Is God a scientific theory?
Ragnar
scientific if it has certain properties:
1 The theory fits the known facts
2 It explains the known facts
3 It makes definite predictions about future observations that might
tend to verify it
4 It is falsifiable
1 The existence of God fulfils (sort of) the first of these. There is no
obvious fact about the observable universe that decidedly contradicts the
theory. So (grudgingly) I give the theory one point so far.
2 Certainly the God theory purports to explain the facts. However it is
not really much of an explanation; why does the earth go round the sun?
because God wishes it to be so; how did the universe come into being? God
made it etc. These are not really explanations, merely affirmations.
However I feel generous so I will award half a point.
3 I am not aware of a single testable prediction that has ever been made
in support of the God theory. Is there one? Please enlighten me if you know
of one.
4 Neither am I aware of a rigorous disproof of God, and I suspect that
one could not be presented.
Total one-and-a-half points out of four. I conclude that God is not a
scientific theory.
However I note that Richard Dawkins insists that the existence of God is a
scientific hypothesis which he sets out in as follows:
"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately
designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us" (The
God Delusion 2006)
He then proceeds to demolish this hypothesis, which of course is not
difficult to do, granted the assumption that it is a scientific hypothesis.
However I think the wording of the hypothesis contains a contradiction viz.
the word "supernatural". If God is "supernatural" then by definition he is
not part of the natural universe, and therefore not susceptible of
scientific enquiry.
John Cornwell (Darwin's Angel 2007) in contradiction of Dawkins complains
that no believer regards God as part of the natural world. I think I see his
point and he would presumably agree with me that God is not a scientific
theory.
I don't intend to quibble about the distinction between "theory" and
"hypothesis", but do you think Dawkins is right to insist that God is a
scientific hypothesis?
R.
Ken
.
> 4 Neither am I aware of a rigorous disproof of God, and I suspect that
> one could not be presented.
Mainly because one can't prove that something that doesn't exist,
doesn't exist
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>I think I am right in saying that scientists regard a theory as being
>scientific if it has certain properties:
>
> 1 The theory fits the known facts
> 2 It explains the known facts
> 3 It makes definite predictions about future observations that might
>tend to verify it
> 4 It is falsifiable
Scientific theories are derived from observation, evidence and
investigation.
Not plucked out of thin air for no reason other than the ignorance of
nomadic bronze aged goat herders.
John Brockbank
"Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:ZA5sm.101129$_Q3....@newsfe20.ams2...
Usually, I think, a theory in science is an explanation. It is not given in
a sentence or two, but can be summed up that way. For example Newton's
Theory of Gravity, in which he said that what he termed the laws of physics
were universal and applied both on Earth and for other bodies so that the
force that causes an apple to fall also keeps the Earth orbiting the Sun; a
force that decreases with the square of distance etc.
So, that was a theory to explain the movement of objects in the whole solar
system, including for example why the Moon doesn't fall down. It was a
biggy. Also, the general hypothesis, that the laws of physics apply
everywhere, was verified by the obervations and of course by later
discoveries, and his calculations about gravity needed a bit of adjustment
for extreme circumstances of closeness to huge masses later on.
That is why God is not a theory. It is not postulated to explain anything.
Indeed, the whole argument that there is a God rests on the idea that
explanations for things is not possible so God must exist - for example what
keeps the Moon up - it must be God.
But as a proposal, a hypothesis, of course it stands, as does anything else.
There are endless, completely vacuous, 'ideas' given daily on Usenet that
everything is really an illusion in our own minds.
Pete Barrett
wrote:
>I think I am right in saying that scientists regard a theory as being
That may be true of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions, but doesn't
seem to fit entirely with Hindu or Shinto conceptions of their gods,
and it certainly wouldn't hold for a pantheist!
>I don't intend to quibble about the distinction between "theory" and
>"hypothesis", but do you think Dawkins is right to insist that God is a
>scientific hypothesis?
>
Assuming a god is *not* part of the natural world, "God exists" may
not be (I think I agree with you) but "God is responsible for X",
where X is some natural phenomenon, might be. The main problem that
I'd have with seeing that as a scientific hypothesis is that science
assumes that the universe is isotropic - that the same scientific laws
that apply at one time and place also apply in any other time and
place. If we find laws which seem to be different in different
circumstances (eg. gravity to explain the orbits of both Venus and
Mercury), we look for some higher scientific law which will unite them
and explain why they appear different (General Relativity as aopposed
to Newtonian Gravitation, in this case).
A hypothesis that "God is responsible for X" is implicitly
non-isotropic, because a god is assumed to have a will which can be
different at different times and places (a god which didn't would
simply be another law). And I think that might disqualify it as a
scientific theory.
Having said that, we can't actually *prove* that the universe is
isotropic, though the bit we can observe seems to be.
Ian Smith
>
> I don't intend to quibble about the distinction between "theory" and
> "hypothesis", but do you think Dawkins is right to insist that God is a
> scientific hypothesis?
Why wouldn't it be?
I would think that it falls into the category of failed hypothesis.
regards, Ian
sdm_sax
> I think I am right in saying that scientists regard a theory as being
> scientific if it has certain properties:
>
> 1 The theory fits the known facts
> 2 It explains the known facts
> 3 It makes definite predictions about future observations that might
> tend to verify it
> 4 It is falsifiable
>
> 1 The existence of God fulfils (sort of) the first of these. There is no
> obvious fact about the observable universe that decidedly contradicts the
> theory. So (grudgingly) I give the theory one point so far.
> 2 Certainly the God theory purports to explain the facts. However it is
> not really much of an explanation; why does the earth go round the sun?
> because God wishes it to be so; how did the universe come into being? God
> made it etc. These are not really explanations, merely affirmations.
> However I feel generous so I will award half a point.
I disagree.
1. This is rather vague and doesn't say what facts you're trying to
fit god into. But I don't accept wedging god in there as adequate
explanation. We already have proper science to explain much of the
Universe. Which part do you think god is required to explain? The
contradiction is the existence of real scientific data which
contradicts theistic world views.
