Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 14
Atheistic fundamentalism
Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM (4,624 Views)
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Jeffrey, it amazes me how a man as intelligent as you can so stubbornly cling to such a small reality.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Posted Image
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
It is my view that science is real, but it is not the sum total of reality. It never will be. Just as religion never will be. The day that poets, mystics, artists, and scientists all begin to speak a similar language, having come to the same zenith of what there is to be discovered via their various disciplines, will be a great day, indeed. I think it is possible, though improbable. I think that such a golden age has already been and gone, and now it's like the parable of ten blind men who go to find out what an elephant is like. Each comes away with their own conclusions, each convinced that he is the only one with the truth.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Larry - Science converges over time (decades or even sometimes centuries) on a common viewpoint. (How many informed people still doubt the earth revolves around the sun?) Religion, like astrology and other topics without a subject matter, does not achieve this consensus.

The difference is that science refers to the external, objective world around us that we can discover more about through evidence, and religion has no such subject matter to which it refers, but is a cultural product, like art and music.

Klaus - The error of the anti-realists about science is that they assume that the methods of science and evidence must be of a certain particular type known ahead of time via reason (rules of induction, abduction, etc.). Instead, what Boyd and others show is that the methods of proper induction and evidence are themselves subject to scientific analysis and improvement. Scientific realism is compatible with anti-Platonism in mathematics, in fact I would think it requires it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Dec 25 2007, 04:16 PM
Klaus - For an overview and proper reply to Kuhn and Feyerabend, you could read Richard Boyd (among others). Here is a widely used text on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Science-R...98592088&sr=8-1

If scientific realism isn't true, it is impossible to explain how science progresses and improves and reaches common understanding of disputed topics, while other areas (e.g. religion, tarot card reading, astrology) do not.

Just because someone wrote a reply their points are not invalid.

Before I read this 800+page book, can you tease me with a few of their main points? :lol:

There is no logical argument or proof or whatsoever that scientific realism is true. Scientific realism is a belief - much like the believe in a god.

In general, there are possibly many different models that explain the same observations, and there is no reason to say that one model is more real than the other one.

The word "model" already implies that it does not describe reality, but rather is an abstraction of reality. It is probably impossible to describe reality completely, because the description would then be a part of reality that would also need to be described.

A logician would say that science, viewed as a logical axiom system, is incomplete, i.e., it does not have a unique model (which would then be reality) but rather a whole class of different models.

The only real difference between a scientific model and other kinds of models are, as the name says, that the model is a scientific one, i.e., it is falsifiable, it allows predictions etc.

If I want to predict the outcome of an experiment, I'll use a scientific model. For many fundamental questions, such as the ultimate "why", ethics, etc. a scientific model does not give answers.

The fact that a scientist can validate his theory be experiments only (rather than deductively) is also highly unsatisfactory - I have no guarantee whatsoever that the theory will also hold in my next experiment. I can only build up trust in a theory by making more experiments, but essentially one needs to believe in a theory - not unlike religion.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Larry - Science converges over time (decades or even sometimes centuries) on a common viewpoint. (How many informed people still doubt the earth revolves around the sun?) Religion, like astrology and other topics without a subject matter, does not achieve this consensus.


Well Jeffrey, the ones who doubted the earth revolved around the sun were the scientists, not the religious. Secondly, you make a grave error in logic when you declare that religion - or rather, God - has no subject matter. Thirdly, religion *has* already converged over time, and will do so again.

Quote:
 
The difference is that science refers to the external, objective world around us that we can discover more about through evidence, and religion has no such subject matter to which it refers, but is a cultural product, like art and music.


And this is where you run off the rails, Jeffrey. Science is, like time, a man made thing, a description of a process man uses to track his reality. And just as we know that time had a beginning and will have an end, so did science have a beginning and so will it have an end. And while I'm more than willing to admit that religion is a man made cultural product, God is not. Science is the product of man trying to figure out everything man sees in his reality, in his tiny little mind. Religion is the product of man trying to find the reality that lies outside the boundaries of the tiny little range of reality that man can see.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
If religion is a cultural by-product, why don't Americans have a religion of fast cars, rock 'n' roll, and cheeseburgers? :shrug: Honestly, I've always wondered about that. Then again, the annual pilgrimages made to Graceland on the anniversary of Elvis' death, and the number of visitors to Jim Morrison's grave... Gosh, I guess we do! :lol2:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
klaus - "In general, there are possibly many different models that explain the same observations, and there is no reason to say that one model is more real than the other one. "

Yes, this is referred to as the problem of the underdescription of evidence by theory. A mathematical example often used is that an infinite set of lines can pass through a plot of data points on an x/y graph. So who is to say what line is "really" objectively true as a model of the data?

