe that
>the best we can say is that what we experience are perterbations [sp?] of
>consciousness which we interpret scientifically or religiously or
>materialistically or spiritually. Our mistake is that we convince ourselves
>so well, that we mistake the interpretation for the reallity. The Vedas
>call this maya, mainstream science has not caught on *yet*. Someday it
>will, and then we can talk again about whether I have a clue.
>
>Kurt Arbuckle
>
-arun gupta
Dave Batchelor
>gxka...@csslc10.cs.hh.ab.com (George Kambic) writes:
>
DG>]>This is true only if you define "evidence" as physical demonstrations
>]>that are more readily explained by one theory than by another. But
>]>to do with the logical status of theories in either area.
>
GK>][...]
>]*Accident of subject matter?* Are you kidding? Without the physical
>]demonstrations everything else is a discussion of how many angels can
>]dance on the head of the pin. The *logical* status is irrelevant.
>]With fine logic the earth was argued to be flat.
>
DG>No it wasn't. The arguments that the earth was flat used exactly the
>same kind of non-logical argumentation that science uses (note that
>non-logical does not mean irrational, stupid, or false). It was, in
>fact, a "scientific" argument in the sense that it was a conclusion
>drawn from observation.
Can you give us a specific instance of an argument that the earth was
flat? I don't doubt they exist, but I wonder if we are properly
understanding them.
DG>Someone observed that the majority of religious ideas must be false
>because of all of the contradictions. The same thing is true of
>scientific arguments. That is, scientific arguments have contradicted
>each other so much, that the large majority of them must be wrong.
Agreed. This is, however, no stain on the true arguments. The majority
of all arguments may well be wrong; this is no stain on the true ones ;-)
However, if you think the majority of settled scientific arguments are
wrong, I disagree. There is little doubt, for instance, that the earth
revolves around the sun. Arguments to the contrary are wrong, such as
Ptolemy's.
Carl J Lydick
=same kind of non-logical argumentation that science uses (note that
=non-logical does not mean irrational, stupid, or false). It was, in
=fact, a "scientific" argument in the sense that it was a conclusion
=drawn from observation.
=
=Someone observed that the majority of religious ideas must be false
=because of all of the contradictions. The same thing is true of
=scientific arguments. That is, scientific arguments have contradicted
=each other so much, that the large majority of them must be wrong.
Yup. And science actually makes an effort to weed out the wrong ideas. How
much do you hear about phlogiston these days? How about luminierous ether?
In religion, on the other hand, once an idea crops up it's here to stay
forever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
James J. Lippard
:Mark Rupright (rupr...@physics.unc.edu) wrote:
:
:: Ugh. Here's a question. When is the last time you saw your hand?
:: Nope, you saw photons reflecting off of your hand, so the observation
:: is indirect. If you think the existence of you hand is mythological
:: there is no point in discussing science with you.
:
:Well I had intended to bow out of this, but this is too choice to pass
:up. This is what ususally happens to people who call others "idiots".
:
:Mr. Rupright,
:WHat is a hand according to science? Is it not simply a set of subatomic
:particles? The hand is mythological, as is the "sense" with which we
:"see" it, as are the tools we use to comfirm that all we "really" see
:is the reflected protons, as are the protons. Science is just as
:subjective as any religion. Scince must ignore this to cling to its
:proclaimed objectivity. Some scientists recognize and accept this
:as part of the game. This is not an indictment of science, it is just
:the way it is.
Reduction is not elimination. The fact that hands are made of subatomic
particles does not mean that there are no hands, that hands are not real,
that hands are mythological, or that hands are subjective.
James J. Lippard
:Back in about 1982, there were two things that were of interest to me.
:One was that the Shroud of Turin was being deeply studied with such
:things as spectroscopy and whatnot other advanced-for-the-time scientific
:techniques. There was a book that had just been published on it.
:For those of you that don't know, the Shroud is a VERY old piece of
:cloth which has the image of a bearded man on it. The Catholic Church
:claims it is Jesus's image.
No, the Catholic Church has never claimed the Shroud of Turin to be
the burial cloth of Jesus. When the Shroud first appeared in the
late 14th century, the Church inquired into its provenance and determined
that it was produced by an artist.
The Shroud has been radiocarbon dated to 1260-1390 A.D.
:Another interesting thing was there was a preacher man named Jed who
:would come to the U of I, Urbana, and talk about Ja-heeeezus and our
:sins and the U of I being a modern-day Sodom, etc., etc., etc.
:He was SO INTO the TRUTH of Ja-heeezus, that I thought after his
:sermonizing he would want to sit down for a friendly little chat
:about the Shroud.
Jed Smock. He has his own newsgroup, or used to.
George Kambic
|> ]From: gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)[...]
|>
|> ]>This is true only if you define "evidence" as physical demonstrations
|> ]>that are more readily explained by one theory than by another. But
|> ]>this difference is an accident of the subject matter, it has nothing
|> ]*Accident of subject matter?* Are you kidding? Without the physical
|> ]demonstrations everything else is a discussion of how many angels can
|> ]dance on the head of the pin. The *logical* status is irrelevant.
|> ]With fine logic the earth was argued to be flat.
Hmm...good point. Within the data set available at that time, with the
observational powers that they had, I see your point.
|>
|> Someone observed that the majority of religious ideas must be false
This statement however does not follow. If by a scientific argument
you mean a discussion about a hypothesis, then there can be contradiction.
If you mean by arguments things like the theory of gravitation, Newton's
Laws of motion, and special relativity, then I would have to say that
you are wrong. The theories that have moved into the domain of "laws"
are pretty darn right, and are not contradictory but are complementary.
They may still be "wrong" in the philosophical sense, but they are a
darned sight righter than what came before.
David Gudeman
]... He said that it's silly to
]look to science for confirmation of biblical events (etc) -- and
]conversely that its silly to reject science on the basis of its failure to
]conform to events as described in the bible. The nature of faith is that
]it IS NOT SUBJECT TO SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY....
I have no problem with this. My argument is not that religious views
_are_ subject to empirical investigation, it is that many scientific
views are _not_ subject to empirical investigation.
]... Why can't people accept that
]the scientific method is the best approach we humans have invented to
]learn about the physical world...
If you are willing to agree that "scientific method" means
observation, measurement, and mathematical theories, and that "learn
about the physical world" means learn what happens rather than why it
happens, then we can agree on this.
]... However, while I'll grant you that scientists (myself included)
]have faith in the scientific method, the fact remains that science is
]based on controlled, rigorous testing of alternate hypotheses.
That is not a fact, it's an idealization, and one that is far from the
truth. Science is based on personalities, politics and persuasion,
just like religion is. The controlled rigorous testing is a mere
background.
]The faith
]that exists among religious folk is not subjects to such tests.
Neither is the faith that exists among scientists.
]Therefore, again, why is it that a lot of religious people can't accept
]BOTH so called scientific AND religious "truths"?
In my experience, most religious people do accept both sorts of truth.
You know, pointing out the non-logical foundation for a belief is not
the same as denying that it is true. Pascal, for example, denied that
there was any logical argument for the existence of God (at a time
when this was quite a revolutionary idea) yet he was a fanatic of such
dimensions as to make Pat Robertson look like an agnostic.
]... The real danger as I see it is that some religious
]folk deny science offhand, and not that some scientists deny religion
]offhand. Perhaps it's my bias, but I see the former as causing
]significant problems in our society, while the latter merely causes heated
]discussions on the internet.
Yes, it's your bias. And there are undoubtedly many religious people
who have the opposite bias.
However, you did give a reasoned response to my claims, so I think I
owe you a reasoned explanation without the rhetoric. First, I don't
claim that religion is based on logical or even empirical evidence.
Second, I don't claim that science is indistinguishable from religion.
This would make no more sense than claiming that red is
indistinguishable from blue. There is a clear difference, and anyone
who is not colorblind can see it. However I do claim that there is a
spectrum between science and religion --with no concrete line of
division-- just as there is between colors.
Third, I don't claim that all scientific theories are "religious" in
nature. The part of science that consists of gathering and organizing
experiences, of measuring and recording and systemizing, is not
included in my criticism. This is an occupation of great importance
and I freely admit that modern scientists do this much better than it
has been done in the past. If that were all there is to science, I
would not be comparing it to religion at all. However, there is also
the "explanatory" part of science, where theories about unobservable
entities are invented in order explain why things happen as they do.
It is specifically the explanatory part of science that I am refering
to when I compare it to religion.
So how is this part of science like religion? Well, in the first
place the very idea of "explaining" is religious. Religions arguably
have as their essential purpose that of explaining what man is, why he
is here, what is his relationship to the universe. In this sense,
science is just an extension of religion. Science purports to explain
why things happen they way they do.
This persistent need to "explain" is in the very nature of human
beings. Scientists who claim to have no religion still feel a need
for explanations, and they use science to fulfil this need.
Therefore, science is like religion in that it serves the same
psychological needs that religion fulfils. A truly objective science
would not try to explain things. It would say "when two objects come
into contact, they eventually reach thermal equilibrium". There is no
objective, logical purpose to imagining a physical something moving
from one object to the other, or that there are invisible parts to the
object that achieve some sort of common state.
Even more strikingly, science tries to explain the same things
religion does. The "scientific" view has it that (1) man is a complex
mechanical device, (2) he is here because the laws of nature and blind
chance produced him, (3) his relationship to the universe is that the
universe is a mechanical device of which each human is a part. Now
granted, many scientists would say that this view is not all there is.
That is, they would be inclined to add religious explanations on top
of the scientific explanations, but most scientists agree in essence
with the truth of the mechanical explanations.
It is ingenuous to say that science and religion do not overlap in
this sense. Yes, they don't necessarily contradict each other since
it is possible to accept both scientific explanations and religious
explanations, but if you have one explanation, the other is
superfluous. I believe it was Fermat who was asked why he does not
refer to God in his scientific writings, and he responded "I don't
require that hypothesis". He was perfectly correct. On the other
hand, traditional religions don't require the hypothesis of a
mechanical universe either.
Also, it is not possible to support the argument that the mechanical
view of the universe comes from empirical investigation, since this
view of the universe predates by centuries the notion of systematic
empirical investigation. The scientific revolution in Europe was
accompanied by a religious revolution in which the cosmology of
Christianity was replaced by the cosmology of the Hellenic atomists.
The mechanical view of the universe is neither necessary nor
sufficient for engaging in empirical investigations. It is an
entirely orthogonal "religious" principle that has become an integral
part of science for historical rather than logical reasons.
All of the above (which I spent too much time on) is merely an aside
though. My main point in saying that science is like religion is that
the logical status of the two bodies of belief is identical. What I
mean is that both religious and scientific theories are _argued_ for,
and _debated_ rather than _proven_. No matter how much consensus
there is in a science or religion, it is always possible (in my view
always nearly certain) that the ideas are false.
There is a common misperception that scientific arguments, even if
they are not proven in the sense mathematics, are at least much better
supported than the arguments of religion. For at least a century
philosophers and scientists have been trying to come up with a way to
show that this is the case, and they have all failed. No one yet has
been able to show logically how scientific theories are in any way
more logical, more probable, or better corroborated than religious
ideas.
Keep in mind that the science I'm talking about is the explanatory
side of science, not the phenomenal side. I'm not suggesting that
Newton's laws of motion are of the same logical status as the notion
of the Trinity. As long as Newton's laws are viewed as a very elegant
and concise summary of experience, they are almost certainly true.
They have, to my mind the same status as the theories that fire burns,
lemons are sour, and it isn't safe to tease a cat by pretending you
are going to throw it in a swimming pool. To people who viewed
Newton's laws in this way, the laws were not overturned by Einstein's
theory, they are still as true as they ever were.
To people who view science in this manner, science really does make
constant progress. It keeps adding new facts and seldom overturns the
old ones. The discovery of double refraction did not invalidate the
old law of refraction, it only added to it. The discovery of the
platipus did not overturn the old ideas about animals, it only added
new ideas.
But the explanatory theories of science are in constant turmoil,
constantly being overturned and replaced. They are in this way no
better than any religious ideas. First heat is caused by a fluid,
then it is caused by motions. First light is a particle, then it is a
wave. First atoms are elementary particles, then they have a simple
structure something like the solar system, then they have an
enormously complex structure.
I don't see how anyone familiar with the history of science can think
that there is any great certainty, or even probability, associated
with explanatory scientific theories.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
John Fraser
>
>I think the essential difference between science and religion is that
>*religion* tries to explain what life is along with the physical
>world, while science ignores life, ignores consciousness. This I
>found distressing when studying physics. All the mathematical
>equations and formulaes and theories explain behaviour within the
>physical, measurable world. But how do you measure what life is,
>what consciousness is?
Rango,
I heard a great story about the mathematician Kurt Godel, which I know
you'll like. Apparently in later years he would lie on the floor of his office
and when asked what was doing he would say that he was 'Contemplating
the Universal Set'. I think we all know what he meant. I have been fascinated
by the conection between abstract mathematics and conciousness.
Unfortunately my maths is'nt good enough to follow this up. Maybe in
the next life! :-).
Seriously though if anyone out there can discuss conciousness and
mathematics in an acessible way , please do. I would love to hear about
it. Just don't expect any riviting insights from me!