2. The real failure of the religious is to properly explain what god
is, never mind what it does. We just don't know.
Science is understanding. We understand a great deal about the
Universe.
God is speculation. People reason that god controls the Universe and
so the religious attribute natural phenomena to god. It is not
rhetoric not understanding.
sdm_sax
> I don't intend to quibble about the distinction between "theory" and
> "hypothesis", but do you think Dawkins is right to insist that God is a
> scientific hypothesis?
What he means is that 'god' is used as an explanation for how nature
works. It is absolutely clear from mythology that man has used
supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. It is in that sense
that god is a 'scientific' hypothesis. Now we have real science we
don't need to have supernatural explanations. It's like saying your
computer is run by a bunch of little elves. This sort of story may be
acceptable to some. Dawkins argues that this sort of tale isn't good
enough and we should reject such stories that are invented to fill
gaps in our knowledge.
John Brockbank
"sdm_sax" <ste...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:eaedb02f-27c5-4651...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Actually, I think that people using science have already answered all the
questions which were imagined in all religious explanations 500 years ago.
e.g. what is the whole world like, and what is everything else like?
1500 years ago, many religious people thought that the answer to these
questions were that there is a mountain from which you can see the whole
world, and everything else is little lights in the sky plus a sun which goes
across the sky each day and a moon which is sometimes there but changes
shape often.
Religious peopletoday of course would say that how the universe began, and
how life began, are 'still' not answered. In fact, the existence of a thing
called the universe has not been envisaged by religion before science
discoveries recently, and what religion thought was crucial, how people came
to be, has certainly been answered. It is now science which is actually
telling them what questions to ask.
In terms used in everyday discussion, they are only moving the goalposts.
Even when science is long dead because everything is known, religion will
still exist because people who don't know all the explanations will still
exist, and they will ask 'But there must be a God unless you explain why
....' and complete it with a question such as 'why is grass not all the same
width and height? So God exists'. Even when every religious person knows
every single answer, they will still believe in God, because they will ask
'who made God?' and when you answer that there is no God, they will claim
you don't know so there is a God.
J. Horikx
>I think I am right in saying that scientists regard a theory as being
>scientific if it has certain properties:
> 1 The theory fits the known facts
> 2 It explains the known facts
> 3 It makes definite predictions about future observations that might
>tend to verify it
> 4 It is falsifiable
The part of god that is interesting is not the scientific part (if
it should exist) but the supernatural or extrasensorial part,
because that is the part people believe having their revelations
from. That is also the only part in which different belief systems
(the various christian denominations, the islam etc.) can differ.
If not, there could not be different belief systems.
JH
John Brockbank
"J. Horikx" <jVERWIJDE...@chello.nl> wrote in > >message
> If not, there could not be different belief systems.
>
Oh dear, I have some bad news for you. Millions of people 'believe' there
is a monster in Loch Ness. Millions of people have been along to a shine to
touch a box containing allegedly the remains of a nun so that they thereby
gain some of her holiness. Millions of people have been to a certain town
to put its water on themselves because they 'believe' it is holy water which
will have a different effect from water from their tap. Millions of people
'believe' that the twin towers were demolished systematically with
explosives. They 'believe' that because steel does not melt until it
reaches 2500 degrees, if it only gets heated to 2000 degrees it remains
strong. Millions of people 'believe' that if you want things enough you
will get them. Go to a women's dress shop. Look in any mirror. Millions
of women 'believe' that is what they actually look like. They have been to
a pleasure beach as a child and seen distorting mirrors, but they still
'believe' they look like that even though actually they know they don't.
There are about 4 billion people in the world who are about average
intelligence or below. Hardly any of them 'believe' that they are one of
them, to the extent that a person who tells them so is considered to be
extremely offensive.
Ron Hubbard famously said, and proved it, that the best way to make money is
to invent a religion. To the majority of people, their beliefs are what
matters.
J. Horikx
>"J. Horikx" <jVERWIJDE...@chello.nl> wrote in > >message
>> If not, there could not be different belief systems.
>Oh dear, I have some bad news for you. Millions of people 'believe' there
>is a monster in Loch Ness. Millions of people have been along to a shine to
>touch a box containing allegedly the remains of a nun so that they thereby
>gain some of her holiness. Millions of people have been to a certain town
>to put its water on themselves because they 'believe' it is holy water which
>will have a different effect from water from their tap. Millions of people
>'believe' that the twin towers were demolished systematically with
>explosives. They 'believe' that because steel does not melt until it
>reaches 2500 degrees, if it only gets heated to 2000 degrees it remains
>strong. Millions of people 'believe' that if you want things enough you
>will get them. Go to a women's dress shop. Look in any mirror. Millions
>of women 'believe' that is what they actually look like. They have been to
>a pleasure beach as a child and seen distorting mirrors, but they still
>'believe' they look like that even though actually they know they don't.
Did I post in the wrong group? I thougt I was talking about a "be-
lief system". Maybe I should have said "religion" (or "kirchen-
glaube" in German). All examples of you here above do not match
that, as far as I can see. When you do _not_ think in accordance to
one of your examples above, you will _not_ be called an "atheist".
>There are about 4 billion people in the world who are about average
>intelligence or below. Hardly any of them 'believe' that they are one of
>them, to the extent that a person who tells them so is considered to be
>extremely offensive.
There is a difference between a specific "belief" on some ore more
subjects and a "religion".
>Ron Hubbard famously said, and proved it, that the best way to make money is
>to invent a religion. To the majority of people, their beliefs are what
>matters.
I do not know the guy (but I've heard of him though) Where I live
the man (and his followers) are regarded as complete idiots. But I
do not see what he has to do with it: did he "teach" some form of
revelation or didn't he?