You also say: "There is no logical argument or proof or whatsoever that scientific realism is true"

You are exactly and literally correct in this statement. The error of the anti-realists (Feyerabend, etc.) is to look for a "logical" or deductive argument or proof of scientific realism or a priori description of the scientific method, and then, not finding one, claim that anti-realism is a valid response. But the primary proof of scientific realism is itself empirical and fact-based and historical, not logical or deductive in nature. It would be inconsistent to "prove" scientific realism by a non-scientific method. Scientific realism is itself a scientific and empirical theory, and the scientific method is itself improved and modified based on the ongoing progress of science, not a single logical "method" that a priori determines the difference between science and non-science. The "proof" of scientific realism is that science works to discover facts about the world and leads to consensus and results, and methods of human inquiry other than the methods of science do not lead to such results.

For example, suppose one wants to prove that astrology is not a science. There is no logical or deductive argument to this effect. It is logically consistent to say that the stars influence our personality and life results. The only problem with this view point is that the facts do not work out, and that the predictions of astrology have no statistical validity. But this proof that astrology is not a science is empirical, not logical or deductive. Thus I am an anti-realist about astrology, but a realist about physics or biology. The difference is empirical, not logical.

You also say: "believe in a theory - not unlike religion"

No. The difference is the basis for belief, and the ability to revise the theory based on more evidence. For example, scientists still debate the mechanisms and evidence for evolution (e.g. the cladistics debate). No such debate based on new information occurs in religion. It is all based on allegedly revealed texts handed down 1500 (Islam) to 2000 (Christianity) to 2500 (Judaism) years ago.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Klaus: (1) "A logician would say that science, viewed as a logical axiom system, is incomplete"

This statement is correct, and is definitively proven by the logicians you cite above.

(2) "For many fundamental questions, such as the ultimate "why", ethics, etc. a scientific model does not give answers."

This opinion might be correct or might not (my view), but the only point I will make here is that it does not derivable from (1) above. It requires a separate rather large argument, which is not present in your post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Dec 25 2007, 09:28 PM
But the primary proof of scientific realism is itself empirical and fact-based and historical, not logical or deductive in nature.  It would be inconsistent to "prove" scientific realism by a non-scientific method.  Scientific realism is itself a scientific and empirical theory, and the scientific method is itself improved and modified based on the ongoing progress of science, not a single logical "method" that a priori determines the difference between science and non-science.

If the "proof" that scientific realism is true is empirical, then please give me some examples to this effect. I don't believe there are any.

To prove that astrology is not scientific is quite easy: Their models don't have the properties of a scientific model (not falsifiable, not precise, no empirical validation etc.)

You acknowledge that, to take your example, there are infinitely many lines through any set of data points. What is your justification to arbitrarily select one of them as "real"?

I am very much with Stephen Hawking who had this to say on the topic:
Quote:
 

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.
---- Stephen Hawking
[The Nature of Space and Time, p3-4]
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Science is utterly incomplete, and probably always will be. Certainly in our lifetimes. To know this for sure one need only look at the developing concepts of quantum physics... infinite coexistent universes.. membranes between them - wave mechanics and the like.

We are children. To say we can explain away the nearly universal drive to understand and revere the mystery of our existence as mere superstition is every bit as childish and incomplete as any 'creationist' theory.

And I cannot believe we are still beating this tired horse today of all days.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
:deadhorse:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Dec 25 2007, 09:28 PM
A mathematical example often used is that an infinite set of lines can pass through a plot of data points on an x/y graph. So who is to say what line is "really" objectively true as a model of the data?

and what's even worse than the infinite number of lines through the data set is this:

Almost all of these lines do not have a finite description! (because the set of lines with finite descriptions is countable, whereas the set of all lines through the data set is uncountable).

What if the "real" line is one that does not have a finite description? This means that it is impossible to develop a theory about it. In terms of information theory, one would say that it might be the case that the line has an
entropy of 1.

Yet another problem of your example is the abstraction (i.e. loss of details) that is involved in any scientific model. For example, it might be the case that the velocity of an object 1 second after being released from some height depends on its color - but nobody has ever thought of experimenting with different colors.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I would very much like to debate the nature of science with you Klaus but i will leave it for a few days. Merry Christmas one and all! :)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
klaus: "some examples"

The entire history of the human enterprise of science. It works. Other methods do not. There is intellectual progress in science - prediction, control, falsification of viewpoints, consensus over time, unexpected discoveries.

These things do not occur in religion or in astrology.

"astrology is not scientific is quite easy: Their models don't have the properties of a scientific model (not falsifiable, not precise, no empirical validation etc.)"

Ok. But these properties of a scientific theory that you cite, are not a priori deliverences of logic or reason. There are empirical discoveries about what methods of truth-seeking are productive, and what are not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Dec 25 2007, 09:42 PM
This opinion might be correct or might not (my view), but the only point I will make here is that it does not derivable from (1) above. It requires a separate rather large argument, which is not present in your post.

