Science and Theology, the sequel

04/09/2008 08:33:53 PM · #351

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

EDIT: I understand they altered the equations, but it still does not lead to any testable hypothesis.

Agreed - an interesting hypothesis but one for which it seems difficult to identify a test. My point was more along the lines that it is possible to come up with a rational hypothesis that crosses the barrier without falling into the quantum foam, plus a rational hypothesis might give rise to predictions that could be tested (though by someone more clever than me).

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

04/09/2008 08:34:41 PM · #352

Originally posted by Gordon:

have you never heard of theoretical physics before, or do you just not think it is science ?

Theories typically need to be testable, but models of the operation of the world can be useful, even when they are not provable.
If you ever manage to make a phone call with a cell phone, you are using technology based on unimplementable and unprovable physical models.

Certainly I would be the last to argue that non-scientific avenues of study are not useful. Without fully understanding what you mean about the cell phone I'd have to call BS. If the technology is unimplementable and unprovable, how are the cell phones working? and how do you know it's working through these models?

EDIT: I'll state that a little clearer. If the technology is "unimplementable" how is it being implemented in a working cell phone? If the technology is "unprovable" how are you proving the cell phone is an example of such a technology?

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 20:40:18.

David Ey

Nikon D80

04/09/2008 08:39:34 PM · #353

Originally posted by Matthew:

..... hopefully common sense.

There is a God. Creator of all things.

Originally posted by Matthew:

..... Again, hopefully this is still not beyond common sense.

04/09/2008 08:41:32 PM · #354

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My only point is there are questions Science is not designed to answer. You can argue whether 'where did we come from?' is one of them, but I don't doubt such questions exist. "What is our purpose?" makes no sense with regard to the Scientific Method yet we cannot ignore the question because it is asked thousands of times every day.

Science may not be designed to answer philosophical questions, but neither is the Bible designed to answer scientific or historical ones. Science can pretty much tell us that we ultimately came from exploded stars, but by that point you're already so far beyond any sense of "we" that the philosophical aspect is moot.

04/09/2008 08:50:34 PM · #355

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My only point is there are questions Science is not designed to answer. You can argue whether 'where did we come from?' is one of them, but I don't doubt such questions exist. "What is our purpose?" makes no sense with regard to the Scientific Method yet we cannot ignore the question because it is asked thousands of times every day.

Science may not be designed to answer philosophical questions, but neither is the Bible designed to answer scientific or historical ones. Science can pretty much tell us that we ultimately came from exploded stars, but by that point you're already so far beyond any sense of "we" that the philosophical aspect is moot.

You'll get no argument from me that Religion is not capable of answering scientific questions. I'm surprised you'd think I'd say something like that.

I don't remember how you answered #2 (I think you said there could be). Shutterpuppy is contending that Science can answer everything. At least that's what I took away from his answer.

04/09/2008 08:58:44 PM · #356

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't remember how you answered #2 (I think you said there could be). Shutterpuppy is contending that Science can answer everything. At least that's what I took away from his answer.

I agree that science might eventually be capable of answering all that is answerable, but I'll bet Shutterpuppy would agree that not every question has an answer and that simply offering an answer to such a question (with nothing to back it up) isn't really an answer.

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 21:01:26.

04/09/2008 09:29:16 PM · #357

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by Matthew:
..... hopefully common sense.

There is a God. Creator of all things.

I see - everything is a consequence of god. No other explanation ever required. How very dull. I would find that an incredibly depressing thought if I thought it true. What would be the point of life...?

04/09/2008 09:38:41 PM · #358

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't remember how you answered #2 (I think you said there could be). Shutterpuppy is contending that Science can answer everything. At least that's what I took away from his answer.

I agree that science might eventually be capable of answering all that is answerable, but I'll bet Shutterpuppy would agree that not every question has an answer and that simply offering an answer to such a question (with nothing to back it up) isn't really an answer.

If the implication behind "back it up" is something within the Scientific domain, then I disagree. Philosophy has its own set of rules which allow for assumptions and derives a rationally logical conclusion. The assumptions do not have to be provable in a scientific sense and can still provide useful answers. Think morals and ethics.

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 21:39:17.