Regards,
John
Carl J Lydick
=fundamentalist sect. Take for example one response I saw: that the
=important difference between science and religions is that most of
=ideas of science are true and most of the ideas of religions are
=false. That is _exactly_ what a Christian would say about an atheist.
=So what is the essential difference between the scientism attitude
=toward religion and the Christian attitude toward atheism?
Well, for one thing, if you take the tenets of all the major religions of the
world, and subdivide things into a minimal set of mutually exclusive belief
systems that don't contradict each other, you find (or at least I did a couple
of decades ago) that no such belief system accounts for a majority of the
religious population of the world. That means that at least half the religious
people in the world are wrong.
Srinivas Sista
>high ground because of predictability, falsifiability, repeatability,
>etc. The results of scientific experiments are the same in New York,
>London, Beijing, and even MIU, if the experimental conditions are the
>same. None of the above can be said about religion.
The Big IF there. The problem with religion is that it deals with the
psychological states of a human mind. I might dare say that no two
human minds are same or even the same mind is not the same at two
different instants. The basis of science is to quantify observations
which utterly fails when applied to the qualitative nature of human
experience and thought. I do wonder what kind of explanation exists
to the mysterious, ubiquitous term - within the limits of experimental
error. Convenient way of dismissing all the factors that may in some
way kill the repeatability, predictability ..etc?
Sista.
David Gudeman
]In article <2sgtco$8...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, k...@starbase.neosoft.com (Kurt Arbuckle) writes:
]>
]>BTW, the way you feel about my heresy toward science (that I obviously
]>don't have a clue, I am ignorant of the ways of science, etc.) is
]>*exactly* the way a religious believer feels toward people who try to
]>introduce ideas contrary to the mainstream...
]I think most felt that your post showed such ignorance that it was
]just too big an effort to educate you. They felt, I am sure, that you
]were incapable of understanding substantive criticisms of your post.
Of course that's what most people thought, that is just his point.
People are generally incapable of grasping concepts that go so much
against their most uncritical beliefs. One very typical response to
such concepts is to assume that since you don't understand the
concept, it must be meaningless, and therefore the person presenting
the concept must be stupid, and therefore you don't have to listen to
him. It's a transparent self-defense mechanism intended to preserve
one from the need to think critically about his own most cherished
assumptions.
The response is the same for scientists as it is for any other
fundamentalist sect. Take for example one response I saw: that the
important difference between science and religions is that most of
ideas of science are true and most of the ideas of religions are
false. That is _exactly_ what a Christian would say about an atheist.
So what is the essential difference between the scientism attitude
toward religion and the Christian attitude toward atheism?
If you knew of a genuine logical difference between the two bodies of
belief, you would surely have presented it, instead of giving such a
weak rhetorical reply (one that proved the point of the person you
were responding to). The fact is that there is no such difference.
The only difference is that you are a believer in one and not in the
other.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Stryder
> batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) writes:
>>The scientist's faith is in testable, verifiable experimental data,
>>rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
>>This scientist's faith has been genuinely earned, and is not a faith
>>"in things not seen." This is why the Christian faith does not have
>>the same validity as the scientist's faith. For instance, aspirin
>>reliably cures most headaches, whereas prayer is of little use.
>Well, for me, certain types of meditation and prayer work just fine on
>headaches of all kinds.
Right. If you get a brain tumor, go see a preist.
>Now then, would you, as a scientist, discount Love? Does anyone know
>of a pertinent proof of Love, in Nature, Science, or other journals?
>HAve you EVER made a decision based on Intuition or Love? Would you
>confess before all these netgroups that you, as scientist, have ever
>done such a dastardly deed?
Are you saying that love is just an attribute of religion? Do you
realize how ignorant and predjudiced that sounds?
Science doesn't pretend to bring people all answers in their lives.
>There are MANY things still to be revealed by science. Know this, they
>existed long beforehand and will exist long after science has come and
>gone on this Rock (tm).
What existed before what? What the hell(tm) are you talking about?
Nobody said science has all the answers. Try addressing some real
issues.
>john markey
>jma...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
David Gudeman
]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>,
]David Gudeman <gud...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
]>Part of your problem in understanding the similarity of science with
]>other religions is that you persist in begging the question. You
]>contrast "scientific enterprise" with "religious enterprise". You
]>note that scientists have a greater consensus than religious people as
]>a whole. But this is illegitimate, since my whole point is that
]>science is just another religion (in a manner of speaking). You can't
]>compare the consensus and unanimity of science with that of all other
]>religions taken together, you have to compare it with that of each
]>individual sect, since science is a sect. If I were to compare the
]>unity of Christian fundamentalism with all other religions taken
]>together, and group science in with the other religions, science and
]>the rest would come in a poor second.
]If a scientist says that putting together masses of a certain kind of uranium
]in a certain way has a certain effect, and demonstrates it on a nonscientist,
]the nonscientist's eyes will melt, his skin will burn, his flesh will char,
]and he will generally be forced to admit that the scientist has actually done
]what he claimed he can do.
]Needless to say, this doesn't work the other way around.
You mean that if a nonscientist says that "putting together masses of
a certain kind of uranium in a certain way has a certain effect", and
demonstrates it on a scientist, the scientist will not be adversly
affected? Are you suggesting that it is the "scientific explanation"
in terms of subatomic particles that makes the scientist's uranium
more dangerous, and that if the nonscientist does exactly the same
thing, but explains the results in terms of pissed-off demons in the
uranium, that this faulty explanation will prevent the critical mass
from going off?
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Austin Cline
Clark) wrote:
> mathew alan hartfield (hart...@cis.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
> > Now then, would you, as a scientist, discount Love? Does anyone know
> > of a pertinent proof of Love, in Nature, Science, or other journals?
>
> Attempts to deliberately muddy the water supply valuable insight into the
> motives of muddier. Your bringing up 'love' is just such an attempt.
>
> Define what you mean by love, and we'll go from there. As it stands, love
> is too vague a concept. In English, love is a single word covering a
> family of emotions and physical states.
>
Maybe the inability to satisfactorily define love is indicitive of the fact
that it is an area inacessible to science. Inacessible to science, yet
necessary for most people.
arc
Brian E. Clark
> Now then, would you, as a scientist, discount Love? Does anyone know
> of a pertinent proof of Love, in Nature, Science, or other journals?
Attempts to deliberately muddy the water supply valuable insight into the
motives of muddier. Your bringing up 'love' is just such an attempt.
Define what you mean by love, and we'll go from there. As it stands, love
is too vague a concept. In English, love is a single word covering a
family of emotions and physical states.
-brian
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the barriers that separate one reality from another are worn thin
with the passage of innumerable feet. -Clive Barker
Brian E. Clark
> ]The scientist's faith is in testable, verifiable experimental data,
> ]rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
> No it isn't. This is part of the mythology of science, just as the
> "proof of natural religion" are part of the mythology of Christianity.
Another trombonist for Mr. Odgen's big band medley.
arnold v. lesikar
>
>belief, you would surely have presented it, instead of giving such a
>weak rhetorical reply (one that proved the point of the person you
>were responding to). The fact is that there is no such difference.
>The only difference is that you are a believer in one and not in the
>other.
I did give one in an earlier post. I criticized both sides of this
pseudodebate. I am not going to waste bandwidth by repeating myself.
The discussion was absurd from the start. What you have contributed
Mr. Gudeman is nothing but more verbiage.
There is no reason to continue this thread. I am through with it. If
you want, Mr. Gudeman, you can tell yourself that you won.
arn
Greg Ewing
|> If you knew of a genuine logical difference between the two bodies of
|> belief, you would surely have presented it,
How about this: Scientific beliefs are testable, whereas
religious beliefs are not testable.
Does this characterise the two belief systems in a way that
both sides can agree with?
|> David Gudeman
|> gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a |
Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
gr...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
David Gudeman
]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>,
]gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]|> If you knew of a genuine logical difference between the two bodies of
]|> belief, you would surely have presented it,
]How about this: Scientific beliefs are testable, whereas
]religious beliefs are not testable.
]Does this characterise the two belief systems in a way that
]both sides can agree with?
No. Most scientific beliefs are not testable.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Laurence Mailaender
>So how is this part of science like religion? Well, in the first
>place the very idea of "explaining" is religious. Religions arguably
>have as their essential purpose that of explaining what man is, why he
>is here, what is his relationship to the universe. In this sense,
>science is just an extension of religion. Science purports to explain
>why things happen they way they do.
I wonder what definition you would give for "philosophy"? I think
it would be almost the same as what you wrote above. Thus, for
my taste, you ascribe too large a radius to the "religious"
sphere of influence. Explaining is not "religious", it is
human.
>Even more strikingly, science tries to explain the same things
>religion does. The "scientific" view has it that (1) man is a complex
>mechanical device, (2) he is here because the laws of nature and blind
>chance produced him, (3) his relationship to the universe is that the
>universe is a mechanical device of which each human is a part. Now
>granted, many scientists would say that this view is not all there is.
>That is, they would be inclined to add religious explanations on top
>of the scientific explanations, but most scientists agree in essence
>with the truth of the mechanical explanations.
I find this to be a bit simplistic. The phrase "mechanical device"
is unfortunate, but if you mean "explainable in physics and
chemistry" then I'd agree. Science may explain what it means
for something to be "alive" but it does not pretend to discover
the "meaning" of life.
So when science and religion try to explain the same things,
and conflict, which is "correct"? When the Bible says the
Earth was created in seven days, and science provides evidence
that it took millions of years, which side do you take?
In my view, religion errs when it talks about the physical
universe (Earth created in 7 days..) because it is talking
about that which it does not know. When it speaks about Man`s
relationship to God it is in its proper domain.
>It is ingenuous to say that science and religion do not overlap in
>this sense. Yes, they don't necessarily contradict each other since
>it is possible to accept both scientific explanations and religious
>explanations, but if you have one explanation, the other is
How do you reconcile the age of the Earth, above? If "seven days"
is seen purely as metaphor, what value does it hold for the
believer? Humans crave understanding and certainty, and the
Biblical "truth" seems to provide this. How can we hold both
as true? According to the Christian religion the "answer"
would be seven days. If "days" is a metaphor, then we have lost
the claim to certainty that human naturally seek. The
religious truth fails.
>Also, it is not possible to support the argument that the mechanical
>view of the universe comes from empirical investigation, since this
>view of the universe predates by centuries the notion of systematic
>empirical investigation. The scientific revolution in Europe was
The mechanical view of the universe is verified by common
sense today, regardless of how it was supported in the past.
When you notice the structure and periodicity of nature (sunrise,
tides,snowflakes,wave phenomena, etc.) a simple mechanical model
is the obvious first step. And how amazingly useful it turned out
to be (even if it's false).
At this point I must question what you mean by "mechanical".
Actually, anything which is explainable in terms of cause and
effect is "mechanical". Personally, I can live with "c-a-e" as
an (unproved) axiom, because it is so useful, and verified by
everday life. What exactly would you consider to be non-mechanical?
If you mean a "soul", science also believes this will be explained
as a "mechanical" system. That is, the patterns in the brain are
also governed by c-a-e, and that ill-defined thing we call "soul"
is (I believe) strictly a function of the brain.
>The mechanical view of the universe is neither necessary nor
>sufficient for engaging in empirical investigations. It is an
I disagree, based on my interpretation of "mechanical" above,
which means nothing else than following cause-and-effect.
Science can not proceed without this (neither can any rational
human thought, it would seem).
>There is a common misperception that scientific arguments, even if
>they are not proven in the sense mathematics, are at least much better
>supported than the arguments of religion. For at least a century
>philosophers and scientists have been trying to come up with a way to
>show that this is the case, and they have all failed. No one yet has
>been able to show logically how scientific theories are in any way
>more logical, more probable, or better corroborated than religious
>ideas.
I don't agree. Science _is_ better
argued for than religion since science presents evidence which
anyone can verify for herself if she takes the trouble. You said
yourself that science and religion were as different as red and
blue. Sure neither has a "proof" of its truth. No human
knowledge is "proved" in the most rigorous sense. But the
scientific "truths", being _repeatable_ by any observer, have
a distinct advantage over religious truths which are not
"repeatable" and can only be verified by the "faithful".
And you haven't even begun to address how religious truths
disagree across the various religions. If you accept
religious truth, then you must accomodate truth in all
religions. They will of course contradict each other (souls
are immortal, souls are reincarnated, etc).
-Laurence
David Gudeman
]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu> gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>So how is this part of science like religion? Well, in the first
]>place the very idea of "explaining" is religious. Religions arguably
]>have as their essential purpose that of explaining what man is, why he
]>is here, what is his relationship to the universe. In this sense,
]>science is just an extension of religion. Science purports to explain
]>why things happen they way they do.
]I wonder what definition you would give for "philosophy"? I think
]it would be almost the same as what you wrote above.
Pretty much. If you ignore the cultural and social aspects of
religions and discuss them only as systems of belief, then religions
and science are varieties of philosophy.
]Thus, for
]my taste, you ascribe too large a radius to the "religious"
]sphere of influence. Explaining is not "religious", it is
]human.
I should note that I distinguish two types of explanation. There is
the categorical explanation which "explains" something by giving it a
membership in a larger category, and there is the metaphysical
explanation which tries to explain something in terms of unseen causes
and effects. For example, you might explain why a particular apple is
green by saying "apples are always green before they get ripe". This
is true and satisfies some of the desire for explanation without
speaking about things that are inherently unknown.