JH
John Brockbank
Actually, Hubbard invented Scientology in order to make money from it. I
think that passes as a religion. I don't think that is essentially
different from believing in the Loch Ness monster, or the space visitors at
Roswell, or alien creation of corn circles, or any of the other things I
mentioned, and also a million more things. Some people, I assure you,
believe them all.
I suppose I would have to admit that some beliefs are dafter than others and
some are easily removed. However the amount of daftness is not always
commensurate with the ease of removal. Many children, told as soon as they
can understand speech about praying etc. and given various stories, will
naturally find it difficult to give up that belief.
And. at least the imaginary corn circle making aliens actually are supposed
to be the cause of something that really happens. Belief in them is less
daft than belief in angels who do nothing, yet it is less prevalent.
The Magpie
respond in kind. Do not be offended by the criticism which is
inevitable, please.
Ragnar wrote:
> I think I am right in saying that scientists regard a theory as
> being scientific if it has certain properties:
>
> 1 The theory fits the known facts
Incorrect. The fundamental requirement of a theory is that it must be
based on observations of the real world and must be capable of
demonstrably showing why those observations arise.
> 2 It explains the known facts
Again incorrect. in addition to the first requirement, a theory must
also be the *simplest_possible* explanation which is capable of
explaining those observations and must also be sufficiently complete
to be entirely self-consistent.
> 3 It makes definite predictions about future observations that
> might tend to verify it
Once again incorrect. A theory must be capable of describing specific
means by which experiments can be devised that will produce results
predictable by the the theory but more importantly will also describe
results which *cannot* arise if the theory is true (this takes us into
the last of your notes).
> 4 It is falsifiable
This is the one you had right and it refers to the ability of a theory
to specify predictable results which *cannot* happen if the theory is
true. As an example, the speed of light in a vacuum must be a constant
value and must always have been the same value if the theory of
relativity is true.
Now we can go on to your actual use of the claims, interpreted with
the correct statements of what makes a theory.
> The existence of God fulfils (sort of) the first of these.
No, I'm afraid it does not and cannot. In order to do so, it must be
based on observations of that god and a sufficiently clear and
definite description of the properties and capabilities of that god to
explain observations of the real universe. None of those exist.
> There is no obvious fact about the observable universe that
> decidedly contradicts the theory.
At this stage of claim, no such theory exists or can exist and the
observations do not support the existence of the undefined deity. At
this point, your idea of a theory fails.
> Certainly the God theory purports to explain the facts.
As yet, you have not stated what observations it can support. Once4
again, your claim of a theory fails.
> I am not aware of a single testable prediction that has ever been
> made in support of the God theory. Is there one?
No, there is not.
> Neither am I aware of a rigorous disproof of God, and I suspect
> that one could not be presented.
It is the responsibility of the *theory_itself* to present means by
which such tests could be devised (as you noted yourself). On this
ground also, your claim for a theory fails.
> Total one-and-a-half points out of four. I conclude that God is not
> a scientific theory.
Except for the fact that the actual score is zero out of four, right
conclusion.
> However I note that Richard Dawkins insists that the existence of
> God is a scientific hypothesis which he sets out in as follows:
> "there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who
> deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in
> it, including us" (The God Delusion 2006)
That is a statement that is a *proper* construction of any such
theory, unlike your own claim. However, even Dawkins does not claim it
is a "scientific theory" at all - he states quite explicitly that it
is a simple and generic description applicable to all the monotheistic
religions at the present time.
> However I think the wording of the hypothesis contains a
> contradiction viz. the word "supernatural". If God is
> "supernatural" then by definition he is not part of the natural
> universe, and therefore not susceptible of scientific enquiry.
Incorrect. By the definition you presume, string theory (which deals
in the ten or eleven dimensions of the universe extending beyond our
"real" and perceptible universe would also not be a theory. Which it
is, of course, or susceptible to scientific process, which it also is.
> I don't intend to quibble about the distinction between "theory"
> and "hypothesis", but do you think Dawkins is right to insist that
> God is a scientific hypothesis?
I would repeat - he didn't.
John Brockbank
< "The Magpie" <use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote in
>> I am not aware of a single testable prediction that has ever been
>> made in support of the God theory. Is there one?
< No, there is not.
Yes there is. It has been predicted many times that prayer works, for
example to help people recover from illness. This is quite plainly a
testable prediction, and indeed it has been tested.
Now it could be said that this is in fact a test of a religious belief, not
of God.
OK, I agree with that. But in fact every such test would be a test of a
religious belief and not of God. If that is so then it follows that God can
not be tested, which means that God, if it is actual, does not make any
difference.
For a thing to count as existing it must make a difference. Let us take our
local cluster of galaxies for example. Select one proton at random from any
of the galaxies, and remove it so that it does not exist any more.
Immediately, that alters the gravitational force of every other object which
has mass in the whole cluster of galaxies, and indeed in the whole universe.
God does not make as much difference as that one proton.
In fact God makes no difference and so does not exist.
graham
"John Brockbank" <wag...@screaming.net> wrote in message
news:4ab91de8$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> < "The Magpie" <use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote in
>
>>> I am not aware of a single testable prediction that has ever been
>>> made in support of the God theory. Is there one?
>
> < No, there is not.
>
> Yes there is. It has been predicted many times that prayer works, for
> example to help people recover from illness. This is quite plainly a
> testable prediction, and indeed it has been tested.
>
Pete Barrett
<use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 2 It explains the known facts
>
>Again incorrect. in addition to the first requirement, a theory must
>also be the *simplest_possible* explanation which is capable of
>explaining those observations and must also be sufficiently complete
>to be entirely self-consistent.
>
I think there's a problem with this formulation - specifically, what
counts as simple. "The orbit of Mercury is irregular because God wills
it so" is (to some people) simpler than General Relativity. Certainly,
it can be stated in a single sentence, where General Relativity
certainly can't!
