Religion and Science
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.
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.
Michael Cummings
>
>]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?
>
>]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.
Is so, so there! *nyeah*!
Science doesn't have a mythology. I don't doubt you'll say it does,
conveniently redefining the word so it loses any meaning, just like so many
do with the word "religion."
>]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".
A typical response from someone who thinks the only form of observation is
in the visible spectrum. There are indirect ways of observing all of those
things. This is *not* analogous to religion. I'm talking about looking at
*physical* evidence.
Nice use of 99.99%, btw. It's always a nice number to pull out of your ass
to make a point.
--
Michael Cummings NX7E cumm...@u.washington.edu
"Like jewels in a crown, the precious stones glittered in the Queen's
round metal hat." - Jack Handey
Carl J Lydick
==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).
=
=Are you really this insulting or is this your persona for the net?
=
=Try: Given the mutually contradictory nature of so many SCIENTIFIC theories,
=one can say without a doubt that most scientific theories are incorrect.
=Period.
Care to cite some examples, shit-for-brains?
=The *real* difference between Religious Belief and Scientific Inquiry is that
=Science is willing to examine evidence and change the theory
Which is why I seriously doubt you can find the mutually contradictory current
scientific theories you claim exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 +--------------------------------------+
103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu
> suggests that you aren't being terribly scientific about all of this either...
Er, that should be something like: "the fact that your attitude about MMY's
beliefs is based on reading Mr. Arbuckle's description (and mine) of what MMY
says,"
Something got confused -me, the computer, the universe -something...
>
> MMY's claims may be entirely unfalsifiable, but unless you consult the source,
> you can't be sure just what they are in the first place...
>
>
> Lawson
>
And maybe not even then, if MMY's wordprocessor performs as poorly as mine
just did (it's always the computer's fault, you know...)
Lawson
103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu
> In article <1994Jun2...@west.cscwc.pima.edu>, 103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu writes...
>>Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (Jim Lippard) sez:
>>
>>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.
>>
>>are likely to use them as a mode of transportation. If one is composed of
>
> You can use hands for all sorts of things. That doesn't make them
> nonexistent, unreal, or subjective.
>
>>neutrinos, hands are indectable. If you try to show exactly where a hand
>>begins and the wrist ends, you will argue for hours with people. If you try to
>
> Fuzzy boundaries also don't indicate nonexistence or subjectivity about
> the existence of hands.
>
>>*prove* that "this" is a hand from a Physicist's point of view, you will run
>>into the uncertainty principle when you try to be precise as to where that hand
>>is in Space-Time. If you discuss "hand" with a molecular biologist, you must
>>now prove that the hand of .001 seconds ago is the same hand that exists
>>currently...
>
> And if you discuss it with a philosopher, you can argue about whether
> bodies or other people actually exist. So what? None of this raises
> any good reason for saying that hands are subjective or unreal.
>
>>hands is subjective. (Of course, I don't know what else to call what I am
>>typing with, but...)
>>
>>Lawson
>
Maybe I'm using a different definition of the word "subjective?"
I gave examples of how hands are "subjective" using one or more of the usual
definitions of the word, and you don't invalidate them and still insist that
the arguments have nothing to do with whether hands are subjective or not...
Lawson
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
103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu
>In article <2skrp4$3...@uuneo.neosoft.com> k...@starbase.neosoft.com (Kurt
Arbuckle) writes:
>>
[lots of stuff deleted]
>>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.
>
Actually, MMY says that in order to create a group large enough to influence
events on a world-wide basis, he must get government funding. In order to get
government funding, he must convince the scientists of the world that his claim
is correct. He doesn't blame scientists (or governments) for any failures to
produce, in fact, he goes out of his way to praise them (in this context) as
doing exactly what they are supposed to (although he wishes that they were a
little more open-minded).
And... it is the "negative vibrations" of both TMers and non-TMers that he
credits as bringing about war, crime, et al.
>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.
Such large groups HAVE met together for varying lengths of time. The most
celebrated such group was the one mentioned in the study published in the
Journal of Conflict Resolution. However, it is very expensive to keep such
groups going for any length of time. The group that met in Washington DC last
year cost about $2-4 million for 2 months...
>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.