04/09/2008 09:56:28 PM · #359

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

f the implication behind "back it up" is something within the Scientific domain, then I disagree. Philosophy has its own set of rules which allow for assumptions and derives a rationally logical conclusion.

No, I'm referring to theist "answers" to the very questions you fault science for not answering. "God created everything" is not a rationally logical conclusion. It's just the grand claim of an unknown author in a book of unknown origin, with nothing to back it up other than belief in the same book making the claim. Absent that text, you would have no concept of the claim, and might believe a different god or multiple gods created everything (among other possibilities) with equal conviction... as people have done throughout history.

04/09/2008 10:14:28 PM · #360

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:
have you never heard of theoretical physics before, or do you just not think it is science ?

Theories typically need to be testable, but models of the operation of the world can be useful, even when they are not provable.
If you ever manage to make a phone call with a cell phone, you are using technology based on unimplementable and unprovable physical models.

Certainly I would be the last to argue that non-scientific avenues of study are not useful. Without fully understanding what you mean about the cell phone I'd have to call BS. If the technology is unimplementable and unprovable, how are the cell phones working? and how do you know it's working through these models?

EDIT: I'll state that a little clearer. If the technology is "unimplementable" how is it being implemented in a working cell phone? If the technology is "unprovable" how are you proving the cell phone is an example of such a technology?

The theoretical underpinnings are unimplementable, untestable. They involve filters where the responses take infinite time, or the behaviour goes backwards in time. Yet, those same theories are still used to design and implement circuits that make phones work. Similar to your idea that mathematical models of time prior to the universe 'isn't science'. It is science, it just maybe isn't a testable theory, just like we can't physically prove that Infinite Impulse Response filters actually have infinite response times, other than theoretically. Yet the calls still get through.

04/09/2008 10:50:09 PM · #361

Originally posted by Gordon:

Well, if you want to call that Science, than you pull in a ton of other "untestable" theories as potentially being Science as well. I don't know how you can a priori consider one a scientific hypothesis and not another (say Intelligent Design as an example). It sounds like you are using the term merely to name ideas that fit your worldview.

Can you provide wiki references to these theories? I always love a good read. I still don't quite believe that the theories are unimplementable and yet show up in technology we use every day.

04/09/2008 10:57:51 PM · #362

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:
The theoretical underpinnings are unimplementable, untestable. They involve filters where the responses take infinite time, or the behaviour goes backwards in time. Yet, those same theories are still used to design and implement circuits that make phones work. Similar to your idea that mathematical models of time prior to the universe 'isn't science'. It is science, it just maybe isn't a testable theory, just like we can't physically prove that Infinite Impulse Response filters actually have infinite response times, other than theoretically. Yet the calls still get through.

Well, if you want to call that Science, than you pull in a ton of other "untestable" theories as potentially being Science as well. I don't know how you can a priori consider one a scientific hypothesis and not another (say Intelligent Design as an example). It sounds like you are using the term merely to name ideas that fit your worldview.

Can you provide wiki references to these theories? I always love a good read. I still don't quite believe that the theories are unimplementable and yet show up in technology we use every day.

It is mathematics. Plenty of theoretical mathematics is very provable yet untestable in our current world. Theoretical physics is similar.

Nonlinear systems are another fine example. Similarly much of the stochastic behaviour of quantum mechanics, is often by definition, unprovable. Calculations in non-euclidean domains would also be odd, yet useful. Same with most n-dimensional systems. Theories don't have to be provable in the real world to be provable in a perfectly valid way, mathematically.

If there are provable mathematical underpinnings to ID, then you could well bundle them into the same pile. I haven't seen a rush of proofs for ID published though. There is a big difference. IIR filters are summarised on this wikipedia page.

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 22:59:25.

04/09/2008 11:00:56 PM · #363

This is from the theoretical physics page and may indicate you are misapplying the term to whatever phenomenon you are describing (I've yet to read the filters page):

"A physical theory is a model of physical events and cannot be derived from axioms. A physical theory is different from a mathematical theorem; physical theories model experimentally observed reality, and provide predictions which can be verified by new observations."