Also, I don't think it really captures scientific practice. Very often
there are competing and incompatible theories which explain the same
phenomena, and which one is preferred changes as new observations are
made, and as the theories themselves are refined; eventually one or
other wins out. (A good example is the history of the corpuscular and
wave theories of light, which competed for years, with a preference
for the corpuscular theory, until eventually the wave theory won out
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light). Later,
both theories were subsumed by wave mechanics.)
It's true that other things being equal, a theory which has fewer
unkown entities is usually preferred on the Ockham's Razor principle,
but I don't think scientific theories are usually *rejected* on that
principle - they get put aside (like Huygens's Wave Theory mentioned
above, for the whole of the 18th century) until either they or their
competitor can be rejected on evidence.
The Magpie
> < "The Magpie" <use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote in
>
>>> I am not aware of a single testable prediction that has ever been
>>> made in support of the God theory. Is there one?
>
> < No, there is not.
>
> Yes there is. It has been predicted many times that prayer works, for
> example to help people recover from illness. This is quite plainly a
> testable prediction, and indeed it has been tested.
>
Firstly, prayer would presume that a god exists but does not
demonstrate it and if it worked could be due to other causes (such as
the placebo effect). It has indeed been tested (and failed all such
tests) but even had it not failed would be no definitive test.
Simply, you cannot test what you will not define. And theists will not
define their god.
The Magpie
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:49:10 +0100, The Magpie
> <use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> 2 It explains the known facts
>> Again incorrect. in addition to the first requirement, a theory must
>> also be the *simplest_possible* explanation which is capable of
>> explaining those observations and must also be sufficiently complete
>> to be entirely self-consistent.
>>
> I think there's a problem with this formulation - specifically, what
> counts as simple. "The orbit of Mercury is irregular because God wills
> it so" is (to some people) simpler than General Relativity. Certainly,
> it can be stated in a single sentence, where General Relativity
> certainly can't!
Absolutely not. "God did it" is not simple because it presumes an
additional entity not required by the nature of the observation and
which remains unexplained. Occam's Razor strikes again.
> Also, I don't think it really captures scientific practice. Very often
> there are competing and incompatible theories which explain the same
> phenomena, and which one is preferred changes as new observations are
> made, and as the theories themselves are refined; eventually one or
> other wins out. (A good example is the history of the corpuscular and
> wave theories of light, which competed for years, with a preference
> for the corpuscular theory, until eventually the wave theory won out
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light). Later,
> both theories were subsumed by wave mechanics.)
Absolutely true - and if two equally valid theories exist the simplest
is always preferable until and unless observation and experiment
eliminates it (as happened with the example you gave, for instance).
Ken
Pray works just as well as those Double Strength Placebos
Available by prescription only.
Some side effects may occur such rectal itching, weight gain, nose
bleeds, impotency, premature aging, stroke, mental confusion, kidney
failure, and sudden death
Pete Barrett
<use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote:
>> I think there's a problem with this formulation - specifically, what
>> counts as simple. "The orbit of Mercury is irregular because God wills
>> it so" is (to some people) simpler than General Relativity. Certainly,
>> it can be stated in a single sentence, where General Relativity
>> certainly can't!
>
>Absolutely not. "God did it" is not simple because it presumes an
>additional entity not required by the nature of the observation and
>which remains unexplained. Occam's Razor strikes again.
>
I did say "to some people". By formulating it as a preference for a
"simpler" theory, without further defining what counts as "simple",
it's left open to the "will of god" proposal to be considered simpler.
The "will of god" theory requires *one* unknown entity, while General
Relativity requires an unknown mechanism by which mass changes the
curvature of space-time.
Now, I think General Relativity is preferable because it holds out the
hope that at some time in the future we may understand that mechanism,
whereas we wouldn't expect to understand a god. But it's not clear to
me that that makes it *simpler*.
>> Also, I don't think it really captures scientific practice. Very often
>> there are competing and incompatible theories which explain the same
>> phenomena, and which one is preferred changes as new observations are
>> made, and as the theories themselves are refined; eventually one or
>> other wins out. (A good example is the history of the corpuscular and
>> wave theories of light, which competed for years, with a preference
>> for the corpuscular theory, until eventually the wave theory won out
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light). Later,
>> both theories were subsumed by wave mechanics.)
>
>Absolutely true - and if two equally valid theories exist the simplest
>is always preferable until and unless observation and experiment
>eliminates it (as happened with the example you gave, for instance).
But (as I tried to point out in the next paragraph of my last post,
which you unforunately snipped), I don't think theories get *rejected*
by Okham's razor, merely provisionally set aside. My knowledge isn't
absolute, of course, and it may be that you know of theories which
have been rejected simply because they were more complex that their
compeitiors, but I haven't been able to think of any.
J. Horikx
May be all true, but I was talking about different belief_systems_
like islam an judaism and (the diverse branches of) christianity
etc. You know with things written about what to believe but also how
to behave an parts of law etc too. Almost cultures, so to say.
All the things you mention do not meet those standards.
JH
John Brockbank
"The Magpie" <use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Jcoum.146803$gY4....@newsfe08.ams2...
I am afraid that cutting out the following part where I said in effect that
the test strictly speaking could be argued to falsify religious belief about
God rather than God itself, is a bit of a cheat.
That covers the incorrect 'definition' comment. One of God's attributes is
supposed to be that prayers get results by miracles.
You quite obviously have not looked at details of prayer experiments,
because it is a very simple matter to test for the placebo effect. All you
have to do is to pray for people and tell them, pray for people and not tell
them, tell them that you have prayed for them but haven't, not tell them you
have prayed and not prayed. A complication of that arises because it seems
to me that the views of the people being prayed for are quite important, and
also who is doing the praying matters a lot. Again, these effects can be
tested and it is not difficult.
The worst thing about such tests of course is that afterwards when the
results are known the local vicar can say that it failed because it wasn't
God's will or they didn't have enough faith, or a million other daft reasons
which have nothing to do with anything. That of course is exactly the same
as you saying that even if it worked it actually would not have worked,
without knowing the slightest thing about it. You see, you need to
criticise methods beforehand, or get tests done properly.
