Scientific Models Are Usually Wrong Though Helpful
Ian Chua
They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
successfully.
But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
Cubist
scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
Ian Chua
Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
John Wilkins
It is true that models may not represent the reality exactly, but a
model that has been employed not only in its original context but is
many others and which still works can be expected to represent reality
very well, even if not exactly.
This is the basic problem of knowledge - what can we say is likely to be
right? We are most warranted in thinking that models that continue to
work and work aidely are true. There is always a margin of error, but
that's the nature of real knowledge.
Knowledge that is certain, and which has no error, is not existent.
Nobody hs that sort of knowledge.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Ian Chua
1) Newton's Corpuscular Theory of Light - Reality or Product of
Human Imagination?
2) Huyghen's Wave Theory of Light - Reality or Product of Human
Imagination?
3) Particle-Wave Duality of Light - Reality or Product of Human
Imagination?
Ian Chua
> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > successfully.
> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> It is true that models may not represent the reality exactly, but a
> model that has been employed not only in its original context but is
> many others and which still works can be expected to represent reality
> very well, even if not exactly.
>
richardal...@googlemail.com
So what?
They work, and what's more they work far better than other models of
how the universe behaves.
If I am ill, I think that antibiotics work better than prayer. And if
I am ill, I don't think I am being punished for my sins.
Is this some sort of attempt to argue that because evolutionary theory
is only a model it may be wrong?
Of course it might be wrong - that's the nature of science.
But to suggest that because evolutionary theory may be wrong some
other "theory", such as one of the many esposed by creationists, can
be correct is downright silly. Those other "theories" were falsified
centuries ago. In science a falsified theory does not make a comeback,
and those who persist in supporting falsified theories lose any
credibilty.
RF
Ian Chua
> On Apr 23, 10:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > successfully.
> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> So what?
> They work, and what's more they work far better than other models of
> how the universe behaves.
> If I am ill, I think that antibiotics work better than prayer. And if
> I am ill, I don't think I am being punished for my sins.
>
> Is this some sort of attempt to argue that because evolutionary theory
> is only a model it may be wrong?
> Of course it might be wrong - that's the nature of science.
>
TomS
<1hx1fbe.golyp219ctxgN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> successfully.
>> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
>It is true that models may not represent the reality exactly, but a
>model that has been employed not only in its original context but is
>many others and which still works can be expected to represent reality
>very well, even if not exactly.
>
>This is the basic problem of knowledge - what can we say is likely to be
>right? We are most warranted in thinking that models that continue to
>work and work aidely are true. There is always a margin of error, but
>that's the nature of real knowledge.
>
>Knowledge that is certain, and which has no error, is not existent.
>Nobody hs that sort of knowledge.
Except, of course, the knowledge that no knowledge is certain.
Seriously, though, it is a mistake to set up an impossible ideal for
knowledge, and then complain that knowledge doesn't come up
to that ideal. The fact that nothing comes up to an impossible
ideal does not show a fault in those things, but a fault in the
ideal.
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
er...@swva.net
Creationism - Reality or Product of Human Imagination?
Eric Root
Ernest Major
er...@swva.net writes
the nihilisitic and post-modernist argument that as models are not
reality creationism and science are equally valid. However we should
encourage awareness, with a nod to Eric Blair, that some models are more
valid than others. Or, equivalently, while we can't know that a model is
right, we can know that a model is wrong.
--
alias Ernest Major
CreateThis
>On Apr 23, 6:15 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 10:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> > successfully.
>> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> So what?
>> They work, and what's more they work far better than other models of
>> how the universe behaves.
>> If I am ill, I think that antibiotics work better than prayer. And if
>> I am ill, I don't think I am being punished for my sins.
>>
>> Is this some sort of attempt to argue that because evolutionary theory
>> is only a model it may be wrong?
>> Of course it might be wrong - that's the nature of science.
>>
>Excellent - I completely agree with this point.
Cherrypicker.
CT
er...@swva.net
But this is the important point. Do you agree with it? In the past,
scientific theories have been replaced by other scientific theories.
Are there any cases of scientific explanations being replaced (due to
evidence) with an older supernatural explanation?
>
> > RF
Eric Root
richardal...@googlemail.com
Am I to understand that you do not agree with this point?
If not, perhaps you can give an example of a completely and utterly
falsified scientific theory which *has* made a comeback?
I'm sure that you will also agree that scientific theory is based on
the interpretation of the evidence as objectively as possible, and
that personal conviction carries no weight in science no matter how
strongly that personal conviction is held.
Or do you think that personal conviction is evidence?
RF
>
> > RF
Wakboth
If we cannot perceive something, even indirectly, it might as well not
be real.
-- Wakboth
Ian Chua
Correct! The fact that new scientific theories and models have
replaced
old ones did not mean the old ones did not work - it means the
theories
and models have some limitations. The new theories and models
that work are still not the reality but a product of our human
imagination
and innovation.
Ian Chua
> "On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:55:31 +1000, in article
>
>
>
>
>
> >Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> >> They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> >> successfully.
> >> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> >It is true that models may not represent the reality exactly, but a
> >model that has been employed not only in its original context but is
> >many others and which still works can be expected to represent reality
> >very well, even if not exactly.
>
> >This is the basic problem of knowledge - what can we say is likely to be
> >right? We are most warranted in thinking that models that continue to
> >work and work aidely are true. There is always a margin of error, but
> >that's the nature of real knowledge.
>
> >Knowledge that is certain, and which has no error, is not existent.
> >Nobody hs that sort of knowledge.