Then there are the metaphysical explanations like "God hasn't painted
it red yet" and the scientific explanation in terms of biochemical
pigments. Scientists seem to think that the scientific explanations
are more intellectually respectable than the religious ones, but they
can present no logical justification for this prejudice. It's just
that they happen to prefer this sort of explanation.
Note that I am criticizing the explanation, not the empirical evidence
or generalizations that the explanation is intended to explain.
]>Even more strikingly, science tries to explain the same things
]>religion does. The "scientific" view has it that (1) man is a complex
]>mechanical device, (2) he is here because the laws of nature and blind
]>chance produced him, (3) his relationship to the universe is that the
]>universe is a mechanical device of which each human is a part. Now
]>granted, many scientists would say that this view is not all there is.
]>That is, they would be inclined to add religious explanations on top
]>of the scientific explanations, but most scientists agree in essence
]>with the truth of the mechanical explanations.
]I find this to be a bit simplistic.
I'm not writing a dissertation on philosophy here. The phrase
"mechanical" is frequently used in the way I'm using it, even if you
are not familiar with the usage. I don't have time to provide a
background in metaphysics to go with the elementary epistemology.
]So when science and religion try to explain the same things,
]and conflict, which is "correct"? When the Bible says the
]Earth was created in seven days, and science provides evidence
]that it took millions of years, which side do you take?
This is off the subject, but as long as you ask, neither one of them
has any logical evidence for their theory, so a belief in either one
is an act of faith. Or a conditioned response.
]>It is ingenuous to say that science and religion do not overlap in
]>this sense. Yes, they don't necessarily contradict each other since
]>it is possible to accept both scientific explanations and religious
]>explanations, but if you have one explanation, the other is
]How do you reconcile the age of the Earth, above? If "seven days"
]is seen purely as metaphor, what value does it hold for the
]believer?
I said they don't _necessarily_ contradict each other, not that they
_cannot_ contradict each other. And I wasn't talking about
creationism, I was talking about the fact that a mechanistic world
view can be combined with a belief in an immortal soul. In fact I
believe this is the view of most modern Westerners --outside of the
technocratic elite, of course.
]>Also, it is not possible to support the argument that the mechanical
]>view of the universe comes from empirical investigation, since this
]>view of the universe predates by centuries the notion of systematic
]>empirical investigation. The scientific revolution in Europe was
]The mechanical view of the universe is verified by common
]sense today, regardless of how it was supported in the past.
Funny. The Christian view of the universe was supported by common
sense from at the 4th through 18th centuries. Given that they have
more than a millenium more corroboration that you, why don't you
follow their much better corroborated common sense? Hmm. You don't
suppose "common sense" could be a euphemism for "what I was trained to
believe"?
]When you notice the structure and periodicity of nature (sunrise,
]tides,snowflakes,wave phenomena, etc.) a simple mechanical model
]is the obvious first step. And how amazingly useful it turned out
]to be (even if it's false).
With a few days search, I'll bet I could find an almost exact
paraphrase of this from the 17th or 18th century, except intended to
prove the existence of God. The arguments never change, just the
conclusions do.
]At this point I must question what you mean by "mechanical".
]Actually, anything which is explainable in terms of cause and
]effect is "mechanical".
In Berkeley's universe, all that we sense is a direct communication
from the mind of God --there is no matter, only sensations. The
apparent regularity of the universe is a direct result of the
consistency of God in his dealings with man. Here you have a universe
of cause-and-effect but the causes and effects bear no resemblence to
the appearences, and there is no excuse for applying the notion of
mechanical operation to the universe.
People have a perception of mechanical causality that is quite as real
as our perception of shapes. There are specific visual patterns that
give an unmistakable impression that one movement caused another
movement, regardless of how contrary the causal relationship may be to
experience. In other words, the sense of mechanical causality seems
to be "hard-wired" into the human mind [1]. Mechanistic views of the
universe are essentially attempts to view everything as a case of this
sort of causality that we can directly sense. The problem, of course,
is that there is no reason to suppose that our sensation of causality
is of any fundamental explanatory importance.
]Personally, I can live with "c-a-e" as
]an (unproved) axiom, because it is so useful, and verified by
]everday life.
Causality never has been, and never can be verified. And I don't see
that it is so useful. Why not just observe that there are patterns in
nature that are followed with a certain amound of predictable
regularity? What does it buy you to talk about that mysterious
metaphysical notion of "cause"?
]What exactly would you consider to be non-mechanical?
]If you mean a "soul", science also believes this will be explained
]as a "mechanical" system. That is, the patterns in the brain are
]also governed by c-a-e, and that ill-defined thing we call "soul"
]is (I believe) strictly a function of the brain.
You aren't going to convince me of the intellectual respectibility of
science by presenting more mythologies of science. Even when I was a
scientific believer like you, I never really believed that science
could "explain" the soul. How can science explain something that it
can't even talk about properly?
]>The mechanical view of the universe is neither necessary nor
]>sufficient for engaging in empirical investigations. It is an
]I don't agree. Science _is_ better
]argued for than religion since science presents evidence which
]anyone can verify for herself if she takes the trouble.
Really? How can I get access to a super-colider? More seriously, you
have missed my point entirely if you think that science presents
evidence for explanatory theories. There is no way, even in
principle, to present evidence for an explanatory theory of the sort I
am talking about. If there were, then I would not be arguing about
this.
]You said
]yourself that science and religion were as different as red and
]blue.
They are difference in the sense that any reasonably well-educated
adult can read an article or book and tell whether it should be
classified as "science" or "religion". If it talks about God and
souls and good and evil it's religious. If it talks about quarks and
electrons and molecules and photons it's science. However, the
difference in vocabulary does not imply a difference in logical
content.
] Sure neither has a "proof" of its truth. No human
]knowledge is "proved" in the most rigorous sense.
A great deal of human knowledge is proved in the rigorous sense.
Mathematics and logic, for example.
]But the
]scientific "truths", being _repeatable_ by any observer, have
]a distinct advantage over religious truths which are not
]"repeatable" and can only be verified by the "faithful".
No, you are failing to distinguish between the explanatory theories of
science and the empirical theories of science. I already said that my
remarks are not meant to apply to empirical theories.
]And you haven't even begun to address how religious truths
]disagree across the various religions.
Yes I have, in several other messages.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
David Gudeman
]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>, gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]=The response is the same for scientists as it is for any other
]=fundamentalist sect. Take for example one response I saw: that the
]=important difference between science and religions is that most of
]=ideas of science are true and most of the ideas of religions are
]=false. That is _exactly_ what a Christian would say about an atheist.
]=So what is the essential difference between the scientism attitude
]=toward religion and the Christian attitude toward atheism?
]Well, for one thing, if you take the tenets of all the major religions of the
]world, and subdivide things into a minimal set of mutually exclusive belief
]systems that don't contradict each other, you find (or at least I did a couple
]of decades ago) that no such belief system accounts for a majority of the
]religious population of the world. That means that at least half the
]religious people in the world are wrong.
I don't see what significance this observation has to the point under
disucssion, since it applies equally well to people who deny the truth
of any religion. That is, it isn't just half of the "religious"
people in the world who are wrong, it is half of everyone who has
opinions of any sort on religious subjects. And the same may be said
of scientific ideas as of religious ideas. The only conclusion that
may be drawn from observations of this type is that a lot of people
must be wrong about a lot of things. It in no way favors one branch
of ideas over another.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
David Gudeman
]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu> gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>In article <1JUN1994...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) writes:
]>
]>]The scientist's faith is in testable, verifiable experimental data,
]>]rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
]>
]>No it isn't. This is part of the mythology of science, just as the
]>"proof of natural religion" are part of the mythology of Christianity.
]No, this is part of your misunderstanding of science.
Well then I suppose I used to understand science back when I believed
like you do, and I started to misunderstand by learning more about it.
I would have been better off to just go on believing the propoganda I
learned in science classes and not do any critical thinking of my own.
That'll learn me to use my own mind.
On the other hand, I still don't think you can tell me what sort of
verifiable experimental data can support a proposition about something
that can't be observed.
]>]This scientist's faith has been genuinely earned, and is not a faith
]>]"in things not seen."
]>
]>Yeah? How many quarks have you seen? When did you last see an ice
]>age re-working the geography of the plantet? How many dinosaurs have
]>you seen getting fossilized? Heck, let's get closer to home. When
]>was the last time that you personally observed blood circulating in
]>the blood vessels? When was the last time you measured the movements
]>of the planets? When was the last time you saw a radio wave enter
]>your TV antennae? 99.99% of what you believe in is "things not seen".
]Ugh. Here's a question. When is the last time you saw your hand?
]Nope, you saw photons reflecting off of your hand, so the observation
]is indirect. If you think the existence of you hand is mythological
]there is no point in discussing science with you.
I'm looking at my hand right now (it's a bad typing habit). Nope, I
don't see any photons reflecting off of anything. I see my hand. You
are the one with a theory about an underlying material/mechanical
substratum, who needs to "explain" vision by refering to occult
entities like photons. Me, I just see my hand. There is nothing
indirect about it.
Lest there be a misunderstanding (which I probably can't avoid anyway)
I want to point out that I am not claiming that I have some sort of
direct visual access to a material substratum. All I'm saying is that
I see my hand, and your theory of how I can manage to do so does not
affect the basic truth I am expressing.
]>]This is why the Christian faith does not have
]>]the same validity as the scientist's faith. For instance, aspirin
]>]reliably cures most headaches, whereas prayer is of little use.
]>
]>Of course, as a scientist, you would not make such a statement without
]>having first performed a controlled experiment to verify it. Surely,
]>you would not make assumptions based on untested theories or on an
]>unverifiable cosmology. Only tested, verified experimental counts for
]>you, right? So please point us to the empricial proof of this
]>statement.
]Are you intentionally trying to be an idiot?
Yes, I'm intentionally trying to be an idiot. If I were being
intelligent, I would not be wasting my time trying to teach basic
metaphysics to someone who hasn't the temperment, the background, or
the desire to understand it. It's a character flaw I have.
]If you think that "true
]scientists" must re-verify every single thing which had been previously
]discovered, then there can be no such thing as scientific advancement.
]We would all be repeating Faraday's experiments instead of enjoying
]the benefits of electronic communication.
I don't think any scientist has ever "discovered" that aspirin is more
effective than prayer at all. And if anyone _has_ done a controlled
experiment on the subject, I don't think you have ever read the
results. I think you are deducing that aspirin is more effective than
prayers as a consequence of certain untested and untestable beliefs
you hold, and that you can't tell the difference between a proposition
that you deduced from your cosmology and one for which you have
genuine evidence. Furthermore, I think this characteristic is as
common among "true scientists" as it is among "true X" where X stands
for any religious faith.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Jason Hodin
real interesting and reasonable point. Now, this guy still has his faith.
He's just not accepted by the catholic church. He said that it's silly to
conversely that its silly to reject science on the basis of its failure to
conform to events as described in the bible. The nature of faith is that
inquiry. Not that in the event of a conflict between science and
religion, religion wins. Why is it so difficult for people to realize
that we are talking about apples and oranges here?
People are SO literal minded in their religious beliefs. Why does it not
satisfy religious people that the workings of an infinite being are not
going to be explainable by linear science? Why can't people accept that
the scientific method is the best approach we humans have invented to
learn about the physical world, whereas it doesn't even address issues in
the spiritual realm, much less refute them? Very few scientists would
claim that evolution refutes the existence of god -- even a christian god.
So why do religious people see evolution as a threat to their beliefs?
David, you're very good at seeing through the inconsistencies in peoples'
logic. However, while I'll grant you that scientists (myself included)
have faith in the scientific method, the fact remains that science is
based on controlled, rigorous testing of alternate hypotheses. The faith
that exists among religious folk is not subjects to such tests.
Therefore, again, why is it that a lot of religious people can't accept
BOTH so called scientific AND religious "truths"?
I came in in the middle of this whole debate, so forgive me for returning
to such basic issues. The real danger as I see it is that some religious
folk deny science offhand, and not that some scientists deny religion
offhand. Perhaps it's my bias, but I see the former as causing
significant problems in our society, while the latter merely causes heated
discussions on the internet.
Jason
(zoologist and non-observent jew)
Sparky
batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
>The scientist's faith is in testable, verifiable experimental data,
>rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
>the same validity as the scientist's faith. For instance, aspirin
>reliably cures most headaches, whereas prayer is of little use.
I dunno. There's corruption in religion. There's corruption in the
scientific world. I don't think anyone holds the high ground.
Sheesh. Now I'm depressed...
.
*.....Sparky
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Previous .sig destroyed by mystical | This message formed on your |
| particles from the warp core. | retinas entirely by recycled |
| Will you be my .sig? | photons. |
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------+
David Gudeman
]gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes...
]>batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) writes:
]Good points. The closest personal experiences of mine which are relevant
]are the semesters I spent in physics lab at MIT. We made measurements of
]basic physical phenomena like the speed of light and the electron's mass.
]On the basis of these experiences I have concluded that the methodology
]and results of such experiences are sound.
How do you know that you were measuring the speed of light and the
electron's mass? How do you get from the labatory apparatus to the
electron without going through a theory?