It is not meant to be on the basis of "positive thinking" but on the basis of
practicing a technique which everyone in the group has learned.
>
>This difference between Maharishi's belief and scientific theories
>superbly illustrates the difference between science and religion.
>
That you reading Mr. Arbuckle's description (and mine) of what MMY says,
suggests that you aren't being terribly scientific about all of this either...
MMY's claims may be entirely unfalsifiable, but unless you consult the source,
103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu
>
>In article <2skrp4$3...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
>Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
>>Mark Rupright (rupr...@physics.unc.edu) wrote:
>>
>>
>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.
What has this to do with anything? If you feel a need to flame Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi's decision to deal with the modern world in an economically-sound fashion,
and to suggest that he is a charlaton, etc, I suggest that you contact
Professor Anoop Chandola
East Asian Studies, U of Arizona
Franklin Building Rm. 404
Tucson, AZ 85721
And ask him what the Shankaracharya of the North said about Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi.
You might be a little embarassed. Or do you believe that the S of the N is
another exploiter of the Hindu tradition?
Incidentally, in MMY's eyes, Hinduism is the last, decaying, distorted gasp of
the Vedic tradition...
Lawson
Michael Murray
103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu wrote:
>
> We still have Steady-State theorists, vs Big Bang.
Yes but we have sorted out that its not on the back of
an elephant on the back of a lot of turtles, its not a
celestial sphere with music, it wasn't
made 8000 years ago etc.
Michael.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael K. Murray
Pure Mathematics Department
University of Adelaide phone: (08) 303 4174
Adelaide SA 5005 fax: (08) 232 5670
AUSTRALIA. email: mmu...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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?*
--
George X. Kambic Allen-Bradley
gxka...@cs.hh.ab.com 747 Alpha Drive
"Standard Disclaimer" Highland Heights, OH 44143
"Koyaanisqatsi" V:(216) 646-3269
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
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
>
>It's not so cut and dried. Many scientists hold onto cherished beliefs (of
>course are they still scientists in this case?) even when evidence mounts
>against these beliefs, presumably because they have an emotional attachment to
>them.
The fact that any scientist holds on to cherished beliefs says nothing
about science.
>OTH, the Roman Catholic Church has basically apologized to Gallileo for
>persecuting him unjustly. I'm sure that others can come up with more subtle
>examples.
And it only took them over three centuries to do it!
Name a scientist who has held on to cherished beliefs against evidence
for this long. Okay, to be fair, try naming a group of scientists
guilty of this.
>Lawson
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
>>
>
>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.
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
Stephen Christopher Allison
>*prove* that "this" is a hand from a Physicist's point of view, you will run
>into the uncertainty principle when you try to be precise as to where that hand
>is in Space-Time
Um, no. I think you'll find you don't need quantum mecanics
to describe the state of your hand. Quantum mechanics is only neede to
model things like electrons, atoms etc, ie really small things, not hands.
--
"Being nice is just Steve
as easy as being spooky, sc...@st-andrews.ac.uk
and it's much more fun" - Death
Tim Antonsen
: Computer science isn't a science.
Oh, Carl, sure it is. The theoretical foundations of CS are mathematical,
as much as the foundations of physics. Formal languages, finite automata,
Turing machines, computability theory; maybe you don't call it science, but
it sure ain't religion.
But please, don't imagine I agree with Lawson, Gudeman, and the others. I've
been trying to deal with that kind of nonsense for a long time over on
alt.meditation.transcendental.
-- Tim
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
103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu
> <103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu> wrote:
>
>>*prove* that "this" is a hand from a Physicist's point of view, you will run
>>into the uncertainty principle when you try to be precise as to where that hand
>>is in Space-Time
> Um, no. I think you'll find you don't need quantum mecanics
> to describe the state of your hand. Quantum mechanics is only neede to
> model things like electrons, atoms etc, ie really small things, not hands.
The hand is made up of lots of itty-bitty things...
At least a zillion, if I didn't mis-count.
Lawson
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
103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu
One man's Science is another man's nonsense?
Lawson
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
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
James J. Lippard
>Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (Jim Lippard) sez:
>
>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.