Tell me, why is it that when someone makes a silly statement that there is
not a single testable aspect of the God theory whish has ever been actually
tested, and it is pointed out that the statement is not correct and a very
good test is pointed to, the subject is immediately changed to something
else? Also why are obviously incorrect statements still made about the
tests?
Heigh ho. No wonder people still believe this stuff.
John Brockbank
Ah you see, but you said that without something or other, belief systems
would not exist. All I was doing is pointing out that beliefs are not
actually based on anything at all, and I cited a rather killer example of
Hubbard who invented scientology to make money and it worked.
Christopher A. Lee
Barrett) wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:11:12 +0100, The Magpie
><use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I think there's a problem with this formulation - specifically, what
>>> counts as simple. "The orbit of Mercury is irregular because God wills
>>> it so" is (to some people) simpler than General Relativity. Certainly,
>>> it can be stated in a single sentence, where General Relativity
>>> certainly can't!
>>
>>Absolutely not. "God did it" is not simple because it presumes an
>>additional entity not required by the nature of the observation and
>>which remains unexplained. Occam's Razor strikes again.
Exactly.
>I did say "to some people". By formulating it as a preference for a
>"simpler" theory, without further defining what counts as "simple",
>it's left open to the "will of god" proposal to be considered simpler.
>The "will of god" theory requires *one* unknown entity, while General
>Relativity requires an unknown mechanism by which mass changes the
>curvature of space-time.
No. It simply provides a working model of reality. Confirmed every
time Mercury is seen in a telescope in the predicted place, or every
time you use GPS.
It doesn't matter that we don't know the mechanism behind it.
Scientific theory that contains full explanation for the mechanisms
and causes are less common than you might think. Evolution is one of
these, better understood than gravity because the underlying
mechanisms and causes are understood. Even atomic theory stops at the
currently known sub-atomic particles.
>Now, I think General Relativity is preferable because it holds out the
>hope that at some time in the future we may understand that mechanism,
>whereas we wouldn't expect to understand a god. But it's not clear to
>me that that makes it *simpler*.
No, it is preferable because it has greater explanatory power than
Newton. Which is a side of it that you left out.
Any new explanation has to explain more, and also explain why if the
previous one was wrong, it worked as well as it did.
Relativity does both. The orbit of Mercury was always an anomaly
because Newton's maths couldn't describe it even they worked almost
everywhere else. Einstein's math did, as well as clearing up a lot of
other things. It also explained why Newton worked so well because the
v^2/C^2 factor it introduced, was unmeasurably close to zero in the
areas where Newton worked.
>>> Also, I don't think it really captures scientific practice. Very often
>>> there are competing and incompatible theories which explain the same
>>> phenomena, and which one is preferred changes as new observations are
>>> made, and as the theories themselves are refined; eventually one or
>>> other wins out. (A good example is the history of the corpuscular and
>>> wave theories of light, which competed for years, with a preference
>>> for the corpuscular theory, until eventually the wave theory won out
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light). Later,
>>> both theories were subsumed by wave mechanics.)
>>
>>Absolutely true - and if two equally valid theories exist the simplest
>>is always preferable until and unless observation and experiment
>>eliminates it (as happened with the example you gave, for instance).
>
>But (as I tried to point out in the next paragraph of my last post,
>which you unforunately snipped), I don't think theories get *rejected*
>by Okham's razor, merely provisionally set aside. My knowledge isn't
>absolute, of course, and it may be that you know of theories which
>have been rejected simply because they were more complex that their
>compeitiors, but I haven't been able to think of any.
From a practical point of view you can't do science without Occam,
because as soon as you multiply entities you don't know which one was
responsible for a result.
And if you make a claim with multiple entities you have to demonstrate
all of them.
Like somebody who said miracles were evidence for God - they now had
to demonstrate God, miracles and that God was responsible for them.
For some reason they declined to do this.
Saying "the simplest one" is itself an over-simplification. Occam
talked about multiplying entities un-necessarily.
Until an unknown is known (if you see what I mean) its probability is
always less than one, even if you don't know exactly what it is. In
other words a fraction. Each time a new one is introduced, you
multiply by another fraction, so the result gets smaller every time.
Most people realise this intuitively even before they have heard of
William of Ockham and his razor.
Although for his time he was a genius, having the kind of "Eureka"
moment and formulated what in retrospect is a "why didn't I think of
that?".
J. Horikx
...
>> May be all true, but I was talking about different belief_systems_
>> like islam an judaism and (the diverse branches of) christianity
>> etc. You know with things written about what to believe but also how
>> to behave an parts of law etc too. Almost cultures, so to say.
>> All the things you mention do not meet those standards.
>Ah you see, but you said that without something or other,
Yes, without the "supernatural or extrasensorial part" (of god, in
the most common religions that is), I said. (That is the revelation
part of this supernatural being)
>belief systems
>would not exist. All I was doing is pointing out that beliefs are not
>actually based on anything at all, and I cited a rather killer example of
>Hubbard who invented scientology to make money and it worked.
Where Hubbard is in question, his "followers" follow his revelation
as well (about former lives and immortality etc etc)
JH
The Magpie
>
> I am afraid that cutting out the following part where I said in effect that
> the test strictly speaking could be argued to falsify religious belief about
> God rather than God itself, is a bit of a cheat.
Belief is a subjective state of mind and is not subject to
falsification since it does not depend upon an objectively real nature
of existence. I snipped it to avoid being considered insulting.
> That covers the incorrect 'definition' comment. One of God's attributes is
> supposed to be that prayers get results by miracles.
You didn't *say* so though. Theories are only what they *say* not what
you *think* they might imply.
> You quite obviously have not looked at details of prayer experiments,
Yes I have. They have failed, 100% without a single exception.
sdm_sax
> John Brockbank wrote:
> > You quite obviously have not looked at details of prayer experiments,
>
> Yes I have. They have failed, 100% without a single exception.