>
> Except, of course, the knowledge that no knowledge is certain.
>
> Seriously, though, it is a mistake to set up an impossible ideal for
> knowledge,
Humans have developed many strategies for gaining or generating
knowledge.
I have not come across anyone who claim the framework is ideal.
Ian Chua
> In message <1177330278.810267.302...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> e...@swva.net writes
> alias Ernest Major
Ian Chua
Scientific models used to be influenced by religious beliefs.
The efficacy of the model only depends on whether it can be validated
and useful.
Yet one cannot deny that the model is not reality itself.
tgde...@earthlink.net
Of course one can deny that. If we can't know what 'reality' is, then
we can't know that our model isn't a proper representation.
Models are not required to describe 'reality'; they are, as you say,
useful, and they are useful only in so far as they aid in formulating
theories and making predictions. (Models are not theories, I hope you
realize that).
-tg
Lethe
> Yet one cannot deny that the model is not reality itself.
Nor has anyone outside of a Borges short story made this assertion.
Kent
> Models are not required to describe 'reality'; they are, as you say,
> useful, and they are useful only in so far as they aid in formulating
> theories and making predictions. (Models are not theories, I hope you
> realize that).
>
However theories are models.
Kent
Ian Chua
chris.li...@gmail.com
If a model is _wrong_, it is probably useless, except perhaps for
disproving a hypothesis.
Most scientific models are, perforce, incomplete. If they modeled
reality completely, they would *be* reality. If you think that is the
purpose of a model, you are mistaken on some very important aspects of
modeling.
It is desirable that a model be as simple as possible, and still
perform its intended function. Once a model becomes overly complex, it
gets unwieldy, and that's when errors start creeping in, and it can be
tough to find and correct them, since you've made the model badly.
Simple systems call for simple models. You can model a system of a
single gene with two alleles, with, say, a given selection pressure,
with a simple BASIC program. Hell, you can do it with pencil and
paper, and it would probably be faster than writing the program (and
you wouldn't need to wash up afterwards, like you do after programming
in BASIC).
But if you want to model the effect of a strong El Nino event on the
economics of subsaharan Africa, you'd better have a team of savvy
computer jockeys handy.
And in fact, models aren't really "right" or "wrong". They're accurate
to varying degrees. A poll is a model. Did you ever notice that polls
always have about the same number of respondents? About 1200, I think.
Ever wonder why? Because that number gives just about a +/- 2.5% -
3.0% error margin, or just about 95% confidence. They don't go further
because they hit diminishing returns after that- it's just not worth
it economically to have 99% confidence in the poll. The same is true
of biological models, although the cost is measured in time and
effort, rather than money. Remember, perfection is the worst enemy of
getting a job done on time (or something like that).
Chris
richardal...@googlemail.com
They aren't today.
> The efficacy of the model only depends on whether it can be validated
> and useful.
The problem you have if you want to push religious conviction into
science is that it cannot be validated.
> Yet one cannot deny that the model is not reality itself.
>
So what? It works. I don't care if it is any ultimate reality or not.
It doesn't affect the nature of science or the validity of its
findings.
If you want to claim some superior reality based on your personal
convictions, fine. Just don't call it science.
And by the way: if you want others to change their beliefs so that
they line up with yours - i.e. by wanting to call your beliefs
"science" and have them taught as science in science classroom - then
you need to offer rather more than the strength of your personal
conviction in support of your argument. The world is filled with
people whose convictions are different from yours. Many are
diametrically opposed to yours. Unless you can provide some objective
way of judging the validity of all those personal convictions, why
should anyone accept yours rather than anyone else's?
RF
Ian Chua
In other cases, different theories may be used to develop a model.
> Kent
Mark VandeWettering
> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination. They are
> often used to solve problems or predict system behavior successfully.
> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
This may be true, but it is irrelevent.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
Science is, and can only be, about what we perceive. If reality is
different than that in some way that we may not perceive, we can't discover
that.
Of course, it is hard to see how reality matters in that case either.
Mark
SeppoP
> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> successfully.
> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
Neither are the maps we create 100 % accurate representation of the land area they represent,
thus they do not represent reality.
Scientific models are like maps.
I guess that in your opinion they are therefore useless and should be replaced by beliefs like
"Here lie dragons"?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Ian Chua
Correct - that's my understanding too.
Ian Chua
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > successfully.
> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> If a model is _wrong_, it is probably useless, except perhaps for
> disproving a hypothesis.
>
> Most scientific models are, perforce, incomplete.
Thanks for the affirmation.
er...@swva.net
> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> successfully.
> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
So, did you just learn this?
Eric Root
tgde...@earthlink.net
No. Models are parts of theories. There are mathematical models and
there are physical models. Using 'model' the way you are doing is like
using 'theory' to mean conjecture.
-tg
> Kent
tgde...@earthlink.net
Since 'reality' is undefined, your statement is meaningless.
-tg
Ian Chua
> -tg
>
> > Kent
Tracy P. Hamilton
So, "But the models may not be the reality we perceive" is not a
failure to
meet a standard, then?
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Ian Chua
On the contrary, there are very serious implications, whether we
accept models and theories as mere representations or as reality.
If they are reality, they cannot be change.
If they are a product of human imagination and innovation, there will
be room for progress.
Ian Chua
wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Tracy P. Hamilton
TomS
<1177342606.1...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ian Chua stated..."
If you don't know, then how do you know whether any model
fails to meet those standards?
tgde...@earthlink.net
You still haven't defined 'reality', so this new statement is also
meaningless.