EDIT: OK, I read the page. Obviously a bit over my head, eh? That's not going to help me, but I'll fall back on the wiki page for Theoretical Physics which repeatedly talks about theories being "verified by new observations". Your ideas may be purely mathematical which traditionally has been associated with philosophy rather than science. By this I certainly don't mean that mathematics is not used in science, but the advancement of mathematics is done not through the scientific method but through the means of systematic reasoning resulting from basic axioms.

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 23:13:52.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

04/09/2008 11:07:25 PM · #364

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Who said anything about 'physical theories' ?

You could also look in to the application of the fourier transform and the design of non-causal systems These are all basic components of standard physics courses and electronics design, yet constantly deal with non-realisable systems or unprovable physical theories in the real world. It's all science. You are the one that claims it wasn't, or that ID is comparable.

Non-causal or anticipatory systems do depend on future input. Note: It is not possible to physically realize a non-causal system operating in "real time". However, from the standpoint of analysis, they are important for two reasons. First, the ideal system for a given application is often a noncausal system, which although not physically possible can give insight into the design of a derivated causal system to accomplish a similar purpose. Second, there are instances when a system does not operate in "real time" but is rather simulated "off-line" by a computer.

Similarly a theoretical model that extends to before the Big Bang could be similarly provable and useful. To think 'that's not science' just shows a lack of understanding of what's going on.

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 23:16:07.

Canon EOS-60D

04/09/2008 11:07:44 PM · #365

Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy. ;)

Teehee...sorry...just watched JFK a few weeks ago and that was fresh on my mind with all the physics talk. Carry on!

04/09/2008 11:13:06 PM · #366

Originally posted by Gordon:

Similarly a theoretical model that extends to before the Big Bang could be similarly provable and useful. To think 'that's not science' just shows a lack of understanding of what's going on.

I was editing my post when you typed. See above about math.

Here's from wiki on "Science": In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

So I would contend that the way you are using "Science" is not consistent with the way it is typically used on these threads. We can call what you are talking about "science", but we cannot confuse it with the science of "the scientific method". Many theistic theories are discarded immediately as not being the science of "the scientific method". What you are talking about would necessarily need to be discarded as well under that requirement.

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 23:16:06.

04/09/2008 11:21:46 PM · #367

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Similarly a theoretical model that extends to before the Big Bang could be similarly provable and useful. To think 'that's not science' just shows a lack of understanding of what's going on.

I was editing my post when you typed. See above about math.

Here's from wiki on "Science": In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

So I would contend that the way you are using "Science" is not consistent with the way it is typically used on these threads. We can call what you are talking about "science", but we cannot confuse it with the science of "the scientific method". Many theistic theories are discarded immediately as not being the science of "the scientific method". What you are talking about would necessarily need to be discarded as well under that requirement.

Oh think you just need to read the next paragraph

Mathematics, which is sometimes classified within a third group of science called formal science, has both similarities and differences with the natural and social sciences.[2] It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods.[2] Formal science, which also includes statistics and logic, is vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the physical and biological sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws,[2] both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).

So to discount a model, just because you can't touch it, as not being science, is far from the normal usage or operation of the scientific method. Coming up with an 'I believe' for the underpinning of a theistic theory is far from having a formal scientific proof for a theory. If you think they are equivalent then these conversations are much further apart than I understood. The method of proof still exists, unlike in theistic theories which end up with hope or wishful thinking as the underpinning, in place of proof of one sort or another.

If you still want reading material on cell-phones, Hilbert spaces are pretty commonly used in the design, too. These formal scientific proofs and theories have a wide range of applications in your day to day life, yet are never realizable.

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 23:22:44.

04/09/2008 11:44:37 PM · #368

Lol, what were we talking about again? Sometimes I lose why we're arguing. Once again though, I don't contend for a second that mathematics isn't important to science.

Ah yes, we were talking about questions like "what's before the Big Bang" and whether Science can answer them. Ok, for the sake of time, I give. (Actually I don't quite, I still contend that "Science" (meaning the Scientific method) cannot answer that.) BUT, we can move on to what I later figured was a much clearer example; the question, "What is our purpose?" Clearly that is a question of importance to us and one, again, that I don't think Science (even mathematics) can answer. Philosophy can attempt to tackle it. Whether you find the answers satisfactory would be up in the air, but still answers could be fathomed. Morality and ethics are also realms best dealt with outside of Science.