There have been a few experiments which seem to show prayers work. Of
course that is where some people will say that they do, but the fact
remains they don't. It is our perception of events which gets tricked.
It is the same way that people get to believe in astrology or
homeopathy etc. Statistically a few instances will crop up
occasionally which will seem to favour one thing or the other - even
in double blind tests. If someone that is seriously ill happens to
pull through and live, it doesn't mean someone's prayers have been
answered.
I once knew a chap who believed in biorhythms. He plotted his and his
wifes chart and noted each time it corresponded to his mood. He got
quite a few hits. I pointed out to him that he should plot all the
times it got it wrong too. He wasn't too chuffed as his favourable
results soon didn't look so good.
sdm_sax
> Actually, Hubbard invented Scientology in order to make money from it. I
> think that passes as a religion.
He set up scientology following on from his dianetics ideas.
Scientology didn't make money until he turned it into the Church of
Scientology. He promised enlightenment via people becoming 'clear'. He
invented a system to test people using his (sham) auditors and through
training (and handing over lots of money) they learnt how to become
clear. Few ever achieved this status.
graham
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Ben Goldacre
John Brockbank
For goodness' sake. The argument I presented was not that there is a God,
it was the statement that there is nothing testable about it. I pointed out
that some things were certainly testable and gave the example of prayer for
sick people.
Another thing that is certainly testable is that the evolution of living
things has not happened. Many people believe that and it is eminently
testable, or falsifiable if you like.
Of course we can not falsify the belief, until it dies out which might be
never. But we can falsify what is believed.
Bear in mind that for the example of the prayer test, as for many other
tests, as more of them are done it becomes more likely that a test will show
a positive result. Similarly of course it also becomes more likely that a
positive result is found that prayer is contra-indicated - that means, in
short that the test will demonstrate that prayer harmed the sick people.
If testing goes on long enough, in the end a result might be obtained that
shows that the sick people got better but their illnesses got passed on to
the unbelievers that didn't pray.
Another thing I will say about testing is that, far from it being impossible
to test, I reckon, without going in to it much, that it is possible to test
and so falsify every single thing that is claimed by religious people about
their religion. Of course it might not be possible to alter their beliefs
that way, because in fact they eschew reason and science altogether, for
obvious reasons.
To cut to the chase on that, everything that actually exists makes a
difference to something, and so can be detected. A claim that a thing
exists which can not be detected is an obvious falsehood which education and
learning can eradicate. People 'believe' that water has a memory of
dissolving a substance and this can cure illnesses and this leads to sales
of water as homeopathic medecine and that again can only be corrected by
education and learning.
John Brockbank
"graham" <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:sahvm.71739$4t6....@newsfe06.iad...
Sorry to be a little blunt, but that is a stupid application of the quote.
The anecdote was an illustrative example of the point made. If you want to
know whether Goldacre thinks that prayer works and tests have demonstrated
it, ask him. Put it in reasonable and sensible terms, and he will tell you
I assure you, though I'd be suprised if you could do that on the evidence
you present by that daft misunderstanding.
graham
John Brockbank
< Va-te-faire enculer!
While an anecdote is only illustrative of a point, nevertheless it is far
more meaningful than comments about arse fucking. I did not realise that
you are that way inclined.
Fragments@ech.co.uk Skill Fragments
>
> John Cornwell (Darwin's Angel 2007) in contradiction of Dawkins complains
> that no believer regards God as part of the natural world.
That's the modern fall-back position of a retreating and collapsing faith.
For the original believers in the Old Testament, 'Jehovah' was part of the
'natural world' as they knew it. How else could one of them have seen the
'rear parts' of God?
The reason no [modern] believer 'regards God as part of the natural world'
is quite simply that science has made that original position untenable.
People now try and place their God 'outside the natural universe' in some
way because they'd get *laughed out of the room* if they didn't...
SF
joyster
human evolution. It represents an aspirational direction to understand
more about a phenonemally fascinating universe. As we learn more it
becomes clear that god is aspect of our own minds, though it will
remain transcendental, as it drives us into new areas of disovery.
Thus it is implicit that god is ever changing and refined through our
development. Whenever god is externalised and 'tagged' with fixed
doctrinal properties, it becomes a powerful tool in the manipulation
of human behaviour, and will conflict with other 'tags' that make up
the jigsaw we seek to see.
Ian Smith
In fact, quite the converse. It contributes nothing to our
understanding and has traditionally stood in the way of it for the
most part.
It claims to have some unique moral insight but again contributes
nothing to the debate, more often than not imposing some set of
false morals.
Your piece appears to me to be nothing more than a wasted attempt to
rationalise your superstition.
regards, Ian
PG
29633b8e-a54b-40ad...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Sir, The concept of god is a fundamentally important in the process of
> human evolution. It represents an aspirational direction to understand
> more about a phenonemally fascinating universe.
What makes you think we would need such inspiration to aspire to more
knowledge about the universe? That is an entirely unsupported assertion.
> As we learn more it
> becomes clear that god is aspect of our own minds, though it will
> remain transcendental, as it drives us into new areas of disovery.
Entirely unsupported and meaningless.
> Thus it is implicit that god is ever changing and refined through our
> development. Whenever god is externalised and 'tagged' with fixed
> doctrinal properties, it becomes a powerful tool in the manipulation
> of human behaviour, and will conflict with other 'tags' that make up
> the jigsaw we seek to see.
>
If this is an attempt an some kind of new mysticism, it fails miserably.
pg
Yvan Hall
Log on to Find out how you can make money by clicking my Web Site.
You will find good Affiiliates for health products, such as EDTA-Oral
Chelation,
Apricot kernels for cancer treament, Other affiliates are for Computers,
household products, Satellite TV (You may watch International Channel on
your Computer),
Download Commmercial Movies, Email, Free Horoscope.
"Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:ZA5sm.101129$_Q3....@newsfe20.ams2...