AC
>> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> > successfully.
>> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>
> Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
> They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
Ah, I see, so you're going to be advocating epistemological nihilism.
That doesn't surprise me. It's the last refuge of the Creationist,
when they know that their beliefs are completely without foundation.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
They are products of human *observation*. Imagination plays a role,
but it is hardly the only thing that informs science.
> They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> successfully.
> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
Could you give me some examples.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:55 am, e...@swva.net wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 6:27 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 6:15 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> > > > successfully.
>> > > > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> > > They work, and what's more they work far better than other models of
>> > > how the universe behaves.
>> > > If I am ill, I think that antibiotics work better than prayer. And if
>> > > I am ill, I don't think I am being punished for my sins.
>>
>> > > Is this some sort of attempt to argue that because evolutionary theory
>> > > is only a model it may be wrong?
>> > > Of course it might be wrong - that's the nature of science.
>>
>> > Excellent - I completely agree with this point.
>>
>> > > But to suggest that because evolutionary theory may be wrong some
>> > > other "theory", such as one of the many esposed by creationists, can
>> > > be correct is downright silly. Those other "theories" were falsified
>> > > centuries ago. In science a falsified theory does not make a comeback,
>> > > and those who persist in supporting falsified theories lose any
>> > > credibilty.
>>
>> scientific theories have been replaced by other scientific theories.
>
> Correct! The fact that new scientific theories and models have
> replaced
> old ones did not mean the old ones did not work - it means the
> theories
> and models have some limitations. The new theories and models
> that work are still not the reality but a product of our human
> imagination
> and innovation.
You know, there have been damn few scientific theories (and by that, I mean
theories developed since science was formalized as a methodology) that
have been outright replaced. Some of the old geological theories have largely
been supplanted, but even Newtonian Mechanics has not been replaced so much
as it has been subsumed into General Relativity.
So give us some examples of *scientific* theories that have been replaced,
when they were replaced and what they were replaced with, and why.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:33 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <1177330278.810267.302...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> e...@swva.net writes
>>
>> >On Apr 23, 6:04 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 23, 5:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> >> > successfully.
>> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> >> Human Imagination?
>> >> 2) Huyghen's Wave Theory of Light - Reality or Product of Human
>> >> Imagination?
>> >> 3) Particle-Wave Duality of Light - Reality or Product of Human
>> >> Imagination?
>>
>> >Creationism - Reality or Product of Human Imagination?
>>
>> >Eric Root
>>
>> You may be falling into his trap. He may be going in the direction of
>> the nihilisitic and post-modernist argument that as models are not
>> reality creationism and science are equally valid. However we should
>> encourage awareness, with a nod to Eric Blair, that some models are more
>> valid than others. Or, equivalently, while we can't know that a model is
>> right, we can know that a model is wrong.
>> --
> Correct - the models are often wrong.
What models and how often? I dislike this sort of nebulous discussion
you like to wrap yourself in. State plainly which models you feel are
wrong and why they are wrong, and then we can have a discussion.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Ian Chua
Ivar Ylvisaker
> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> successfully.
> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
Stephen Hawking wrote in "The Nature of Space and Time" pages 3 and 4 that:
"I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a
mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it
corresponds to reality. All that one can ask is that its predictions
should be in agreement with observation."
In the philosophy of science, Hawking's view is an example of
"instrumentalism."
Ivar
Ian Chua
> > On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ian Chua wrote:
> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> >> > successfully.
> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
> >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
> >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>
> > Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
> > They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>
> Ah, I see, so you're going to be advocating epistemological nihilism.
Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
scientific models and theories
are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
reality itself.
> That doesn't surprise me. It's the last refuge of the Creationist,
> when they know that their beliefs are completely without foundation.
>
> --
> Aaron Clausen
Ian Chua
> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>
> They are products of human *observation*. Imagination plays a role,
> but it is hardly the only thing that informs science.
>
knowledge.
> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > successfully.
> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> Could you give me some examples.
>
The hyperbolic stress-strain relationship for elastic materials.
There are countless more.
> --
> Aaron Clausen
> mightymartia...@gmail.com
SeppoP
> On Apr 23, 8:33 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <1177330278.810267.302...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> e...@swva.net writes
>>
>>>> On Apr 23, 5:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>>>>> successfully.
>>>>> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>>> Human Imagination?
>>>> 2) Huyghen's Wave Theory of Light - Reality or Product of Human
>>>> Imagination?
>>>> 3) Particle-Wave Duality of Light - Reality or Product of Human
>>>> Imagination?
>>> Creationism - Reality or Product of Human Imagination?
>>> Eric Root
>> You may be falling into his trap. He may be going in the direction of
>> the nihilisitic and post-modernist argument that as models are not
>> reality creationism and science are equally valid. However we should
>> encourage awareness, with a nod to Eric Blair, that some models are more
>> valid than others. Or, equivalently, while we can't know that a model is
>> right, we can know that a model is wrong.
>> --
> Correct - the models are often wrong.
>
>
>
How does your creationism model fare in the alleged competition when faced with the maps/models/theories?
richardal...@googlemail.com
This partial agreement is somewhat disingenuous.
Why not confirm whether or not you agree with the point my post was
making?
Just to remind you:
David Canzi -- non-mailable
>> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> > successfully.
>> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>
>Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
How do you know, based on REALITY, not mere perception, that
people are conversing with you over the internet?
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
Ian Chua
Ian Chua
the nature of science if
the scientific models and theories are taken as absolute realities.