]Well, you can always attack science by pointing out that no scientist
]can perform every experiment to verify it.
That was not my point.
]My response is that I would
]rather know the findings of a community I trust to carry out arrays of
]interesting experiments and report the results in good faith over the
]sayings of faithful mystics who never perform scientific experiments at
]all.
What sort of scientific experiments would you expect faithful mystics
to perform?
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
David Gudeman
]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>, gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]=And even if it _were_ true that there is a general consensus in
]=science, appealing to a consensus is not scientific, and no
]=respectable scientist would say that science must be true because so
]=many people agree on it.
]Are you REALLY a moron, or do you just play one on the net?
I see from your elegant style that you have studied debate and
rhetoric extensively.
]Given the mutually contradictory nature of so many religious beliefs,
]one can say without any doubt that most religious beliefs are wrong.
]Period. That was the point of my original post. If you're too
]stupid to understand that, that's your problem (and probably an
]explanation for your religious bent).
I'm not to stupid to understand that exactly the same argument applies
to science. What about you?
I don't know where everyone gets the idea that I have a religious
bent, I don't think I have said anything favorable about any religion.
You don't suppose it could be that since I'm attacking _your_
religion, you instantly and illogically assume that I am a partisan of
what you consider the opposing religion?
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
William H. Jefferys
realized that you were trolling until I read your incredibly
funny article below where you pretend to be entirely clueless.
Kudos!
Bill
----
In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>,
David Gudeman <gud...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
#In article <2sij4c$a...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) writes:
#
#]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>,
#]David Gudeman <gud...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
#
#]#If you knew of a genuine logical difference between the two bodies of
#]#belief, you would surely have presented it, instead of giving such a
#]#weak rhetorical reply (one that proved the point of the person you
#]#were responding to). The fact is that there is no such difference.
#]#The only difference is that you are a believer in one and not in the
#]#other.
#
#]There are big differences. One is that scientific theories are
#]vulnerable to evidence; that is, it may be possible to disprove
#]them in a reasonably objective and public way. Religion is
#]not vulnerable to evidence in the same way that scientific
#]theories are.
#
#This is true only if you define "evidence" as physical demonstrations
#that are more readily explained by one theory than by another. But
#this difference is an accident of the subject matter, it has nothing
#to do with the logical status of theories in either area. People are
#just as liable to be open-minded or dogmatic in religious subjects as
#in scientific subjects. The only difference is that the "evidence" in
#science often involves physical demonstrations, while the evidence in
#religion usually does not. The logical nature of the arguments in
#both areas is identical, the only difference is the subject matter.
#
#]The proof that this makes a difference is that
#]when atheists practice science they come to pretty much the
#]same conclusions as do Christian scientists, Jewish scientists,
#]Muslim scientists, Buddhist scientists, Hindu scientists, and
#]scientists of other religious persuasions.
#
#Even if that were true (and it isn't) it would not be any evidence in
#your favor. When atheists go to basketball games they demonstrate
#pretty much the same sympathies as do Christian fans, Jewish fans,
#Muslim fans, Buddhist fans, Hindu fans, and fans of other religious
#persuasions. This does not suggest that selecting a favorite
#basketball team is a more objective or logical enterprise than
#selecting a religion.
#
#]There is no perfect
#]unanimity, of course, but at any given point in time, on most
#]questions, there is a strong consensus that is independent of
#]the religious persuasion of the individual scientist.
#
#So? Among fundamentalist Christians, at any point in time, on most
#questions, there is a strong consensus that is independent of the
#profession of the individual fundy. What does this prove? Only that
#fundamentalists are largely defined by the consensus that they share.
#
#Part of your problem in understanding the similarity of science with
#other religions is that you persist in begging the question. You
#contrast "scientific enterprise" with "religious enterprise". You
#note that scientists have a greater consensus than religious people as
#a whole. But this is illegitimate, since my whole point is that
#science is just another religion (in a manner of speaking). You can't
#compare the consensus and unanimity of science with that of all other
#religions taken together, you have to compare it with that of each
#individual sect, since science is a sect. If I were to compare the
#unity of Christian fundamentalism with all other religions taken
#together, and group science in with the other religions, science and
#the rest would come in a poor second.
#
#]On the
#]other hand, no such consensus exists, even amongst devotees of
#]a given religion. Witness the great number of Christian sects,
#]which result because they differ so profoundly on points of
#]belief that each considers crucial.
#
#This is just an accident (or a deliberate effect) of the
#classification you choose. You can find any level of consensus or
#disagreement you want by choosing the classification appropriately.
#
#]#The only difference is that you are a believer in one and not in the
#]#other.
#
#]Speaking as a Christian who is also a scientist, I find this
#]quite offensive. One can be a scientist and also be religious.
#
#If you are looking for offense, you can find it as easily as you can
#find a classification to prove your point. But the truth is that I
#have said nothing at all to imply that there is anything the least bit
#problematic in being both a scientist and being religious. Quite the
#contrary, since the two areas are so similar, they are quite
#compatible.
#--
# David Gudeman
#gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Dave Batchelor
>
>The response is the same for scientists as it is for any other
>fundamentalist sect. Take for example one response I saw: that the
>important difference between science and religions is that most of
>ideas of science are true and most of the ideas of religions are
>false. That is _exactly_ what a Christian would say about an atheist.
>So what is the essential difference between the scientism attitude
>toward religion and the Christian attitude toward atheism?
The scientist's faith is in testable, verifiable experimental data,
rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
This scientist's faith has been genuinely earned, and is not a faith
"in things not seen." This is why the Christian faith does not have
the same validity as the scientist's faith. For instance, aspirin
reliably cures most headaches, whereas prayer is of little use.
Regards,
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David Batchelor Space Science Data Operations Office Mail Code 632
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD 20771 USA
batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov * personal opinions only, not NASA policy *
Theorem: Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.
Hey! They're all gone!! Oh, well, never mind...
Mark Rupright
>In article <1JUN1994...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) writes:
>
>]rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
>
>"proof of natural religion" are part of the mythology of Christianity.
No, this is part of your misunderstanding of science.
>]This scientist's faith has been genuinely earned, and is not a faith
>]"in things not seen."
>
>Yeah? How many quarks have you seen? When did you last see an ice
>age re-working the geography of the plantet? How many dinosaurs have
>you seen getting fossilized? Heck, let's get closer to home. When
>was the last time that you personally observed blood circulating in
>the blood vessels? When was the last time you measured the movements
>of the planets? When was the last time you saw a radio wave enter
>your TV antennae? 99.99% of what you believe in is "things not seen".
Ugh. Here's a question. When is the last time you saw your hand?
Nope, you saw photons reflecting off of your hand, so the observation
is indirect. If you think the existence of you hand is mythological
there is no point in discussing science with you.
>]This is why the Christian faith does not have
>]the same validity as the scientist's faith. For instance, aspirin
>]reliably cures most headaches, whereas prayer is of little use.
>
>Of course, as a scientist, you would not make such a statement without
>having first performed a controlled experiment to verify it. Surely,
>you would not make assumptions based on untested theories or on an
>unverifiable cosmology. Only tested, verified experimental counts for
>you, right? So please point us to the empricial proof of this
>statement.
Are you intentionally trying to be an idiot? If you think that "true
scientists" must re-verify every single thing which had been previously
discovered, then there can be no such thing as scientific advancement.
We would all be repeating Faraday's experiments instead of enjoying
the benefits of electronic communication.
>--
> David Gudeman
>gud...@cs.arizona.edu
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright | "Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it
UNC Physics | were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
rupr...@physics.unc.edu| That's logic." Lewis Carroll
George Kambic
[...]
>This is true only if you define "evidence" as physical demonstrations
>that are more readily explained by one theory than by another. But
>this difference is an accident of the subject matter, it has nothing
>to do with the logical status of theories in either area.
[...]
*Accident of subject matter?* Are you kidding? Without the physical
demonstrations everything else is a discussion of how many angels can
dance on the head of the pin. The *logical* status is irrelevant.
With fine logic the earth was argued to be flat. *So what?*
David Gudeman
]gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes...
]>
]>The response is the same for scientists as it is for any other
]>fundamentalist sect. Take for example one response I saw: that the
]>important difference between science and religions is that most of
]>ideas of science are true and most of the ideas of religions are
]>false. That is _exactly_ what a Christian would say about an atheist.
]>So what is the essential difference between the scientism attitude
]>toward religion and the Christian attitude toward atheism?
]The scientist's faith is in testable, verifiable experimental data,
]rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
No it isn't. This is part of the mythology of science, just as the
"proof of natural religion" are part of the mythology of Christianity.
]This scientist's faith has been genuinely earned, and is not a faith
]"in things not seen."
Yeah? How many quarks have you seen? When did you last see an ice
age re-working the geography of the plantet? How many dinosaurs have
you seen getting fossilized? Heck, let's get closer to home. When
was the last time that you personally observed blood circulating in
the blood vessels? When was the last time you measured the movements
of the planets? When was the last time you saw a radio wave enter
your TV antennae? 99.99% of what you believe in is "things not seen".
]This is why the Christian faith does not have
]the same validity as the scientist's faith. For instance, aspirin
]reliably cures most headaches, whereas prayer is of little use.
Of course, as a scientist, you would not make such a statement without
having first performed a controlled experiment to verify it. Surely,
you would not make assumptions based on untested theories or on an
unverifiable cosmology. Only tested, verified experimental counts for
you, right? So please point us to the empricial proof of this
statement.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Jason Hodin
Christopher Allison) writes:
To quote Hamlet, "There are more things in heaven and earth
> than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio", science has an
excellent
> track record in explaining the thing s on earth, but doesn't even
_think_
> about those things in heaven (whatever _that_ is).
> Summising, we need both. All religions I have encountered divide
> the human experience into the physical and the spiritual, thus we have
> science ordering the first, religion the second. Religion and science
do
> not approach the same problems.
As a little addendum to my last note, let me just say that Steve is right
on, although I often wonder whether organized religion is, by it's nature,
counterproductive to our quest for spirituality. It seems like organized
religion is often incompatible with peace.
Jason
Dave Batchelor
>gr...@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing) writes:
>
DG>]|> If you knew of a genuine logical difference between the two bodies of
>]|> belief, you would surely have presented it,
>
>]religious beliefs are not testable.
>
>]Does this characterise the two belief systems in a way that
>]both sides can agree with?
>
Is agreement between theory and experimental results enough, or are you
requiring some more elaborate sort of testing?
GUEST-Arun Gupta(CUTS)
Austin Cline <arc...@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Exactly the problem. No one has demonstrated a true religion.
>
>And you've brought up the other problem. "Demonstrated" here means on
>*sceince's* terms. It is kind of petty to demand that one world-view live
>up to the requirements of proof set by a completely different world-view.
>Science doesn't live up to all of the requirements of proof set in
>Christianity or Islam, but does that make it invalid?
>
:-)
Why don't you write to a gentleman by the name of Shakil Waiz Ahmed
on soc.culture.bangladesh and ask him if anything in the Quran is
inconsistent with science ?
(smiley mode off )
Please name the standards of "proof" in Christianity or Islam.
-arun gupta
>
>arc
GUEST-Arun Gupta(CUTS)
>
>]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>, gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>]=because of all of the contradictions. The same thing is true of
>]=scientific arguments. That is, scientific arguments have contradicted
>]=each other so much, that the large majority of them must be wrong.
>
>]Yup. And science actually makes an effort to weed out the wrong ideas. How
>]much do you hear about phlogiston these days? How about luminierous ether?
>
>Why should I believe that either idea is wrong? Just because they are
>no longer fashionable?
Why should I believe my great-grandfather is dead ? Just because it is
fashionable to think so ?
Get real. Ether and phlogiston have explicit consequences that are not borne
out in experience. It is a quibble that the experience is by experiment in
a laboratory, rather than your "direct perception of your hand". Ultimately
the results of all experiments are through direct perception of something,
otherwise we couldn't comprehend them anyway.
>
>]In religion, on the other hand, once an idea crops up it's here to stay
>]forever.
>
>You are wrong. Religions evolve and change a great deal. And they do
>so under pretty much the same social dynamics that science does. It
>is historically quite common for religious ideas to be "falsified" in
>the sense that a consensus develops that the idea contradicts other
>facts that are known to be true.
It is true that religions also evolve. They do not do so under the same
social dynamics that science does.
-arun gupta
>--
> David Gudeman
>gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Dave Batchelor
>rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright) writes:
>]>batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) writes:
>]>
>]>]The scientist's faith is in testable, verifiable experimental data,
>]>]rather than in a mystical literary tradition of imaginary deities.
>]>
>]>"proof of natural religion" are part of the mythology of Christianity.
>
>
DG>Well then I suppose I used to understand science back when I believed
>like you do, and I started to misunderstand by learning more about it.
>I would have been better off to just go on believing the propoganda I
>learned in science classes and not do any critical thinking of my own.
>That'll learn me to use my own mind.
>
>On the other hand, I still don't think you can tell me what sort of
>verifiable experimental data can support a proposition about something
>that can't be observed.