>I think I am right in saying that scientists regard a theory as being
>scientific if it has certain properties:
>
> 1 The theory fits the known facts
> 2 It explains the known facts
> 3 It makes definite predictions about future observations that might
> tend to verify it
> 4 It is falsifiable
>
> 1 The existence of God fulfils (sort of) the first of these. There is
> no obvious fact about the observable universe that decidedly contradicts
> the theory. So (grudgingly) I give the theory one point so far.
> 2 Certainly the God theory purports to explain the facts. However it is
> not really much of an explanation; why does the earth go round the sun?
> because God wishes it to be so; how did the universe come into being? God
> made it etc. These are not really explanations, merely affirmations.
> However I feel generous so I will award half a point.
> 3 I am not aware of a single testable prediction that has ever been
> made in support of the God theory. Is there one? Please enlighten me if
> you know of one.
> 4 Neither am I aware of a rigorous disproof of God, and I suspect that
> one could not be presented.
>
> Total one-and-a-half points out of four. I conclude that God is not a
> scientific theory.
>
> However I note that Richard Dawkins insists that the existence of God is a
> scientific hypothesis which he sets out in as follows:
> "there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately
> designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us"
> (The God Delusion 2006)
> He then proceeds to demolish this hypothesis, which of course is not
> difficult to do, granted the assumption that it is a scientific
> hypothesis. However I think the wording of the hypothesis contains a
> contradiction viz. the word "supernatural". If God is "supernatural" then
> by definition he is not part of the natural universe, and therefore not
> susceptible of scientific enquiry.
>
> John Cornwell (Darwin's Angel 2007) in contradiction of Dawkins complains
> that no believer regards God as part of the natural world. I think I see
> his point and he would presumably agree with me that God is not a
> scientific theory.
>
> I don't intend to quibble about the distinction between "theory" and
> "hypothesis", but do you think Dawkins is right to insist that God is a
> scientific hypothesis?
>
> R.
>
Interesting Ian
No it is not a scientific theory. Not even a metaphysical theory. It's a
metaphysical hypothesis.
Science deals with the empirical realm. God being non-physical (as indeed
is all consciousness) is not part of the empirical realm. To suppose God
constitutes a scientific theory either demonstrates no understanding of the
nature of science, no understanding of what is meant by "God", or both.
ge0rge
...
>
> Ragnar wrote:
...
>> 4 It is falsifiable
>
> This is the one you had right and it refers to the ability of a theory
> to specify predictable results which *cannot* happen if the theory is
> true. As an example, the speed of light in a vacuum must be a constant
> value and must always have been the same value if the theory of
> relativity is true.
Some philosophers/scientists don't think that evolutionary theory is
falsifiable although none doubt that evolution is a scientific theory
(Ignore the blurb about the creationists arguments)
http://www.conservapedia.com/Falsifiability_of_Evolution
Ian Smith
> On 22/09/2009 15:49, The Magpie wrote:
>>
>> Ragnar wrote:
> ....
Why would anyone want to reference conservapedia? It was set up by
the religious right to provide their own answers where they
disagreed with wikipedia (which they considered to be "un-american").
In a world where evolution deniers use quote-mining as their main
debating tool, a conservapedia link is worthless.
ge0rge
ah... really? I wasn't aware that conservapaedia was a tool used by
deniers of evolution.
Anyway, I don't think I would have been swayed by any religious (or
non-religious)arguments denying evolution. But I am prepared to follow
the argument/logic of Popper (et al) when he put forward the point, at
least in the past, that Darwinism is unfalsifiable ... which he also
added did not detract from the explanatory power of the theory.
I guess what pique my curiosity is the argument that if Darwinism is
unfalsifiable, perhaps falsifiability is not a sine qua non condition
for a scientific theory.
But as you said, maybe Popper, Sir Peter Medawar and the others were
being quoted out of context. Indeed I had always taken for granted that
falsifiability *is* one of the cornerstones of scientific theories
(since I read Popper way back) and I was taken aback when I read quotes
from eminent scientists/philosophers who considered Darwinism unfalsifiable.
ge0rge
> ge0rge wrote:
>
>
>> [...] I am prepared to follow
>> the argument/logic of Popper (et al) when he put forward the point, at
>> least in the past, that Darwinism is unfalsifiable ...
>
> and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad
> to have the opportunity to make a recantation." He went on to
> formulate natural selection in a falsifiable way and offered a more
> nuanced view of its status. He still felt that "Darwin's own most
> important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of
> natural selection, is difficult to test." However, "[t]here are some
> tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the
> famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe
> natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Evolution
>
Thanks for the link ... and from there I followed another link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable
... where it is interesting to read that other philosophers of science
do not share Popper's view that falsifiability is a necessary condition
for a scientific theory...
* In his book, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism,
philosopher of science Philip Kitcher specifically addresses the
"falsifiability" ...
But he insists that we view scientific theories as consisting of an
“elaborate collection of statements,” some of which are not falsifiable,
and others – what he calls “auxiliary hypotheses,” which are.*
Well, for me, I would be more circumspect now in accepting/insisting
that falsifiability is necessary for a scientific theory.
- .. -- Tim .-.
I suppose a 'Theory' should be falsifiable, but a 'Hypothesis' need not be?
IMO what is being considered here is the interface (or barrier?) where
science meets philosophy.
Science can be a bit like doing a crossword puzzle. All is going fine until
you come to a clue and find an excellent-fit answer, but it doesn't fit with
the letters of the words you have already filled in. Then you end up
re-doing the other clues to find alternative answers, so that your new word
will fit. Like, Newton's answers fitted well until we met Relativity, then
that fits well until we consider quantum mechanics. Gravity is still a bit
of a nuisance, though...
Tim.
ge0rge
The other way round.
" ... notable philosophical critiques of Popper by Carl Gustav Hempel
and Willard Van Orman Quine that reject his definition of theory as a
set of falsifiable statements.[62] As Kitcher points out, if one took a
strictly Popperian view of “theory,” observations of Uranus when first
discovered in 1781 would have “falsified” Newton’s celestial mechanics.