> If you want to claim some superior reality based on your personal
> convictions, fine. Just don't call it science.
>
> And by the way: if you want others to change their beliefs so that
> they line up with yours - i.e. by wanting to call your beliefs
> science" and have them taught as science in science classroom - then
> you need to offer rather more than the strength of your personal
> conviction in support of your argument. The world is filled with
> people whose convictions are different from yours. Many are
> diametrically opposed to yours. Unless you can provide some objective
> way of judging the validity of all those personal convictions, why
> should anyone accept yours rather than anyone else's?
>
Nope - I'm not making other claims in this context.
Mark VandeWettering
Why? Or more specifically, "why should we believe you when you say so?"
Mark
CreateThis
Jesus, another engineer. Is it that they've been misled to believe
they know something?
CT
Ernest Major
Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> writes
Non sequitur - creationist models purport (and fail miserably) to
explain observed features of the world, not to explain God.
>
>> --
>> Seppo P.
>> What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
>
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Mike Dworetsky
news:1177346474.8...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
That's where you are wrong. It is absolutely essential that you define
reality so we know what you are talking about. So far we don't even know
what you mean by the word "reality".
>> > If they are a product of human imagination and innovation, there will
>> > be room for progress.
>>
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ian Chua
mailable) wrote:
> In article <1177322063.659386.17...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ian Chua wrote:
> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> >> > successfully.
> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
> >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
> >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>
> >Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
> >They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>
> How do you know, based on REALITY, not mere perception, that
> people are conversing with you over the internet?
>
Do we know whether there are some subscribers using multiple
pseudonyms here?
Ian Chua
process only certain information.
Unless we have the power to create life, we do not have the capacity
to use our science to know a Creator God.
> Mark
Mark VandeWettering
You didn't answer the question. Why should we believe you?
Mark
chris.li...@gmail.com
> On Apr 23, 10:41 am, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
>
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 5:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > > successfully.
> > > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> > disproving a hypothesis.
>
> > Most scientific models are, perforce, incomplete.
>
> Thanks for the affirmation.
Do you stop reading once you read something you think supports your
position?
Chris
>
> >If they modeled
> > reality completely, they would *be* reality. If you think that is the
> > purpose of a model, you are mistaken on some very important aspects of
> > modeling.
>
> > It is desirable that a model be as simple as possible, and still
> > perform its intended function. Once a model becomes overly complex, it
> > gets unwieldy, and that's when errors start creeping in, and it can be
> > tough to find and correct them, since you've made the model badly.
>
> > Simple systems call for simple models. You can model a system of a
> > single gene with two alleles, with, say, a given selection pressure,
> > with a simple BASIC program. Hell, you can do it with pencil and
> > paper, and it would probably be faster than writing the program (and
> > you wouldn't need to wash up afterwards, like you do after programming
> > in BASIC).
>
> > But if you want to model the effect of a strong El Nino event on the
> > economics of subsaharan Africa, you'd better have a team of savvy
> > computer jockeys handy.
>
> > And in fact, models aren't really "right" or "wrong". They're accurate
> > to varying degrees. A poll is a model. Did you ever notice that polls
> > always have about the same number of respondents? About 1200, I think.
> > Ever wonder why? Because that number gives just about a +/- 2.5% -
> > 3.0% error margin, or just about 95% confidence. They don't go further
> > because they hit diminishing returns after that- it's just not worth
> > it economically to have 99% confidence in the poll. The same is true
> > of biological models, although the cost is measured in time and
> > effort, rather than money. Remember, perfection is the worst enemy of
> > getting a job done on time (or something like that).
>
> > Chris
alextangent
> On Apr 23, 8:55 am, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:27 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 6:15 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 10:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > > > > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > > > > successfully.
> > > > > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> > > > They work, and what's more they work far better than other models of
> > > > how the universe behaves.
> > > > If I am ill, I think that antibiotics work better than prayer. And if
> > > > I am ill, I don't think I am being punished for my sins.
>
> > > > Is this some sort of attempt to argue that because evolutionary theory
> > > > is only a model it may be wrong?
> > > > Of course it might be wrong - that's the nature of science.
>
> > > Excellent - I completely agree with this point.
>
> > > > But to suggest that because evolutionary theory may be wrong some
> > > > other "theory", such as one of the many esposed by creationists, can
> > > > be correct is downright silly. Those other "theories" were falsified
> > > > centuries ago. In science a falsified theory does not make a comeback,
> > > > and those who persist in supporting falsified theories lose any
> > > > credibilty.
>
> > scientific theories have been replaced by other scientific theories.
>
> Correct! The fact that new scientific theories and models have
> replaced
> old ones did not mean the old ones did not work - it means the
> theories
> and models have some limitations. The new theories and models
> that work are still not the reality but a product of our human
> imagination
> and innovation.
It's like you're marking homework. Correct! Excellent! 10 out of 10!
Evolution happens. The theory of evolution attempts to explain it.
What alternative have you discovered, and how does it support the
data?
>
> > Are there any cases of scientific explanations being replaced (due to
> > evidence) with an older supernatural explanation?
You can't answer this one? I've got a theory as to why.
>
> > > > RF
>
> > Eric Root
Ian Chua
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Ian Chua" <i...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
"Reality" is (or "was" in historical context of "origins") what
actually happens (or happened) in nature.
Greg G.
> On Apr 23, 12:14 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 Apr 2007 02:54:23 -0700,
>
> > Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> > > On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Ian Chua wrote:
> > >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > >> > successfully.