The argument is actually rather short.

Every natural science theory (or other logical theory for that matter) is eventually based on a set of axioms, and - by definition of the notion of axiom - the theory cannot say anything about why these axioms are as they are (we cannot even say whether they are correct, but let's leave that aside for a moment)- yet these are (at least for me) some of the most fundamental questions.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Mik: "today of all days."

Why can't we debate the philosophy of science on the Winter Solstice? The Gospel of Luke indicates that Jesus was born in the spring.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Klaus: "Every natural science theory (or other logical theory for that matter) is eventually based on a set of axioms, and - by definition of the notion of axiom - the theory cannot say anything about why these axioms are as they are (we cannot even say whether they are correct, but let's leave that aside for a moment)- yet these are (at least for me) some of the most fundamental questions."

I think the notion above of axiom of science above is simplistic. Bootstrapping and interconnection occurs. One way of saying this is "observation is theory-dependent" (the anti-realist philosophers you cite make a big deal of this fact).

As for "cannot say" and "fundamental"

Perhaps. But one unfortunate conclusion from your viewpoint is that on an issue you regard as "fundamental" you cannot claim truth or objectivity for your viewpoint. All other viewpoints are equally valid. This is a rather lighthearted way to view "fundamental" questions - where one answer is just as good as any other.


Here is a brief and inadequate summary of moral realism, the view that moral judgments are true or false: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

And here is a brief and so-so description of ethical naturalism (the view closest to mine):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Dec 25 2007, 10:21 PM
There are empirical discoveries about what methods of truth-seeking are productive, and what are not.

Except that science is not a method of truth-seeking.

As Hawking says in the quote I gave, the purpose of a scientific model is to make predictions.

Scientific theories are "productive" in making predictions - that is what they are designed to do - and not much more.

A religious theory may be "productive" in making people spiritually satisfied - that is what they are designed to do - but not much more.

"Truth" is something that is entirely outside the scientific domain.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Klaus - Hawkins is a far better scientist than philosopher. What causes change over time of scientific and not religious theories? Fit with the external world. What makes one model more "predictive" than another? Random chance? Beauty? Desire? Nope, fit with the external world. What is a "prediction" a "prediction" of? An event in the external, real, world.

"A religious theory may be "productive" in making people spiritually satisfied - that is what they are designed to do - but not much more."

Hmmm ... most religions claim that they are "true" not just 'productive'. Revelation by God and all that. Few religious believers will accept that their views are merely "designed" to make people "satisfied". Moreover, you have the Bishop Butler problem - religion would not satisfy, unless believed to be ontologically true, independently of being satisfying. Few people say, 'Heaven does not really objectively exist, but it makes me happy to pretend that it does."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Dec 25 2007, 10:33 PM
one unfortunate conclusion from your viewpoint is that on an issue you regard as "fundamental" you cannot claim truth or objectivity for your viewpoint. All other viewpoints are equally valid. This is a rather lighthearted way to view "fundamental" questions - where one answer is just as good as any other.

Well... I'd be happy it if the situation were different :lol: But I can't believe in something else just because I don't like it.

However, just because it is meaningless to talk about the "why" of the axioms in scientific terms, there may very well be an explanation for them in other non-scientific models. Of course, these models do not have the properties of a scientific model, but I'd be cautious to call them nonsense since science does not have an adequate answer either.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Dec 25 2007, 10:21 PM
I would very much like to debate the nature of science with you Klaus but i will leave it for a few days. Merry Christmas one and all! :)

It seems that I am already busy enough with Jeffrey :lol:. Have a nice christmas holiday!
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
klaus - As a way out of relativism on "fundamental" issues, let met re-post my links on ethical realism and naturalism: "Here is a brief and inadequate summary of moral realism, the view that moral judgments are true or false: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

And here is a brief and so-so description of ethical naturalism (the view closest to mine):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism"

I posted those above, but as an edit after you replied. There is a long history of reflection on the issue of ethical objectivity, that your discussion glosses over.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Dec 25 2007, 10:41 PM
Hmmm ... most religions claim that they are "true" not just 'productive'. Revelation by God and all that. Few religious believers will accept that their views are merely "designed" to make people "satisfied". Moreover, you have the Bishop Butler problem - religion would not satisfy, unless believed to be ontologically true, independently of being satisfying. Few people say, 'Heaven does not really objectively exist, but it makes me happy to pretend that it does."

I'd say that truth lies in the eye of the beholder :lol:

My own take on this subject is that reality defies a succint description. The world is what it is, and it cannot be explained using any finite descriptions. Hence I believe that all finite descriptions are not "true", but just coarse approximations of something that is beyond comprehension for a human brain.

P.S.: What exactly is the Bishop Butler problem?

Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 14