You are correct that something which cannot be observed remains in
limbo, if it is indeed unobservable be any means. Indirect means
that have been well tested should be acceptable. I am reading an
interesting book now apropos of this: _The Undivided Universe, An
Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory_, by David Bohm and
B.J. Hiley. It addresses some of the non-intuitive aspects of the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, and proposes a new
interpretation of some terms in the Schroedinger equation to make
the quantum theory much more acceptable to people who believe in an
objective reality. This requires collecting part of the equation
into a newly-introduced "quantum potential" which has a profound
effect on the particle dynamics, but is *unobservable* with current
techniques. The usual results of QM experiments follow from these
rearrangements of the Schroedinger equation, so in terms of results
we know how to achieve today, nothing has changed except to make the
interpretation of the results ontologically meaningful, instead of
probabilities and wave-functions collapsing when observers interact
with systems by making measurements. Bohm & Hiley speculate on ways
that might make it possible to test the existence of the quantum
potential in the future, but I have not gotten that far in the book
yet. I conclude that QM is still incompletely formed, and anyone
interested in QM and the paradoxes that bedevil it today should read
Bohm and Hiley's book.
Dave Batchelor
>batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) writes:
>
>]Good points. The closest personal experiences of mine which are relevant
>]are the semesters I spent in physics lab at MIT. We made measurements of
>]basic physical phenomena like the speed of light and the electron's mass.
>]On the basis of these experiences I have concluded that the methodology
>]and results of such experiences are sound.
>
>electron's mass? How do you get from the labatory apparatus to the
>electron without going through a theory?
>
It sounds like you don't like theories and testing them.
DB>]Well, you can always attack science by pointing out that no scientist
>]can perform every experiment to verify it.
>
DG>That was not my point.
>
DB>]My response is that I would
>]rather know the findings of a community I trust to carry out arrays of
>]interesting experiments and report the results in good faith over the
>]sayings of faithful mystics who never perform scientific experiments at
>]all.
>
DG>What sort of scientific experiments would you expect faithful mystics
>to perform?
I don't really understand the flow of your question from my statement.
I would not expect mystics to perform physical experiments, usually.
Mark Rupright
>In article <2sjk1o$9...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright) writes:
>
>]No, this is part of your misunderstanding of science.
>
>Well then I suppose I used to understand science back when I believed
>like you do, and I started to misunderstand by learning more about it.
>I would have been better off to just go on believing the propoganda I
>learned in science classes and not do any critical thinking of my own.
>That'll learn me to use my own mind.
That we disagree about science says nothing about our endeavor to apply
critical thinking to the discussion.
>On the other hand, I still don't think you can tell me what sort of
>verifiable experimental data can support a proposition about something
>that can't be observed.
Who said I could?!?
>Lest there be a misunderstanding (which I probably can't avoid anyway)
>I want to point out that I am not claiming that I have some sort of
>direct visual access to a material substratum. All I'm saying is that
>I see my hand, and your theory of how I can manage to do so does not
>affect the basic truth I am expressing.
Again, I never said it did. I simply argued that what we know is based
largely on indirect evidence. However, that does not invalidate the
evidence. You sound like you are arguing that the evidence of the
existence of your hand is there because you can see it. Are you implying
that 'science' is responsible for the mechanism for how you see the hand
and that this believed mechanism is not testable? We can discuss this
more if you clarify these points.
>]Are you intentionally trying to be an idiot?
>
>Yes, I'm intentionally trying to be an idiot. If I were being
>intelligent, I would not be wasting my time trying to teach basic
>metaphysics to someone who hasn't the temperment, the background, or
>the desire to understand it. It's a character flaw I have.
Rather presumptuous. I admit that some of my previous comments belie
my true temperment, but you have no knowledge about my background or
desire to understand things metaphysical.
>I don't think any scientist has ever "discovered" that aspirin is more
>effective than prayer at all.
I don't doubt you are right. The efficacy of prayer is probably a
difficult thing to measure.
>And if anyone _has_ done a controlled
>experiment on the subject, I don't think you have ever read the
>results.
I certainly never claimed to have.
>I think you are deducing that aspirin is more effective than
>prayers as a consequence of certain untested and untestable beliefs
>you hold, and that you can't tell the difference between a proposition
>that you deduced from your cosmology and one for which you have
>genuine evidence.
Try me.
>Furthermore, I think this characteristic is as
>common among "true scientists" as it is among "true X" where X stands
>for any religious faith.
It may be characteristic of religious faith, but I doubt you can prove
that science (and not individual scientists) is guilty of such an
inability to discern the difference.
Ray Ingles
>In article <2sl4vu$c...@terrazzo.lm.com>, br...@terrazzo.lm.com (Brian E.
>Clark) wrote:
[deletions]
>> Define what you mean by love, and we'll go from there. As it stands, love
>> is too vague a concept. In English, love is a single word covering a
>>
>
>that it is an area inacessible to science. Inacessible to science, yet
>necessary for most people.
Just to get this thread moving, how does "A condition whereby the happiness
of another becomes important or essential to your own" sound?
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles ing...@engin.umich.edu
"Anybody who has ever seen a photograph showing the kind of damage that
a trout traveling that fast can inflict on the human skull knows that
such photographs are very valuable. I paid $20 for mine." - Dave Barry
David Gudeman
]gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes...
]>gr...@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing) writes:
]>
]DG>]|> If you knew of a genuine logical difference between the two bodies of
]>]|> belief, you would surely have presented it,
]>
]GE>]How about this: Scientific beliefs are testable, whereas
]>]religious beliefs are not testable.
]>
]>]Does this characterise the two belief systems in a way that
]>]both sides can agree with?
]>
]DG>No. Most scientific beliefs are not testable.
]Is agreement between theory and experimental results enough, or are you
]requiring some more elaborate sort of testing?
No, agreement between theory and experimental results is not enough.
You cannot infer any logical consequences from such agreement. None
at all. All arguments from experiments to theory rely on the
sympathetic reception of the hearer, not on logical demonstration. As
I said, arguments in science have exactly the same logical status as
those in religion.
No explanatory theory in science has _ever_ been logically proven so
that it follows necessarily from the evidence. Scientific theories
always rely on an agreement to certain unproven and unprovable
metaphysical principles, and if anyone does not ascribe to these
principles, the scientific "demonstration" is completely unconvincing.
I don't mean that the dissenter disagrees on the sensible outcome of
the demonstration, I mean that he dissents on the interpretation. You
can show that cathode rays are bent by magnets and think that this
"proves" that there are charged particles moving in the cathode ray.
But there are an infinite number of other explanations for the
phenomenon (assuming that it needs to be and can be "explained"), and
your explanation is just the one that science has alighted on by
historical accident.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
David Gudeman
]gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes...
]>On the other hand, I still don't think you can tell me what sort of
]>verifiable experimental data can support a proposition about something
]>that can't be observed.
]> [snip]
]You are correct that something which cannot be observed remains in
]limbo, if it is indeed unobservable be any means. Indirect means
]that have been well tested should be acceptable.
How can you "test" a means of observing something indirectly that
cannot be observed directly in the first place to verify the tests?
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Carl J Lydick
=]much do you hear about phlogiston these days? How about luminierous ether?
=
=Why should I believe that either idea is wrong? Just because they are
=no longer fashionable?
No, David. Because theories that used these things made predictions that were
contradicted by evidence. You have heard of somthing called "evidence,"
haven't you? And, no, millenia-old legends from primitive societies do not
constitute evidence.
=]In religion, on the other hand, once an idea crops up it's here to stay
=]forever.
=
=You are wrong. Religions evolve and change a great deal.
Yes, they do. By forming new sects. However, the beliefs of old sects tend to
remain around long after the shism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Dave Batchelor
>batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) writes:
>
>]requiring some more elaborate sort of testing?
>
>You cannot infer any logical consequences from such agreement. None
>at all. All arguments from experiments to theory rely on the
>sympathetic reception of the hearer, not on logical demonstration. As
>I said, arguments in science have exactly the same logical status as
>those in religion.
>
>No explanatory theory in science has _ever_ been logically proven so
>that it follows necessarily from the evidence. Scientific theories
>always rely on an agreement to certain unproven and unprovable
>metaphysical principles, and if anyone does not ascribe to these
>principles, the scientific "demonstration" is completely unconvincing.
This is only a special case of the general fact that all analytical
logic relies on "an agreement to certain unproven and unprovable
metaphysical principles." You have apparently rejected the forcefulness
of any logical arguments, in some post-modernist manner. You have
leaped to the conclusion that the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy
is never escapable. However, if that were true, all events would
be merely causally unconnected occurrences with no relationships one
to another. I reject that conclusion based on my experience of being
able to cause an admittedly limited number of intentional outcomes, and
instead believe that cause and effect can often be established, despite
the possibility that I am fooled from time to time and some things will
never be known to me (or perhaps to anyone).
DG>I don't mean that the dissenter disagrees on the sensible outcome of
>the demonstration, I mean that he dissents on the interpretation. You
>can show that cathode rays are bent by magnets and think that this
>"proves" that there are charged particles moving in the cathode ray.
>But there are an infinite number of other explanations for the
>phenomenon (assuming that it needs to be and can be "explained"), and
>your explanation is just the one that science has alighted on by
>historical accident.
This accidental theory of cause and effect is unable to explain anything
in the world, so I reject it. Sorry to see you are still hung up on such
an inane belief.
David Gudeman
]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu> gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>In article <2sjk1o$9...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright) writes:
]>
]>]No, this is part of your misunderstanding of science.
]>
]>Well then I suppose I used to understand science back when I believed
]>like you do, and I started to misunderstand by learning more about it.
]>I would have been better off to just go on believing the propoganda I
]>learned in science classes and not do any critical thinking of my own.
]>That'll learn me to use my own mind.
]That we disagree about science says nothing about our endeavor to apply
]critical thinking to the discussion.
Granted. I'll go even further and say that the fact that you don't
understand the essentially non-logical character of scientific
argument does not say anything about your critical thinking. Berkeley
was, in my opinion, one of the best critical thinkers of his time. He
was a true, full-blown empiricist of the sort to put modern
"empirical" scientists to shame. Yet he seems not to have ever seen
the difference between his logically conclusive arguments against
materialism and his inconclusive arguments for the existence of God
and the immortality of the soul.
]>On the other hand, I still don't think you can tell me what sort of
]>verifiable experimental data can support a proposition about something
]>that can't be observed.
]Who said I could?!?
Well, since is the essence of my argument that science tries
unsuccessfully to do this, your suggestion that I don't understand
science might be taken as implying that you think science successfuly
does this.
]>Lest there be a misunderstanding (which I probably can't avoid anyway)
]>I want to point out that I am not claiming that I have some sort of
]>direct visual access to a material substratum. All I'm saying is that
]>I see my hand, and your theory of how I can manage to do so does not
]>affect the basic truth I am expressing.
]Again, I never said it did. I simply argued that what we know is based
]largely on indirect evidence.
My knowledge that I see my hand is not indirect. When I say that I
see my hand, I'm not talking about some inaccessible object made of an
occult material that we can only know about by indirect evidence.
This is _your_ scientific cosmology. Your argument is based on a
theory of the very sort that I am bringing into question so you are
assuming the truth of the conclusion you are arguing for.
You are correct in saying that I don't have direct evidence about any
material things. You are incorrect in assuming that the objects of
daily life are material things (speaking in the metaphysical sense).
The hand that I see is an abstraction. Certain sense impressions are
impressions "of my hand" and other impressions are not. The set of
actual and possible impressions that are "of my hand" together make up
an abstraction that is my hand. Sense impressions are something that
I experience directly, so my hand is an abstraction of direct data and
is therefore just about as directly observed as you can get.
Your assumption that there is an inaccessible material something
corresponding to the abstraction of my hand is unproven and
unprovable. Your assumption that this inaccessible something is what
I am talking about when I talk about "my hand" is simply false.
]However, that does not invalidate the
]evidence. You sound like you are arguing that the evidence of the
]existence of your hand is there because you can see it. Are you implying
]that 'science' is responsible for the mechanism for how you see the hand
]and that this believed mechanism is not testable? We can discuss this
]more if you clarify these points.
There is no "evidence" my hand is there, it simply is there. If there
were no possible sensation of the hand, there would be no hand. Keep
in mind that "my hand" is an abstraction of sensations, not an
inaccessible material object. I'm not implying that science is
responsible for the mechanism for how I see the hand but I am
certainly saying that the scientific "explanation" for how I see my
hand is not testable. How are you going to test for the existence of
something that by your own theory is inaccessible?
]>]Are you intentionally trying to be an idiot?
]>
]>Yes, I'm intentionally trying to be an idiot. If I were being
]>intelligent, I would not be wasting my time trying to teach basic
]>metaphysics to someone who hasn't the temperment, the background, or
]>the desire to understand it. It's a character flaw I have.
]Rather presumptuous. I admit that some of my previous comments belie
]my true temperment, but you have no knowledge about my background or
]desire to understand things metaphysical.
True enough. Tell you what, you avoid the name-calling and I'll avoid
the presumption.
]>I think you are deducing that aspirin is more effective than
]>prayers as a consequence of certain untested and untestable beliefs
]>you hold, and that you can't tell the difference between a proposition
]>that you deduced from your cosmology and one for which you have
]>genuine evidence.
]Try me.
Do you think you have genuine evidence for the existence of matter?
]>Furthermore, I think this characteristic is as
]>common among "true scientists" as it is among "true X" where X stands
]>for any religious faith.