> > >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> > >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
> > >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
> > >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>
> > > Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
> > > They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>
> > Ah, I see, so you're going to be advocating epistemological nihilism.
>
> Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
> scientific models and theories
> are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
> reality itself.
But you are advocating epistemological nihilism, even in your denial.
Insisting that knowledge is unattainable is nihilism.
Either way, your knowledge of a god is imaginary, but with nihilism,
it is imaginary at two levels.
>
>
>
> > That doesn't surprise me. It's the last refuge of the Creationist,
> > when they know that their beliefs are completely without foundation.
>
> > --
> > Aaron Clausen
> > mightymartia...@gmail.com
--
Greg G.
Here, Pavlov, come here, boy!
richardal...@googlemail.com
Which is something no scientist does.
The idea of an "absolute reality" is an philosophical concept which
has little relevance to science. All theories in all branches of all
science are treated as provisional. That alone denies the possibility
that science can every reach any absolute reality.
Why waste your time over something which scientists don't do?
> > If you want to claim some superior reality based on your personal
> > convictions, fine. Just don't call it science.
>
> > And by the way: if you want others to change their beliefs so that
> > they line up with yours - i.e. by wanting to call your beliefs
> > science" and have them taught as science in science classroom - then
> > you need to offer rather more than the strength of your personal
> > conviction in support of your argument. The world is filled with
> > people whose convictions are different from yours. Many are
> > diametrically opposed to yours. Unless you can provide some objective
> > way of judging the validity of all those personal convictions, why
> > should anyone accept yours rather than anyone else's?
>
> Nope - I'm not making other claims in this context.
>
You have in other contexts. If you are not leading up to some
assertion about the validity of evolutionary theory as science, and
suggesting that someones personal conviction has as much validity, I
wonder what is the point of all this posting.
RF
Timberwoof
"chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:04 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 10:41 am, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
> >
> > <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 23, 5:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > > > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > > > successfully.
> > > > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
> >
> > > If a model is _wrong_, it is probably useless, except perhaps for
> > > disproving a hypothesis.
> >
> > > Most scientific models are, perforce, incomplete.
> >
> > Thanks for the affirmation.
>
> Do you stop reading once you read something you think supports your
> position?
It sure seems so. He did that several times.
I think he's looking for some easy material from scientists he can use
to ignore everything else they say.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
Timberwoof
Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> wrote:
I'm not sure if you are saying that the amount or complexity of
information we can learn is limited (some of us are smarter than others.
I am smarter than a cat.) or of you are saying that there are areas of
knowledge that are closed to certain kinds of beings. For instance,
Buddhism has the doctrine of Buddha Nature, which people have but dogs
lack: Dogs can't become enlightened. But I do agree with you about
certain humans: I've noticed that some of them, no matter how carefully
one explains things to them, cannot understand how science really works.
They insist on clinging to their own fantasy-world definitions and
explanations of things.
> Unless we have the power to create life, we do not have the capacity
> to use our science to know a Creator God.
Do you mean that until I can whack a nail into a piece of wood, I cannot
meet a carpenter? Or I can't talk to an electrical engineer until I've
calculated Ef for a transistor?
On what basis do you claim that knowledge of abiogenesis is a
prerequisite for knowledge of God? On what basis do you imply that god
is knowable?
Timberwoof
Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> wrote:
Do you always answer a question with another question?
David Canzi -- non-mailable
You are trying to evade my question.
Canzi - 1
Chua - 0
alextangent
> On Apr 23, 11:12 am, tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 10:39 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 10:20 am, tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 10:09 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 23, 9:16 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 23, 11:27 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 6:15 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > > > > > > > > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > > > > > > > > successfully.
> > > > > > > > > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> > > > > > > > They work, and what's more they work far better than other models of
> > > > > > > > how the universe behaves.
> > > > > > > > If I am ill, I think that antibiotics work better than prayer. And if
> > > > > > > > I am ill, I don't think I am being punished for my sins.
>
> > > > > > > > Is this some sort of attempt to argue that because evolutionary theory
> > > > > > > > is only a model it may be wrong?
> > > > > > > > Of course it might be wrong - that's the nature of science.
>
> > > > > > > Excellent - I completely agree with this point.
>
> > > > > > "But to suggest that because evolutionary theory may be wrong some
> > > > > > other "theory", such as one of the many esposed by creationists, can
> > > > > > be correct is downright silly. Those other "theories" were falsified
> > > > > > centuries ago. In science a falsified theory does not make a comeback,
> > > > > > and those who persist in supporting falsified theories lose any
> > > > > > credibilty."
>
> > > > > > Am I to understand that you do not agree with this point?
>
> > > > > > If not, perhaps you can give an example of a completely and utterly
> > > > > > falsified scientific theory which *has* made a comeback?
>
> > > > > > I'm sure that you will also agree that scientific theory is based on
> > > > > > the interpretation of the evidence as objectively as possible, and
> > > > > > that personal conviction carries no weight in science no matter how
> > > > > > strongly that personal conviction is held.
>
> > > > > Scientific models used to be influenced by religious beliefs.
> > > > > and useful.
>
> > > > we can't know that our model isn't a proper representation.
>
> > > > Models are not required to describe 'reality'; they are, as you say,
> > > > useful, and they are useful only in so far as they aid in formulating
> > > > theories and making predictions. (Models are not theories, I hope you
> > > > realize that).
>
> > > See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
>
> > > As in the case of models, a theory is not reality.
>
> > Since 'reality' is undefined, your statement is meaningless.