>
>of course hands are subjective. If you have no feet or are born in space, you
>are likely to use them as a mode of transportation. If one is composed of
You can use hands for all sorts of things. That doesn't make them
nonexistent, unreal, or subjective.
>neutrinos, hands are indectable. If you try to show exactly where a hand
>begins and the wrist ends, you will argue for hours with people. If you try to
Fuzzy boundaries also don't indicate nonexistence or subjectivity about
the existence of hands.
>*prove* that "this" is a hand from a Physicist's point of view, you will run
>into the uncertainty principle when you try to be precise as to where that hand
>is in Space-Time. If you discuss "hand" with a molecular biologist, you must
>now prove that the hand of .001 seconds ago is the same hand that exists
>currently...
And if you discuss it with a philosopher, you can argue about whether
bodies or other people actually exist. So what? None of this raises
any good reason for saying that hands are subjective or unreal.
>hands is subjective. (Of course, I don't know what else to call what I am
>typing with, but...)
>
>Lawson
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
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
103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu
> In article <1994Jun2...@west.cscwc.pima.edu>, 103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu writes:
> ==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).
> =
> =Are you really this insulting or is this your persona for the net?
> =
> =Try: Given the mutually contradictory nature of so many SCIENTIFIC theories,
> =one can say without a doubt that most scientific theories are incorrect.
> =Period.
>
> Care to cite some examples, shit-for-brains?
>
This isn't a net-persona, is it?
Interesting.
>
=The *real* difference between Religious Belief and Scientific Inquiry is that
> =Science is willing to examine evidence and change the theory
>
> Which is why I seriously doubt you can find the mutually contradictory current
^^^^^^
> scientific theories you claim exist.
I reread MY post very carefully; Nowhere did I find the word "current."
And...
We still have Steady-State theorists, vs Big Bang. We still have
proponents of various Unified Field Theories blasting each other's theories in
the literature. We still have AI/Natural-I debates (It's Connectionist! No! It's
Symbolic. No! It's Two! Two brains in one!) and let's not forget the various
schools of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics...
Come to think of it, leave that "current" in. It doesn't really change my
point anyway...
Lawson
103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.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?
It's not so cut and dried. Many scientists hold onto cherished beliefs (of
course are they still scientists in this case?) even when evidence mounts
against these beliefs, presumably because they have an emotional attachment to
them.
OTH, the Roman Catholic Church has basically apologized to Gallileo for
persecuting him unjustly. I'm sure that others can come up with more subtle
examples.
I think that an anology from Science Fiction and Fantasy can shed light here.
Marion Zimmer Bradley once claimed that it is the way in which the book's
universe works that determines whether it is SF or Fantasy: if it is
predictable and machines and so on can do the work of a person, then it is an
SF book. If magical-type thinking and events exist, then it is Fantasy.
I came up with a more subtle view: it is the *perception* of the characters
that determines what a book is. If they deal witht he world in a scientific
way, then it is SF. If they deal with it in a magical way, then it is fantasy
(example: _The High Crusade_ by Poul Anderson).
Similarly, if the adherents of a certain belief-system accept that *every*
aspect of that belief-system is subject to testing and that the results of the
tests are to over-ride any tradition (once the tests have been "sufficiently"
verified -a problem there, no doubt), then the adherents of that belief-system
are being "scientific."
If, on the other hand, the adherents of a certain belief-system refuse to
accept the results of testing, then we can say that they are being "religious."
Of course, there are gray areas, counter-examples, etc, to what I've suggested
above, but I thin k that the central idea holds true: it is the *response* of
the participants that makes something religious or not.
Testability of core beliefs is important, but just as "God" isn't provable, so
we can say the same about the Scientific Method as it is impossible to test the
method in all circumstances. In fact, I can [sorta] falsify the Scientific
Method: using techniques and materials available in the 19th Century, it is
possible to construct chaotic systems that are *completely* unpredictable -no
matter how carefully one constructs the equipment or sets the boundry
conditions, there is no way to minimize the error in the prediction.
Such a system was described in _Science News_ a while back and the researchers
commented that it would have wrecked havok with the evolution of Science had
anyone known about it a few centuries ago...
Undigressing: the response to testing (or even *allowing* testing) is at least
as important (if not more so) than having a few untestable beliefs...
Lawson