]It may be characteristic of religious faith, but I doubt you can prove
]that science (and not individual scientists) is guilty of such an
]inability to discern the difference.
The history of science is overflowing with examples of theories that
scientists thought were proven and later scientists decided were
false. When something is really proven it doesn't become false later.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Jason Hodin
Arbuckle) writes:
> BTW, the way you feel about my heresy toward science (that I obviously
> don't have a clue, I am ignorant of the ways of science, etc.) is
> *exactly* the way a religious believer feels toward people who try to
> introduce ideas contrary to the mainstream. Most scientists would
> and did reject my assertions without a thought. Isn't that
unquestioning
> loyalty that is supposed to be the lot of the poor misguided faithful.
> Sure science seems to work, but so does religion. I for one am against
> neither, and they are the same human enterprise.
You know when you have a canker (sp?) sore on the inside of your mouth,
and you just have to touch it with your tongue, even though you know it
will be painful...
I certainly am not going to speak for all or even most scientists, but one
major difference in how well science and religion "work" is that in the
past, lets just say 200 years, our predictive value in science has been
making steady improvements. I.e. it seems to be "working" better and
better. Religion only seems to "work" better and better when it finally
caves into societal pressure and says, for example, it's OK to have female
ministers.
Speaking of which, did you all know that the reason why the catholic
church has not allowed female priests is that none of the apostles were
women?
Jason
David Gudeman
]From: gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
][...]
]>This is true only if you define "evidence" as physical demonstrations
]>that are more readily explained by one theory than by another. But
]>this difference is an accident of the subject matter, it has nothing
]>to do with the logical status of theories in either area.
][...]
]*Accident of subject matter?* Are you kidding? Without the physical
]demonstrations everything else is a discussion of how many angels can
]dance on the head of the pin. The *logical* status is irrelevant.
]With fine logic the earth was argued to be flat.
No it wasn't. The arguments that the earth was flat used exactly the
same kind of non-logical argumentation that science uses (note that
non-logical does not mean irrational, stupid, or false). It was, in
fact, a "scientific" argument in the sense that it was a conclusion
drawn from observation.
Someone observed that the majority of religious ideas must be false
because of all of the contradictions. The same thing is true of
scientific arguments. That is, scientific arguments have contradicted
each other so much, that the large majority of them must be wrong.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Scott Brown
>>> If you knew of a genuine logical difference between the two bodies of
>>> belief, you would surely have presented it,
>Greg Ewing writes:
>>How about this: Scientific beliefs are testable, whereas
>>religious beliefs are not testable.
>>Does this characterise the two belief systems in a way that
>>both sides can agree with?
David Gudeman writes:
>No. Most scientific beliefs are not testable.
Hmm. I think you're completely wrong here.
Care to list, say, half a dozen of the things you think
are untestable scientific beliefs?
Scott
David Gudeman
]gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes...
]>batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) writes:
]>
]>]Is agreement between theory and experimental results enough, or are you
]>]requiring some more elaborate sort of testing?
]>
]DG>No, agreement between theory and experimental results is not enough.
]>You cannot infer any logical consequences from such agreement. None
]>at all. All arguments from experiments to theory rely on the
]>sympathetic reception of the hearer, not on logical demonstration. As
]>I said, arguments in science have exactly the same logical status as
]>those in religion.
]>
]>No explanatory theory in science has _ever_ been logically proven so
]>that it follows necessarily from the evidence. Scientific theories
]>always rely on an agreement to certain unproven and unprovable
]>metaphysical principles, and if anyone does not ascribe to these
]>principles, the scientific "demonstration" is completely unconvincing.
]This is only a special case of the general fact that all analytical
]logic relies on "an agreement to certain unproven and unprovable
]metaphysical principles." You have apparently rejected the forcefulness
]of any logical arguments, in some post-modernist manner.
I have done no such thing. Logical arguments are valid and
mathematical arguments are valid. Scientific arguments are not valid
and religious arguments arguments are not valid. This is such a clear
and obvious point (to anyone who knows what "valid" means) that I
can't imagine why there should be so much ranting and raving over it.
Obviously I have stepped on someones religious faith.
] You have
]leaped to the conclusion that the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy
]is never escapable.
I haven't "leaped" to any conclusions.
]However, if that were true, all events would
]be merely causally unconnected occurrences with no relationships one
]to another.
This is not correct. The inability to prove causality does not imply
the non-existence of causality.
]I reject that conclusion based on my experience of being
]able to cause an admittedly limited number of intentional outcomes, and
]instead believe that cause and effect can often be established, despite
]the possibility that I am fooled from time to time and some things will
]never be known to me (or perhaps to anyone).
What this amounts to is that experience proves that experience can
prove things. Now there's a logic of notable quality.
]DG>I don't mean that the dissenter disagrees on the sensible outcome of
]>the demonstration, I mean that he dissents on the interpretation. You
]>can show that cathode rays are bent by magnets and think that this
]>"proves" that there are charged particles moving in the cathode ray.
]>But there are an infinite number of other explanations for the
]>phenomenon (assuming that it needs to be and can be "explained"), and
]>your explanation is just the one that science has alighted on by
]>historical accident.
]This accidental theory of cause and effect is unable to explain anything
]in the world, so I reject it. Sorry to see you are still hung up on such
]an inane belief.
These two sentences reveal several errors on your part. First, the
paragraph you are responding to does not propose any sort of
"accidental theory of cause and effect", it just points out that the
explanation prefered by modern scientists is unprovable. Second, the
whole point of an "accidental theory of cause and effect" would be
that things can't be explained, so your criticism that it doesn't
explain anything is irrelevant.
Third, I'm not "hung up on" or dogmatically partisan to _any_ notion
of causality --accidental or otherwise. All I did is point out the
non-logical character of the belief in mechanical causality (without
even suggesting that the belief is false). One of the consequences of
realizing the non-logical character of science is the observation that
many of my own beliefs are non-logical. Because of this, I know that
I can't justify a dogmatic attitude toward _any_ theory of existence
or causality.
I _am_ dogmatic about the distinction between "valid arguments" and
"arguments that scientists like". I am _not_ dogmatic in the belief
that there can't be arguments that are better corroborated than others
without being valid. However, I'm not going to take any scientist's
word for it that scientific arguments are better corroborated than
religious arguments, and I'm not going to take any Christian's word
for it that religious arguments are better corroborated than
scientific arguments. It is no use to say that science appeals to
observation because the observations of the the scientist do not prove
the theories they are intended to prove. Christians appeal to the
bible, but the bible is equaly inadequate at proving what they intend
it to prove.
The scientist says "Hey, the universe follows a regular predictable
pattern, therefore there is a mechanical cause and effect operating."
The Christian says "Hey, the universe follows a regular predictable
pattern, therefore there is a god operating." So the scientist says,
"Oh yeah, well I can do _experiements_ to prove my point". The
Christian watches the experiments and says, "Yep, they prove _my_
point." I look at the arguments and the experiments and say to both
of them: "You don't really KNOW, do you?"
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Thermopyla
lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
<delete all quotes>
Mommy why are all the scientists so angry about religion?
ps...@blythe.az.stratus.com
> mathematical arguments are valid. Scientific arguments are not valid
> and religious arguments arguments are not valid. This is such a clear
Well, David you have done it again. >Valid< in logic means that
the conclusion follows from the premises (reference any beginning
logic book). And there are many valid arguments in both science
and religion. You may not agree with the premises, however. For
example, the Ontological Argument for the existence of God has been
regarded as a >valid< argument for centuries--hacks, like Descarte,
Spinoza, Leibniz, etc. all used it. In the 20th century, Norman Malcolm
of Cornell (one of Wittgenstein's friends) wrote an article (I can
get the reference) expounding its validity (correctly).
Cheers!
arnold v. lesikar
>
>Then in what possible sense do you use the word "mind"? If there is nothing
>the same between two items, how can they be said to fall under the same
>concept?
>Twaddle. Nonsense. Stupid, at best (in Tony's quite applicable sense of the
>term).
Well now let's see.... football is a "game." Solitaire is also a
"game." Politics is also referred to as a "game." Conway's "Game of
Life" is called a "game" too. What do these different concepts
"football," "politics," "solitaire," and cellular automatons have in
common that they should all be referred to as "games?"
sincerely,
arn
les...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
Laurence Mailaender
>I should note that I distinguish two types of explanation. There is
>the categorical explanation which "explains" something by giving it a
>membership in a larger category, and there is the metaphysical
>explanation which tries to explain something in terms of unseen causes
>and effects. For example, you might explain why a particular apple is
>green by saying "apples are always green before they get ripe". This
>is true and satisfies some of the desire for explanation without
>speaking about things that are inherently unknown.
>Then there are the metaphysical explanations like "God hasn't painted
>it red yet" and the scientific explanation in terms of biochemical
>pigments. Scientists seem to think that the scientific explanations
>are more intellectually respectable than the religious ones, but they
>can present no logical justification for this prejudice. It's just
>that they happen to prefer this sort of explanation.
Okay, I see a bit more clearly what type of "explanation" you
are discussing. A good example would be to state that static
electricity is caused by charged particles: but what makes something
"charged"? The latter part has never (I think) really been
answered. We just say that when quarks come together this way, they
exhibit a property we call "charge".
However, I do think this is a better explanation than
"God causes them to be attracted". For one thing, the scientific
inquiry requires us to learn more and more about the physical
universe until we finally get to the lowest level we can see. Then
we stop and say "But that's the way matter is". That is,
anywhere, and anytime someone puts quarks together that way, they
will get particles we call "charged". Accumulating all this
knowledge allows us to put more things in the "categorical"
family of explanation.
The "God hasn't painted it red yet" explanation is inferior
because it leaves us in a state of ignorance about those things
which we could know (quarks,molecules, photosynthesis, etc.) Invoking
"God" merely says, "It's a mystery, don't ask anymore questions".
So while I agree that the scientific "truth" leaves us hanging
with "But that's the way matter is", it also exposes the
principles that make the universe work. And we can of course use
those principles to make technology work. So, scientist prefer
the scientific explanation because it is intellectual (requires
questioning and deduction) and it leads to effective results.
The "God" explanation does neither.
>I'm not writing a dissertation on philosophy here. The phrase
>"mechanical" is frequently used in the way I'm using it, even if you
>are not familiar with the usage. I don't have time to provide a
>background in metaphysics to go with the elementary epistemology.
I'm encouraging you to question it. The "soul" may also be
mechanical. And would you care to define what exactly you
mean by "soul"?
(L.M.)
>]So when science and religion try to explain the same things,
>]and conflict, which is "correct"? When the Bible says the
>]Earth was created in seven days, and science provides evidence
>]that it took millions of years, which side do you take?
>This is off the subject, but as long as you ask, neither one of them
>has any logical evidence for their theory, so a belief in either one
>is an act of faith. Or a conditioned response.
I completely disagree: Both have evidence. One has fossils and
carbon dating, and the other has Scripture. What else do we mean
by "evidence"?
Believing based on evidence is not an "act of faith" in any way
since it does not imply certain knowledge. We disagree on the
meaning of these terms.
>I was talking about the fact that a mechanistic world
>view can be combined with a belief in an immortal soul. In fact I
>believe this is the view of most modern Westerners --outside of the
>technocratic elite, of course.
Now it's my turn to apply the historical argument. For centuries
Humans have looked at phenomena they couldn't explain and
invented Gods, ghosts, souls, or any other anthromorphic
explanation. Our understanding of the brain is so poor, that
modern people such as yourself carry on this practice today.
It has always been wrong up till the present.
(L.M.)
>]When you notice the structure and periodicity of nature (sunrise,
>]tides,snowflakes,wave phenomena, etc.) a simple mechanical model
>]is the obvious first step. And how amazingly useful it turned out
>]to be (even if it's false).
>With a few days search, I'll bet I could find an almost exact
>paraphrase of this from the 17th or 18th century, except intended to
>prove the existence of God. The arguments never change, just the
>conclusions do.
I challenge you to do so. And don't forget the last sentence
with the parenthesis. I am sure you can not.
(L.M.)
>]At this point I must question what you mean by "mechanical".
>]Actually, anything which is explainable in terms of cause and
>]effect is "mechanical".
>In Berkeley's universe, all that we sense is a direct communication
>from the mind of God --there is no matter, only sensations. The
>apparent regularity of the universe is a direct result of the
>consistency of God in his dealings with man. Here you have a universe
>of cause-and-effect but the causes and effects bear no resemblence to
>the appearences, and there is no excuse for applying the notion of
>mechanical operation to the universe.
What evidence is there for Berkeley's interpretation? And
wouldn't it be fun to let Occam's Razor do some carving on it.
This philosophy seems to be displaced solipsism: things exist
because God believes they do. How does the mind of God
communicate these things to us. Through our ordinary senses?
The idea that there is no "matter" is a word game. Everything
is matter if you call the sensations caused by God "matter".
I can see that such a point of view is consistent, but I
am not able to hold it. Matter is matter: no God is required to
make it so. God is not telling me and every other living thing
what to perceive at each instant. It's folly. The last gasp of
someone who refused to see that his God assumption was
unneccessary, and obfuscating. And it was social conditioning
that made him unable to let go of it. Like those who insisted
upon the "aether".