>
> On the contrary, there are very serious implications, whether we
> accept models and theories as mere representations or as reality.
> If they are reality, they cannot be change.
> be room for progress.
Like for instance, the progress of 1 + 1 not equalling 2 in your part
of the universe?
>
>
>
> > -tg
>
> > > > -tg
>
> > > > > > Or do you think that personal conviction is evidence?
>
> > > > > > RF
>
> > > > > > > > RF
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
tgde...@earthlink.net
How do we know what 'actually' happens in nature?
-tg
AC
> On Apr 23, 12:14 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2007 02:54:23 -0700,
>>
>> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> > On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Ian Chua wrote:
>> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> >> > successfully.
>> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
>> >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>> >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>>
>> > Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>> > They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>>
>> Ah, I see, so you're going to be advocating epistemological nihilism.
>
> Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
> scientific models and theories
> are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
> reality itself.
All any of us can do is produce models of reality. What you see
through your eyes is not, in fact, what you see through the physical
optical hardware in your eyes, but rather a model produced by the
brain.
That is precisely why the scientific method was developed, to produce
a means by which theories can independently tested and observations
independently confirmed.
Now, unless you're an advocate that the entire human race is somehow
under a singular delusion whereby multiple and independent confirmations
are in fact merely the product of mass hallucination, that suggests
that reality *is* modellable, that one *can* create theories to
explain and predict physical reality, and that those theories *can*
be tested to determine whether or not they accurately explain some
aspect of physical reality.
Your post above suggests very heavily that, when cornered on this,
you are going to advance a nihilistic explanation. This is hinted at
pretty strongly by other threads you have created where you attempt
to put forward a claim that because there are multiple explanations
for a given phenomona, that that undermines any (or perhaps all)
theories as being reasonable and useful means of explaining nature.
It's my opinion that you are trying to put your own religious
beliefs (and no doubt the pseudo-science informed by those beliefs)
on an equal footing with certain scientific theories that don't
jive with your specific beliefs. You seem quite keen to avoid
openly declaring this, rather trying to work from a strategy of
creating some framework in which you can insert your as-yet-unrevealed
beliefs, with the idea that you have seriously called into question
the ability of scientists to produce reasonably accurate and useful
explanations.
I'm just trying to cut this whole silly strategy off at the pass because
I personally find it tiring to have to wait for weeks, wading through
dozens of posts, each one apparently designed as one cut in a
death of a thousand cuts strategy, only to find out that what we have
has is a stock Creationist claim.
This seems to be a new strategy. Someone2, who is putting forth a
dualistic claim about human consciousness (well, if he ever gets around
to it) is using a similar set of tactics. Perhaps your ministry has
suggested this to you as a means to show all those evil atheistic
evolutionists up. I dunno. Maybe it's just coincidence, but in either
case I find it a rather dull and silly way to debate.
If you don't believe that we can produce theories that explain the
physical universe, or you believe certain aspects of the universe
are exempt from scientific probing, then just come out and say it.
It's not like we don't know what you're trying to do, so this whole
tactic seems pointless.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Ye Old One
Subscribers? "this usenet"?
WTF are you talking about?
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>science is too narrow to explain God.
Supply evidence for the existance of gods and science will do its
level best to explain them.
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
<use...@mcsuk.net> writes
Groups.
--
alias Ernest Major
er...@swva.net
I know what you mean. He keeps saying over and over that "the map is
not the territory" so to speak, but we all know that already.
Obviously, to him, somebody needs to be told this, but he does say
whom and he doesn't say why.
Eric Root
Ian Chua
scientific models and theories.
Ian Chua
but only a product of human imagination and innovation.
Personal convictions about a theory or usefulness of the model may
help the scientist develop a more robust model or theory.
The issue is not the validity of the scientist's personal convictions
but rather the model's validity.
But ultimately, the model or theory is still a product of human
imagination.
Ian Chua
wrote:
> In article <1177354392.862619.254...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Ian Chua
Scientists do not comprise the entire human race.
They may dream about their models or theories,.
I doubt the entire human race hallucinate about scientific models and
theories.
> that suggests
> that reality *is* modellable, that one *can* create theories to
> explain and predict physical reality, and that those theories *can*
> be tested to determine whether or not they accurately explain some
> aspect of physical reality.
>
> Your post above suggests very heavily that, when cornered on this,
> you are going to advance a nihilistic explanation. This is hinted at
> pretty strongly by other threads you have created where you attempt
> to put forward a claim that because there are multiple explanations
> for a given phenomona, that that undermines any (or perhaps all)
> theories as being reasonable and useful means of explaining nature.
>
Yes, when interference phenomenon of light was discovered, it
certainly
undermined Newton's Corpuscular theory of light. But it was good
news
rather than bad news. Recognizing that models are not realities
enabled
science to progress. In the case of the theory of light, it
progressed to
Huyghen's Wave Theory., then to the Particle-Wave Duality Theory,
This does not undermine science.
On the contrary, we learn through our humility.
Bobby Bryant
Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> writes:
> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> successfully.
> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
And this stunning insight means we are free to reject any science
that refutes our religious beliefs, right?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
> You may be falling into his trap. He may be going in the direction
> of the nihilisitic and post-modernist argument that as models are
> not reality creationism and science are equally valid.
I find it funny as hell that biblical literalists are increasingly
appealing to nihilism in order to support the absolute truth of
their beliefs.
Bobby Bryant
Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> writes:
> Unless we have the power to create life, we do not have the capacity
> to use our science to know a Creator God.
You should be thinking about where you'd like to move that goalpost:
We're closer than you might think.