Rather, people suggested that another planet influenced Uranus’ orbit –
and this prediction was indeed eventually confirmed."
> IMO what is being considered here is the interface (or barrier?) where
> science meets philosophy.
>
> Science can be a bit like doing a crossword puzzle. All is going fine until
> you come to a clue and find an excellent-fit answer, but it doesn't fit with
> the letters of the words you have already filled in. Then you end up
> re-doing the other clues to find alternative answers, so that your new word
> will fit. Like, Newton's answers fitted well until we met Relativity, then
> that fits well until we consider quantum mechanics. Gravity is still a bit
> of a nuisance, though...
>
> Tim.
>
Exactly. I agree and I have no problem to dropping my long held view
about falsifiability in any case. It does not alter my view of the
explanatory power of Science. Falsifiability is just one amongst many
philosophical points in a general discussion about Science.
--
No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
-- C. Schulz
johnbee
"ge0rge" <ge0...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:811sts...@mid.individual.net...
Surely if a person thinks that Darwin's theory of how species evolved
was not falsifiable, then they do not know what falsifiable means.
The idea was (and is) considered falsified by the fact that the Earth
is not old enough for it to have happened. Also there was no known
mechanism for any inherited traits to be retained which also falsified it.
Obviously in the time since Darwin wrote the book there have been
many thousands of geologists working on findings any one of which
could have falsified it. I expect that a million fossils have been found
of which Darwin had no knowledge and any one of them could have
falsified it. There are hundreds of thousands of living species discovered
since Darwin's time any one of which could have falsified it.
Furthermore, and much more dangerous for the Theory, there is a
huge amount still to be discovered and a very long time available for
it to happen and it could be falsified any minute. I have rattled off
plenty of ways it could have been falsified and might still be falsified.
Mind you, I also have a bit of common sense and scientific
knowledge and education so I do not expect it to be shown to be
false. What has been shown to be false is the idea that science
questions can be answered by thinking i.e. philosophy is lacking
as a method. Your Kitcher might have thought that discovery of
Uranus's behaviour falsified Newton, but the observation merely
shows that thoughts can be foolish.
ge0rge
recanted later but I am sure he did not say that glibly.
> The idea was (and is) considered falsified by the fact that the Earth
> is not old enough for it to have happened. Also there was no known
> mechanism for any inherited traits to be retained which also falsified it.
> Obviously in the time since Darwin wrote the book there have been
> many thousands of geologists working on findings any one of which
> could have falsified it. I expect that a million fossils have been found
> of which Darwin had no knowledge and any one of them could have
> falsified it. There are hundreds of thousands of living species discovered
> since Darwin's time any one of which could have falsified it.
Many of Darwin original ideas has also been shown to be wrong (because
he did not know all the facts that we now know or have the tools we now
have at hand). But whatever ideas which were shown to be off the mark
did not falsify his theory of evolution. Indeed, no scientist or
philosopher of science would think that evolution could be
abandoned/replaced by some other competing theory. There is none.
>
> Furthermore, and much more dangerous for the Theory, there is a
> huge amount still to be discovered and a very long time available for
> it to happen and it could be falsified any minute. I have rattled off
> plenty of ways it could have been falsified and might still be falsified.
No. That is the point I think. Evolution will not be falsified if some
discrepant observational fact is observed (no "fossil rabbits in the
Precambrian era" would be found but I am puzzled why the females in
human species are the 'pretty' ones whilst in the animal kingdom, it is
generally the males which are the showy ones). Such like discrepancies
will need to be explained and accommodated in the Theory. They will not
falsify the theory ... in much the same way that Newton mechanics is not
falsified by Einstein theory of relativity or neo-darwinism falsifies
Darwinism.
>
> Mind you, I also have a bit of common sense and scientific
> knowledge and education so I do not expect it to be shown to be
> false. What has been shown to be false is the idea that science
> questions can be answered by thinking i.e. philosophy is lacking
> as a method. Your Kitcher might have thought that discovery of
> Uranus's behaviour falsified Newton, but the observation merely
> shows that thoughts can be foolish.
'My kitcher' said nothing of the sort. He is on the side of Science and
from the excerpts I read in the wikipaedia link, he is just putting the
point that there are other ways of looking at Science apart from the
Popperian perspective. I disagree with you that Philosophy (of science)
is lacking. As a group of people, they sharpen scientists ways of doing
science. They put their logic and methods under the microscope and it is
a good thing for Science that this is so.
Ian Smith
>
> mechanism for any inherited traits to be retained which also falsified it.
'Not knowing' doesn't falsify anything.
regards, Ian
johnbee
"Ian Smith" <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
news:aJGdnardU7LdLzDW...@brightview.co.uk...
I am not quite sure that is fully correct, in sense though I admit I worded
it
loosely. It was crucial that there be such a mechanism, and it was
demonstrated by the famous 'pollination of different
coloured peas' experiment. That attempt to falsify it showed that there
was
such a mechanism even though nobody knew what it is,. It was falsifiable by
that method until the method was thought up and tried.
The attempt by Old Testament anti-science ignorance pedlars to say that
the Theory of Evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense relies
wholly
upon their followers not having a clue what a scientific theory is.
Discussions like this about science demonstrate clearly that there is huge
ignorance about science by people who know they are ignorant about it but
still feel able to pontificate about it.
They say that falsifiable means that because they can not prove it to be
false
it is not science and so that proves it is false. This passes the rules of
'thinking'
for some religious people. It is also an excellent demonstration of why
thinking (philosophy) is lacking.
God is not a theory, it is a conjecture, similar to that conjecture that
there
exists a Higgs field of bosons which carry and impart mass. They will
remain
conjectures until they see manifestations of them in observations or
experiments
or until satisfactory alternative explanations are found which show the
conjectures
to be wrong.