>In other words, the sense of mechanical causality seems
>to be "hard-wired" into the human mind [1]. Mechanistic views of the
>universe are essentially attempts to view everything as a case of this
>sort of causality that we can directly sense. The problem, of course,
>is that there is no reason to suppose that our sensation of causality
>is of any fundamental explanatory importance.
I disagree. It is hard-wired precisely because it was useful
for survival. It was useful because it gave an explanation that
was sufficiently accurate that it worked. So if nothing else,
we can say c-a-e is sufficiently accurate that it enabled us
to survive. That is its "explanatory importance", and I think
that says a lot.
>Causality never has been, and never can be verified. And I don't see
>that it is so useful. Why not just observe that there are patterns in
>nature that are followed with a certain amound of predictable
>regularity? What does it buy you to talk about that mysterious
>metaphysical notion of "cause"?
Physics. And you can't even observe patterns like sunrise, tides,
etc. without a notion of time. That leads to causality.
(L.M.)
>]What exactly would you consider to be non-mechanical?
>]If you mean a "soul", science also believes this will be explained
>]as a "mechanical" system. That is, the patterns in the brain are
>]also governed by c-a-e, and that ill-defined thing we call "soul"
>]is (I believe) strictly a function of the brain.
>You aren't going to convince me of the intellectual respectibility of
>science by presenting more mythologies of science. Even when I was a
>scientific believer like you, I never really believed that science
>could "explain" the soul. How can science explain something that it
>can't even talk about properly?
That's true. It can't talk about it _yet_. It will never have a
full theory as long as thoughts/feelings can not be read by
an outside observer. That could be possible one day. Then the
soul would become a subject for experimental measurement. In the
mean time, science may have a lot to say about the capabilities
of "mechanisms" that are made up of hundreds of millions of
neurons.
I see you also brought up the red-herring of
"mythologies of science". So you prefer "mythologies of
religion"? Why? Religious truths are just as changable, and
less accurate. (Earth created in seven days..)
>Really? How can I get access to a super-colider? More seriously, you
Become a physicist. (A good one)
>have missed my point entirely if you think that science presents
>evidence for explanatory theories. There is no way, even in
>principle, to present evidence for an explanatory theory of the sort I
>am talking about. If there were, then I would not be arguing about
>this.
>]You said
>]yourself that science and religion were as different as red and
>]blue.
>They are difference in the sense that any reasonably well-educated
>adult can read an article or book and tell whether it should be
>classified as "science" or "religion". If it talks about God and
Not if that person is a post-structuralist. Then it's all
just narrative. ;>)
>souls and good and evil it's religious. If it talks about quarks and
>electrons and molecules and photons it's science. However, the
>difference in vocabulary does not imply a difference in logical
>content.
It's not the language that's important, it's the methodology.
Science encourges questioning and deduction, based on
empiricism. Religion can include logical arguments, but
it has no empiricism. It should not make claims about the
material world. And the material world may include everything.
(L.M.)
>] Sure neither has a "proof" of its truth. No human
>]knowledge is "proved" in the most rigorous sense.
>A great deal of human knowledge is proved in the rigorous sense.
>Mathematics and logic, for example.
Nope. That's coherence truth, not correspondence truth.
The connection between math/logic and ontology is specious.
(L.M.)
>]And you haven't even begun to address how religious truths
>]disagree across the various religions.
>Yes I have, in several other messages.
I'd enjoy seeing you grapple with that. Perhaps you'd post
a summary, and we'll continue this debate.
-Laurence
David Gudeman
]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>,
]David Gudeman <gud...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
]>In article <2slil7$i...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
]>
]>]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>, gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>]=Someone observed that the majority of religious ideas must be false
]>]=because of all of the contradictions. The same thing is true of
]>]=scientific arguments. That is, scientific arguments have contradicted
]>]=each other so much, that the large majority of them must be wrong.
]>
]>]Yup. And science actually makes an effort to weed out the wrong ideas. How
]>]much do you hear about phlogiston these days? How about luminierous ether?
]>
]>Why should I believe that either idea is wrong? Just because they are
]>no longer fashionable?
]Why should I believe my great-grandfather is dead ? Just because it is
]fashionable to think so ?
You are confusing facts about real objects with facts about
theoretical objects.
]Get real. Ether and phlogiston have explicit consequences that are not borne
]out in experience.
This is more of the mythology of science. Ether and phlogiston died
as theories because they became unpopular, not because anyone ever
proved them wrong. They had supporters and detractors and there were
all sorts of political intrigues and personal disputes over a long
period of time; and the anti's won. The winners --as always-- got to
write history and there you have it: a victory of logic over
superstition. If I'm mistaken about this, it should be easy enough to
prove: just point to the first published paper that logically proved
to everyone that there is no ether or phlogiston.
] It is a quibble that the experience is by experiment in
]a laboratory, rather than your "direct perception of your hand". Ultimately
]the results of all experiments are through direct perception of something,
]otherwise we couldn't comprehend them anyway.
It would certainly be a quible if I made that objection. However I
made no such objection, and I think you completely missed the point in
my discussion about perception.
]It is true that religions also evolve. They do not do so under the same
]social dynamics that science does.
Have you actually studied the social dynamics of change in religion
and science, or are you stating this as another article from canon of
the scientific faith?
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Ken Arromdee
>a certain kind of uranium in a certain way has a certain effect", and
>demonstrates it on a scientist, the scientist will not be adversly
>affected? Are you suggesting that it is the "scientific explanation"
>in terms of subatomic particles that makes the scientist's uranium
>more dangerous, and that if the nonscientist does exactly the same
>thing, but explains the results in terms of pissed-off demons in the
>uranium, that this faulty explanation will prevent the critical mass
>from going off?
The only way the nonscientist is going to get his nuke to work is by copying
it from a scientist. He cannot nonscientifically come up with a set of
principles and then use those principles to build something whose ability to
function is as obvious as the ability of a nuclear bomb to function. The
demon "explanation" came after the bomb did; he did not use the explanation to
_design_ the bomb.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
"You, a Decider?" --Romana "I decided not to." --The Doctor
GUEST-Arun Gupta(CUTS)
>]>no longer fashionable?
>
>]Why should I believe my great-grandfather is dead ? Just because it is
>]fashionable to think so ?
>
>You are confusing facts about real objects with facts about
>theoretical objects.
How is my great grandfather any less theoretical than a quark ? I have not
met him, nor have I met anyone who has met him. I find no record of his
existence around me.
>
>]Get real. Ether and phlogiston have explicit consequences that are not borne
>]out in experience.
>
>This is more of the mythology of science. Ether and phlogiston died
>as theories because they became unpopular, not because anyone ever
>proved them wrong. They had supporters and detractors and there were
>all sorts of political intrigues and personal disputes over a long
>period of time; and the anti's won. The winners --as always-- got to
>write history and there you have it: a victory of logic over
How did you come to know all that history ? What keeps it from being a
myth any more than my accepting the results of someone else's experiment ?
All you have is books that someone wrote, and what other people have told
you. You have even less than any scientist does. I don't have to take you
seriously, do I ?
>superstition. If I'm mistaken about this, it should be easy enough to
>prove: just point to the first published paper that logically proved
>to everyone that there is no ether or phlogiston.
>
>] It is a quibble that the experience is by experiment in
>]a laboratory, rather than your "direct perception of your hand". Ultimately
>]the results of all experiments are through direct perception of something,
>]otherwise we couldn't comprehend them anyway.
>
>It would certainly be a quible if I made that objection. However I
>made no such objection, and I think you completely missed the point in
>my discussion about perception.
No, I didn't. You called my hypothetical great grandfather real rather than
theoretical, while by all your definitions that great grandfather must be
an unprovable myth. For all you know, I was born by immaculate conception,
and while I may have a Father (you know, the one in Heaven) I have no
great-grandfather.
>
>]It is true that religions also evolve. They do not do so under the same
>]social dynamics that science does.
>
>Have you actually studied the social dynamics of change in religion
>and science, or are you stating this as another article from canon of
>the scientific faith?
You made an assertion without any argument to back it up that "science
changes with the same social dynamics that religion does". You have not
given us one bit of your scholarship on the subject. Playing by the rules
of your game, I contradict you. How are your assertions something real
and mine merely an assertion of faith ?
Carl J Lydick
=science, appealing to a consensus is not scientific, and no
=respectable scientist would say that science must be true because so
=many people agree on it.
Are you REALLY a moron, or do you just play one on the net? Given the mutually
contradictory nature of so many religious beliefs, one can say without any
doubt that most religious beliefs are wrong. Period. That was the point of my
original post. If you're too stupid to understand that, that's your problem
(and probably an explanation for your religious bent).
Ken Arromdee
>same kind of non-logical argumentation that science uses (note that
>non-logical does not mean irrational, stupid, or false). It was, in
>fact, a "scientific" argument in the sense that it was a conclusion
>drawn from observation.
The theory that the Earth is flat makes incorrect predictions, and thus is
not scientific.
Austin Cline
batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) wrote:
> arc...@phoenix.princeton.edu (Austin Cline) writes...
> >batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Batchelor) wrote:
> > [to D Gudeman]
> >> Good points. The closest personal experiences of mine which are relevant
> >> are the semesters I spent in physics lab at MIT. We made measurements of
> >> basic physical phenomena like the speed of light and the electron's mass.
> >> On the basis of these experiences I have concluded that the methodology
> >> and results of such experiences are sound. I also have used high-powered
> >> telescopes to see details of the Sun and planets, convincing me that the
> >> people who routinely do this are performing sound investigations. Most
> >> of my knowledge of science is admittedly indirect, acquired through
> >> reading descriptions of experiments and results from credentialed sources.
> >> I see my faith in these sources as validated by some time spent in the
> >> performance of the discipline, reaching results that affirm the results
> >> I receive from colleagues.
> >
> AC>You make a very important point. Your faith is based on personal experience
> >validated by comparing it with the personal experiences of a community of
> >like-minded individuals. Something very similar could be said of most
> >religions. You believe in the value of the goals being persued, and since
> >the methodology of the actions appears to be furthering those goals, your
> >faith in this methodology (science) appears justified.
>
> Well, I think you really haven't said anything more than that there are
> theological scholars and physicist scholars, and both are scholars. What
> this overlooks deliberately is the distinction between subject matter,
> which is at the root of the physicist's discipline, in contrast to the
> theologist's: physical phenomena separate from mystical belief.
Except that the theological scholars do *not* consider their work to be
mere 'mystical beliefs', but to have direct correspondence with the real
world as it actually is, just like the physicist. What I have pointed out
is that both the physicst and the theologian have similar beliefs about the
nature of their work. You are looking at religion from your own,
disbelieving perspective and not considering it as a devout believer would.
I'm sure that many devout believers view your beliefs in much the same way.
> >> DB>]This is why the Christian faith does not have
> >> >]the same validity as the scientist's faith. For instance, aspirin
> >> >]reliably cures most headaches, whereas prayer is of little use.
> >> >
> >> DG>Of course, as a scientist, you would not make such a statement without
> >> >having first performed a controlled experiment to verify it. Surely,
> >> >you would not make assumptions based on untested theories or on an
> >> >unverifiable cosmology. Only tested, verified experimental counts for
> >> >you, right? So please point us to the empricial proof of this
> >> >statement.
> >>
> DB>> Well, you can always attack science by pointing out that no scientist
> >> can perform every experiment to verify it. My response is that I would
> >> rather know the findings of a community I trust to carry out arrays of
> >> interesting experiments and report the results in good faith over the
> >> sayings of faithful mystics who never perform scientific experiments at
> >> all.
> >
> AC>But why not trust mystics? Just because they don't perform scientific
> >experiments?
>
> Yes.
That presupposes that science is better, which is precisely the question.
You cannot say that science is better just because it is scientific.
Doesn't that sound a wee bit circular? That's like saying Christianity is
better because it has Christian values. You are using a premise of an idea
as proof of its validity. Don't you see the problem with that? In order to
show that science is better, you need to point to something objective and
independent (i.e. separate from science and all of its assumptions and
premises) by which science can be measured. This is not possible - any more
than it is for a religion.
> AC>But that already presumes a faith in science.
>
> The scientist is someone who has determined that thought experiments alone
> are inadequate, or else he would not bother with doing physical experiments!
> Trying to erase that premise -- which is actually the conclusion of
> centuries of tests that found mental efforts alone inadequate to explain
> the physical world -- is to try to reverse what is the signal achievement
> of the scientific methodology.
>
> AC> Many people find
> >their faith in their religions justified by their personal experiences and
> >then comparing them with the experiences of like-minded people in their
> >community. Just because you don't trust the communities of religions
> >doesn't make them worse. Just because mystics don't trust science doesn't
> >make it worse.
>
> This sounds like we could vote on physical laws, with mystics getting to
> vote equally against scientists. I reject that tendency as a step
> backward from humanity's greatest advance.
>
No, but people have the choice as to whether or not knowing about those
physical laws and using that knoweldge need have any value in their lives.
Knowledge of various natural lives is not at all necessary in order to have
a happy, fullfilling life. It is narrow to believe that humanity's greatest
advance need be some scientific discovery. Most people place much more
weight on mutual love and positive interpersonal relationships, music and
literature, creativity and art. I realize that you might not, and that is
your choice. Just don't think that everyone else need follow in your
footsteps.
arc
Carl J Lydick
=that it follows necessarily from the evidence.