Based on a report I saw at SSCI a couple of weeks back, I'd say we're
about five years away from building a "protocell" that metabolizes and
reproduces itself.
Ivar Ylvisaker
> In article <1177320079....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> writes:
>
>> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> successfully.
>> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> And this stunning insight means we are free to reject any science
> that refutes our religious beliefs, right?
What science is Ian rejecting?
Ivar
richardal...@googlemail.com
Quite sp.
> Personal convictions about a theory or usefulness of the model may
> help the scientist develop a more robust model or theory.
Nonsense.
It's evidence which leads to the development of a more robust model.
Personal conviction of the validity of a model may lead a scientist to
further testing, but so can the conviction that the model is false.
The scientist may have no conviction one way or another. What matters
is how well the model or theory stands up to testing against the
evidence.
> The issue is not the validity of the scientist's personal convictions
but rather the model's validity.
The validity of the model is built on the evidence. The personal
convictions of the scientist don't enter into it.
> But ultimately, the model or theory is still a product of human
> imagination.
It's tested against the evidence, and reflects a portion of what you
may want to call "absolute reality". It represents real phenomena.
It's not just a bit of fantasy, or a game with words and numbers.
So, to repeat my question: Why are you wasting time building a fanatsy
about what scientists do and how science works which is simply wrong?
RF
Ernest Major
<ylvi...@verizon.net> writes
If I recall his position correctly he's a Young Earth Creationist, so he
rejects the greater part of several sciences, including biology,
geology, and several branches of physics such as astronomy, cosmology
and nuclear physics, not to mention other branches of science.
--
alias Ernest Major
Greg G.
> On Apr 23, 3:26 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 12:45 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
> > > scientific models and theories
> > > are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
> > > reality itself.
>
> > But you are advocating epistemological nihilism, even in your denial.
> > Insisting that knowledge is unattainable is nihilism.
>
> > Either way, your knowledge of a god is imaginary, but with nihilism,
> > it is imaginary at two levels.
>
> Not sure where you're heading with this. We're talking about
> scientific models and theories.
Sure.
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
"Ian Chua" <ic...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:1177351053.1...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 12:50 pm, SeppoP <seppo_pietikai...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
>> Ian Chua wrote:
>> > On Apr 23, 8:33 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message <1177330278.810267.302...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> e...@swva.net writes
>>
>> >>>> On Apr 23, 5:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> >>>>> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> >>>>> They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> >>>>> successfully.
>> >>>>> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>> >>>> Human Imagination?
>> >>>> 2) Huyghen's Wave Theory of Light - Reality or Product of Human
>> >>>> Imagination?
>> >>>> 3) Particle-Wave Duality of Light - Reality or Product of Human
>> >>>> Imagination?
>> >>> Creationism - Reality or Product of Human Imagination?
>> >>> Eric Root
>> >> the nihilisitic and post-modernist argument that as models are not
>> >> encourage awareness, with a nod to Eric Blair, that some models are
>> >> more
>> >> valid than others. Or, equivalently, while we can't know that a model
>> >> is
>> >> right, we can know that a model is wrong.
>> >> --
>> > Correct - the models are often wrong.
>>
>> >> alias Ernest Major
>>
>> How does your creationism model fare in the alleged competition when
>> faced with the maps/models/theories?
>>
> Not relevant - science is too narrow to explain God.
Creationism doesn't explain God, it explains the world which is
something not too narrow for science to explain...
Ian Chua
> In article <1177320079.029636.50...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> writes:
>
> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > successfully.
> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> And this stunning insight means we are free to reject any science
> that refutes our religious beliefs, right?
>
Your question seems inappropriate.
Ian Chua
> In article <S8+jXKejeKLGF...@meden.invalid>,
> Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> > You may be falling into his trap. He may be going in the direction
> > of the nihilisitic and post-modernist argument that as models are
> > not reality creationism and science are equally valid.
>
> I find it funny as hell that biblical literalists are increasingly
> appealing to nihilism in order to support the absolute truth of
> their beliefs.
>
Ian Chua
> In message <VZhXh.1360$Wa.1303@trnddc08>, Ivar Ylvisaker
>
> >>> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> >>> They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> >>> successfully.
> >>> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> >> And this stunning insight means we are free to reject any science
> >> that refutes our religious beliefs, right?
>
> >What science is Ian rejecting?
>
> >Ivar
>
> If I recall his position correctly he's a Young Earth Creationist, so he
> rejects the greater part of several sciences, including biology,
> geology, and several branches of physics such as astronomy, cosmology
> and nuclear physics, not to mention other branches of science.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Ian Chua
Can you quote any scientist who said that their model or theory
is the absolute reality?
>It represents real phenomena.
Correct - it is only a representation, but not the absolute relaity.
> It's not just a bit of fantasy, or a game with words and numbers.
>
> So, to repeat my question: Why are you wasting time building a fanatsy
> about what scientists do and how science works which is simply wrong?
>
It is a fantasy to belief that a scientific model or theory is
absolute reality.
Ernest Major
Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> writes
Am I mistaken in thinking that you're a Young Earth Creationist? 'Cos
that would be adequate evidence.
--
alias Ernest Major
Greg G.
> On Apr 23, 3:26 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 12:45 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
> > > scientific models and theories
> > > are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
> > > reality itself.
>
> > But you are advocating epistemological nihilism, even in your denial.
> > Insisting that knowledge is unattainable is nihilism.
>
> > Either way, your knowledge of a god is imaginary, but with nihilism,
> > it is imaginary at two levels.