Message edited by author 2008-04-09 23:48:27.

04/10/2008 12:16:57 AM · #369

who are we ?

04/10/2008 06:15:37 AM · #370

Originally posted by Gordon:

who are we ?

Good speaker - very interesting. Thanks.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/10/2008 06:48:27 AM · #371

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Similarly a theoretical model that extends to before the Big Bang could be similarly provable and useful. To think 'that's not science' just shows a lack of understanding of what's going on.

...Here's from wiki on "Science": In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. ...

You may be interested in another wiki page, which is quite well written, on the philosophy of science.

When science is referenced in these threads, it is usually all lumped together and treated as a single "thing". However, there are lots of ways of working in a scientific fashion, and some of these are more persuasive than others.

Most people should agree that issues of morality and ethics are too abstract for scientific treatment.

I would ask an associated question: when you talk about there being a god, do you think of that god as being literal interventionist in an observable fashion (eg parting the waters of the red sea, creating sound waves in the form of human speech whilst taking the form of a burning bush, taking the form of liquid gold in order to impregnate a virginal princess), or is he more of an invisible influence (giving you confidence, comfort, inner peace, etc?)?

It seems to me that claims of an interventionist god fall into the realm of a god that is observable and could be proven by the application of scientific enquiry.

If god is not interventionist, then he is totally undetectable and the matter is purely philosophical. A great subject for debate, but not one for scientific enquiry.

The problem that I have is that all of the personal testimony is of god operating in a non-interventionist manner. However, I seem to be asked to believe in an interventionist god *without* the expectation that it should be capable of being tested.

Flash

Nikon D700

04/10/2008 09:42:20 AM · #372

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

As an atheist, I would much rather have a Christian religion that emphasize works, or at least treats works and belief equally, rather than an exclusive or predominate emphasis on belief. The person who does good for the wrong reasons is still doing good.

"Works" has been a point of contention for many (both in and outside). The best way to describe the compatibility of works with faith, is that faith is the catalyst by which works are done. Since the "heart" is what is judged (according to scripture), the physical works are not the measure of a "good" vs "bad" believer, thus works are not what earns one salvation (aka a place in God's pressence). Rather it is "faith" in God's mercy that gets rewarded. As a matter of consequence (like any condemned whose been pardoned), works would likely follow as a result.

Works are not required, they simply follow as a matter of intent on the part of the believer, when the message is internalized into the heart.

The relationship of works and faith can be difficult to grasp. It is ultimately easier to judge works - peer to peer (or even as an adversary).

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/10/2008 10:27:24 AM · #373

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
I would be interested to know about our other senses.

Etheric (aka 6th sense) or sometime referred to as "womens intuition". An energy type sense that is photographable (in keeping with the photography site application). It essentially radiates about 3' from the centerline of the torso. Those practitioners of some of the fighting arts or sutdents of warrior mindsets, acknowledge the existence of this aura or force. It is sometimes referred to as the "voice" that predicts a catastrophe or bad experience for an individual. Some claim to have a "knowledge" when a terrible event has ocurred to a loved one or close friend. This is often attributed to the Etheric sense. Some believe (as I do) that all possess it, however some are more "in tune" with its messages. It is also believed that one can become more astute to it by becoming more aware of its pressence. Like any sense, it can be overridden and dull over time.

left on page 3, came back and it grew another 10 pages. Lots more reading to do to catch up.

Oy... and here I was just a little bit ago referring to you as a "paragon of reasoned debate." Welcome back to Thunderdome. ;)

Intuition, as it turns out is pretty real phenomenon, if not at all supernatural. Pretty decent book review of "Blink."

Can't get on the boat with you on auras, though. One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge

That is more than a little funny. Interesting about the aura thing. That's certainly a new one on me. I always thought intuition was the result of the subconscious mind putting things together and evoking a feeling of sorts. What scientific proof is there of this aura? (I'm sure you will find it pretty ironic- me asking for scientific proof) I don't have a relationship with any aura. I don't think I can get on the boat with the aura theory either.

My original reference to the word "aura" in this specific sense was merely a direct reference to the photographable "light" of this energy (which is why I married it with the word "force"). The evidence of it is in the documented lab controlled photos. Any other implications or use of the term is outside my intent.