That's true. However, there are quite a few relgious "theories" that are
demonstrably contradicted by the evidence. Now, in science, when this sort of
thing happens, the theory is abandoned in short order. When it happens in
religion, the religious cling tenaciously to the "theory," denying the
evidence, often for centuries or longer.
Scientific theories
=always rely on an agreement to certain unproven and unprovable
=metaphysical principles, and if anyone does not ascribe to these
=principles, the scientific "demonstration" is completely unconvincing.
=I don't mean that the dissenter disagrees on the sensible outcome of
=the demonstration, I mean that he dissents on the interpretation. You
=can show that cathode rays are bent by magnets and think that this
="proves" that there are charged particles moving in the cathode ray.
=But there are an infinite number of other explanations for the
=phenomenon (assuming that it needs to be and can be "explained"), and
=your explanation is just the one that science has alighted on by
=historical accident.
=--
= David Gudeman
=gud...@cs.arizona.edu
arnold v. lesikar
>
>mathematical arguments are valid. Scientific arguments are not valid
>and religious arguments arguments are not valid. This is such a clear
>and obvious point (to anyone who knows what "valid" means) that I
>can't imagine why there should be so much ranting and raving over it.
Er...excuse me, but what does "valid" mean here? Your argument seems
to depend upon the meaning of the word; so exactly what *do* you mean
by it?
Uma B Keshavan
any true knowledge gathering venture. Meditation is NOT religion.
Sure, it uses abstract ideas, such as a sound (mantra) which is
supposed to bring forth specific states of consciousness. But forget
even that. CAN meditation, of any kind, or better yet, intellectual
conteplation, bring forth greater understanding of our Universe and
then be applied in a scientific manner. I think you all know that
this is possible. That is the real question here. What is life?
What is intelligence? Remember that all we are talking about are
abstract ideas which are inventions of the human mind. Science may
profess to have specific methods and goals. So does meditation. Why
should not inner searching bring forth a better understanding of
ourselves and our sorroundings.
Personally I don't think either religion or science are anywhere close
to really understanding what is going on. I think Humankind is just
starting on it's grand venture. I do think we are about to quantum
leap into another evolutionary step, though this one may be more
subtle, in the realm of intelligence rather than in the realm of a
physical change. I don't see Humankind as the end of the evolutionary
ladder, just another step. I think there is a much greater role for
intelligence to play in the Universe than we can even imagine. I
think the statement "I AM" says it all. But what the hell, who cares
what I think. I think I'll go sleep.
--
Rango Keshavan "IN THE SECRET SPACE OF DREAMS
WHERE I DREAMING LAY AMAZED!" R. Hunter
David Gudeman
] gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes...
] >
] DG>This is obvoiusly false. There is no way to tell if any of the sets
] >of scientific theories are true (no religious beliefs or scientific
] >theories are valid). Science has at least as many schisms, parties,
] >and cliques as any religion. In fact, as soon as a consensus develops
] >in an area, that area becomes barren for scientific research.
] Evidently enough of computer science is true that we are reliably provided
] with your postings of specious harangues against it ;-) Do you still
] think that the scientific principles which are demonstrated by the
] functioning of the Internet are in question? Would you say that there
] "is no way to tell if" the Internet works?
The success of electronics engineers is purely a matter of experience.
No explanatory theories are needed or verified by functioning
electronic devices.
People made beer before there was a theory of fermentation, they made
telescopes before there was a theory of optics, they made heat engines
before there was a theory of thermodynamics. And if history had been
a little different, there would have been electronics before there was
a theory of electrons.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
David Gudeman
]In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>, gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]=Someone observed that the majority of religious ideas must be false
]=because of all of the contradictions. The same thing is true of
]=scientific arguments. That is, scientific arguments have contradicted
]=each other so much, that the large majority of them must be wrong.
]Yup. And science actually makes an effort to weed out the wrong ideas. How
]much do you hear about phlogiston these days? How about luminierous ether?
Why should I believe that either idea is wrong? Just because they are
no longer fashionable?
]In religion, on the other hand, once an idea crops up it's here to stay
]forever.
You are wrong. Religions evolve and change a great deal. And they do
so under pretty much the same social dynamics that science does. It
is historically quite common for religious ideas to be "falsified" in
the sense that a consensus develops that the idea contradicts other
facts that are known to be true.
--
David Gudeman
gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Mark Rupright
>In article <2snl33$o...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright) writes:
>
>]That we disagree about science says nothing about our endeavor to apply
>]critical thinking to the discussion.
>
>Granted. I'll go even further and say that the fact that you don't
>understand the essentially non-logical character of scientific
>argument does not say anything about your critical thinking. Berkeley
>was, in my opinion, one of the best critical thinkers of his time. He
>was a true, full-blown empiricist of the sort to put modern
>"empirical" scientists to shame. Yet he seems not to have ever seen
>the difference between his logically conclusive arguments against
>materialism and his inconclusive arguments for the existence of God
>and the immortality of the soul.
I don't disagree with the non-logical character of science, either.
I disagree with your notion that because science is non-logical, it
is a religion. Science is based on assumptions about the existence
of a measureable, objective reality and the ability of the 'scientific
method' in obtaining information about this reality. The 'validity'
(my understanding of the word) of these assumptions is determined by
the success of the method (which is *rather* successful) at making
testable predictions.
>]>On the other hand, I still don't think you can tell me what sort of
>]>verifiable experimental data can support a proposition about something
>]>that can't be observed.
>
>]Who said I could?!?
>
>Well, since is the essence of my argument that science tries
>unsuccessfully to do this, your suggestion that I don't understand
>science might be taken as implying that you think science successfuly
>does this.
That depends on what you mean by 'observation'. I may not be able
to observe atoms, but the assumption of their existence can be used
successfully to derive the rules of statistical mechanics and predict
the existence of Brownian motion, both of which are experimentally
well determined. The 'underlying reality' may not be atoms, but the
atomic hypothesis agrees with everything we can measure, and in the
absence of any other theories, this is the best that anyone can do to
explain these phenomena.
>]>Lest there be a misunderstanding (which I probably can't avoid anyway)
>]>I want to point out that I am not claiming that I have some sort of
>]>direct visual access to a material substratum. All I'm saying is that
>]>I see my hand, and your theory of how I can manage to do so does not
>]>affect the basic truth I am expressing.
>
>]Again, I never said it did. I simply argued that what we know is based
>]largely on indirect evidence.
>
>My knowledge that I see my hand is not indirect. When I say that I
>see my hand, I'm not talking about some inaccessible object made of an
>occult material that we can only know about by indirect evidence.
>This is _your_ scientific cosmology. Your argument is based on a
>theory of the very sort that I am bringing into question so you are
>assuming the truth of the conclusion you are arguing for.
The assumption is of some kind of objective reality and a method of
determining this reality. The conclusion is that the hand exists
and we can see it due to photon scattering. The conclusion is
based on assumption, but nowhere did I assume the conclusion.
The difference between your knowledge of your hand and my 'occult
cosmology' is predictability. What happens to your knowledge of the
existence of your hand if (barring all other senses) you turn the
lights off? My scientific theory of photons predicts that I can still
'see' my hand with an infra-red detector.
Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic waves dealt with 'invisible'
entities (unless you count light, which was only *possibly* an EM
wave at the time). The basic prediction that these 'occult' entities
could give measureable effects was tested with success by
Helmholtz.
>You are correct in saying that I don't have direct evidence about any
>material things. You are incorrect in assuming that the objects of
>daily life are material things (speaking in the metaphysical sense).
>The hand that I see is an abstraction. Certain sense impressions are
>impressions "of my hand" and other impressions are not. The set of
>actual and possible impressions that are "of my hand" together make up
>an abstraction that is my hand. Sense impressions are something that
>I experience directly, so my hand is an abstraction of direct data and
>is therefore just about as directly observed as you can get.
Again, I realize that one can argue that *everything* is an abstraction.
The difference is, the 'abstractions' we deal with scientificly are
not subjective. If I predict that hands can be 'seen' with infra-red
detectors, even in the dark, then this prediction can be tested by
anyone, anywhere, who has one of these detectors. My assumption of
underlying reality predicts demonstrable, repeatable results. Your
experiential knowledge that your hand exists cannot predict this
phenomenon, because you are limited by past experience. Scientific
hypotheses let us go beyond our collected experiences and predict
new experiences we can have if the hypotheses are 'correct'.
>I'm not implying that science is
>responsible for the mechanism for how I see the hand but I am
>certainly saying that the scientific "explanation" for how I see my
>hand is not testable. How are you going to test for the existence of
>something that by your own theory is inaccessible?
I'm sorry, but I can't recall saying anything about photons being
'inaccessible'. Rather, they are measurable (by reasonable definition
of the word) entities which can be used as an explanation for how
we (indirectly) see our hands.
>]>I think you are deducing that aspirin is more effective than
>]>prayers as a consequence of certain untested and untestable beliefs
>]>you hold, and that you can't tell the difference between a proposition
>]>that you deduced from your cosmology and one for which you have
>]>genuine evidence.
>
>]Try me.
>
>Do you think you have genuine evidence for the existence of matter?
What is 'genuine evidence' in the absence of the assumption that
such evidence exists?
>The history of science is overflowing with examples of theories that
>scientists thought were proven and later scientists decided were
>false. When something is really proven it doesn't become false later.
My argument has never been that scientific 'truths' are permanent or
that science can 'prove' anything. My argument is that while religion
is based on unfalisifiable faith, science is based on falsifiable
theories which are strengthened by experimental verification of
predictions of these theories.
> David Gudeman
>gud...@cs.arizona.edu
я
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright | "Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it
UNC Physics | were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
rupr...@physics.unc.edu| That's logic." Lewis Carroll
Mark Rupright
>
>mathematical arguments are valid. Scientific arguments are not valid
>and religious arguments arguments are not valid. This is such a clear
>and obvious point (to anyone who knows what "valid" means) that I
>can't imagine why there should be so much ranting and raving over it.
>Obviously I have stepped on someones religious faith.
Logical arguments are ultimately based on assumption of certain
basic postulates of logic. Scientific arguments are based on the
assumptions about the comprehensibility of nature and the validity
of the 'scientific method' in making discoveries about it. Religion
is based on assumptions about the existence of 'supernatural'
entities or forces. What is your definition of 'valid' which
accepts one, while rejects the others. Here's my concept of 'valid':
Let's apply math/science/religion to a specific problem: a roulette
wheel with a magnets hidden in some of the red bins.
The rules of mathematics predict that if the probability of hitting
red is higher than black, we should bet on red to make money. But we
don't know if red is more probable. The rules of science re that we
should test the wheel to determine the probabilities. We run repeated
trials and determine red is more probable. The scientific method can
determine the probabilities necessary for mathematical arguments to be
effective.
But we can go further than that. We can develop a theory
that there are magnets hidden under some of the red numbers. We can
test this theory scientifically by moving a magnetometer over the
numbers. We suppose that deflection of the needle is evidence for
our theory, and determine which numbers have magnets under them.
Now, do we *know* there are magnets under these numbers? No.
However, if I were to bet on these specific numbers, I should make
more money than someone who bet on any other numbers. My magnets may
be nonexistent, but I'll be eating well if I assume they are there.
To treat this problem using religion, one must make some determination
of which numbers/color will pay off. The hope is that the supernatural
rule which determines these is correct. If not, there is no explanation
why not. If so, then what if the casino rearranges the magnets?
The religious rules no longer apply, unless the 'god' gives us a new
set of rules to use -- but are there any guarantees? The scientist can
just use the magnetometer again to figure out where the 'hypothetical'
magnets are.
What is the point? Your (and my) revered mathematical logic is
necessary to solve the problem of how to make money at this table.
However, it is not sufficient. The wheel is biased toward some
numbers and scientific methodology, based on assumptions of some
underlying reality, is necessary to determine the numbers on which to
bet. There may be a way to win on faith alone, but this doesn't seem
to work in practice (as most gamblers soon discover).
Logic works if there is a good understanding about all the parameters
involved. Science, while relying on assumptions of unseen entities,
can be used to give us an idea of the underlying parameters necessary
for logical analysis. In practice, the scientific method works in
these situations. Religion *may* work 100% of the time, but then
again it *may* be wrong 100% of the time.
My point is, science may not be as rigorous as logic, but centuries'
worth of experience has shown that the methology is reliable. Religion
has not shown us the same reliability. Science may not be 'rigorous',
but it is certainly not a religion.
>The scientist says "Hey, the universe follows a regular predictable
>pattern, therefore there is a mechanical cause and effect operating."
>The Christian says "Hey, the universe follows a regular predictable
>pattern, therefore there is a god operating." So the scientist says,
>"Oh yeah, well I can do _experiements_ to prove my point". The
>Christian watches the experiments and says, "Yep, they prove _my_
>point." I look at the arguments and experiments and say to both
>of them: "You don't really KNOW, do you?"
But the scientist can develop theories to make predictions. If the
predictions don't work, the theories are rejected. If they do work,
the theories are kept. Religion *can* make predictions, and these
predictions could be correct. However, if they are not, the religion
is not usually rejected. The results are just "God's will".
>--
> David Gudeman