>
> Not sure where you're heading with this. We're talking about
> scientific models and theories.
Sure.
Bobby Bryant
Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> writes:
> On Apr 24, 2:48 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>> In article <S8+jXKejeKLGF...@meden.invalid>,
>> Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> > You may be falling into his trap. He may be going in the direction
>> > of the nihilisitic and post-modernist argument that as models are
>> > not reality creationism and science are equally valid.
>>
>> I find it funny as hell that biblical literalists are increasingly
>> appealing to nihilism in order to support the absolute truth of
>> their beliefs.
>>
> What has nihilism got to do with scientific models?
Nothing at all, except in creationist rhetoric.
Bobby Bryant
Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> writes:
> On Apr 24, 2:35 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>> In article <1177320079.029636.50...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> writes:
>>
>> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> > successfully.
>> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> And this stunning insight means we are free to reject any science
>> that refutes our religious beliefs, right?
>>
> I don't see why we should reject science on any account.
> Your question seems inappropriate.
Anything that spoils your lame attempts to extract concessions from
non-creationists seems inappropriate -- to you.
Dick
>On 23 huhti, 12:54, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ian Chua wrote:
>> > > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> > > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> > > successfully.
>> > > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> > Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
>> > scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>> > fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>>
>> Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>> They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>
>If we cannot perceive something, even indirectly, it might as well not
>be real.
>
>-- Wakboth
Man has developed tools throughout his history to extend what he
perceives. Just because man is limited in his understanding does not
mean there are no forces acting on him and his environment effecting
his universe.
Radio waves come to mind, they are impacted by sun spots as is the
weather. The sunspots existed long before we could directly detect
them or even speculate about their existence.
I suspect there is still much about our universe to which we are
still blind. We keep on learning about what has always been there.
How brief a period of man's scientific quest has the sub atomic been
known.
The ostrich still should pull his head out of the sand, if possible.
Dick
>On Apr 23, 12:14 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2007 02:54:23 -0700,
>>
>> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> > On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Ian Chua wrote:
>> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> >> > successfully.
>> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
>> >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>> >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>>
>> > Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>> > They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>>
>> Ah, I see, so you're going to be advocating epistemological nihilism.
>
>Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
>scientific models and theories
>are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
>reality itself.
>
>> That doesn't surprise me. It's the last refuge of the Creationist,
>> when they know that their beliefs are completely without foundation.
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Clausen
>> mightymartia...@gmail.com
>
I think we all overlook many special facets of man when we don't
personally develop a special talent. Not everyone can think in
formulas or create music or art. Not everyone can dig a ditch day in
and day out.
All music, art or mathematical equation or theory is beautiful to
someone else. I recently read the history of the ideation leading to
discovering "Black Holes." One scientist in Russia wrote about his
hypothesis supported by his calculations. An American scientist was
taken by the notion, but did not try to disprove the Russian's proof,
he took the idea then prepared his own proof. The conclusions were
the same thus persuading the American scientist that the Russian might
have arrived at a useful conclusion.
Men lived quite well thinking the sun circled the earth. That didn't
mean it was true.
Dick
Ideas are ideas. Nothing special about the category. Have you
noticed how many scientist are musicians? If you insist on a narrow
discussion you will miss the true nature of man's consciousness.
>>
>>
>> > > That doesn't surprise me. It's the last refuge of the Creationist,
>> > > when they know that their beliefs are completely without foundation.
>>
>> > > --
Sounds like a 'wild card' response. Why drag in religion
specifically? Religions are just another category of models and
theories, right?
Dick
>On 23 Apr 2007 09:45:27 -0700,
>Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 12:14 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 23 Apr 2007 02:54:23 -0700,
>>>
>>> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>> > On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Ian Chua wrote:
>>> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>>> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>>> >> > successfully.
>>> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>>
>>> >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
>>> >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>>> >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>>>
>>> > Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>>> > They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>>>
>>> Ah, I see, so you're going to be advocating epistemological nihilism.
>>
>> Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
>> scientific models and theories
>> are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
>> reality itself.
>
>All any of us can do is produce models of reality. What you see
>through your eyes is not, in fact, what you see through the physical
>optical hardware in your eyes, but rather a model produced by the
>brain.
>
>That is precisely why the scientific method was developed, to produce
>a means by which theories can independently tested and observations
>independently confirmed.
Science has restricted itself to a small part of man's experience. I
have no problem with the restrictions, but when it becomes an excuse
to ignore other models about existence, I cringe. Science cannot
determine who will be the "best" next President, it may be able to
predict who the next President will be.
>
>Now, unless you're an advocate that the entire human race is somehow
>under a singular delusion whereby multiple and independent confirmations
>are in fact merely the product of mass hallucination, that suggests
>that reality *is* modellable, that one *can* create theories to
>explain and predict physical reality, and that those theories *can*
>be tested to determine whether or not they accurately explain some
>aspect of physical reality.
>
>Your post above suggests very heavily that, when cornered on this,
>you are going to advance a nihilistic explanation. This is hinted at
>pretty strongly by other threads you have created where you attempt
>to put forward a claim that because there are multiple explanations
>for a given phenomona, that that undermines any (or perhaps all)
>theories as being reasonable and useful means of explaining nature.
>
You may well be seeing truth I don't see. Are you sure it is not your
agenda being pasted onto the original statement?
The psychiatrist finished displaying the deck of ambiguous pictures.
He observed to his client, "you seem to think about sex a lot." The
patient responded, "you're the one showing me dirty pictures!"