| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2008 06:24:22 PM · #576 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I admire that you firmly hold your own opinion &/or beliefs. I'm not out to change your mind. It is interesting to me that some scientific break-through ideas came in a non-logical flash of understanding, like a leap of faith, or an apple falling on your head. The human mind's ability to believe first, & then to find the empiric evidence after, is fascinating to me. Would it help if I described science as a systematic way of believing based on direct personal experience? |
No, that is actually even worse. Our "direct personal experience" of the world would appear to indicate that the Earth is flat, the sun and stars orbit around the Earth, that the sun is a different kind of celestial body from the stars, that astronomical bodies are essentially static and unchanging, that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat, that objects fall at different speeds based upon their weight, that water is a homogeneous substance made up of only one type of matter, etc., etc., etc.
All of these things were considered true at one point or another, and the "truth" of these things carried religious connotations. Science looked for and found new information that showed these beliefs to be false. If science was truly as hostile to new information as you want to believe (using the word deliberately as "in the absence of evidence and presence of evidence to the contrary"), then the true nature of none of these things would have been discovered. Science would have said, "well the new information doesn't fit the status quo, so it must be false" and gone home. Instead, each advancement was able to show to other scientists the evidence for its adoption, and skeptical scientists were able to conduct the experiments and gather the evidence for themselves in order to confirm the new claims. Later scientists continue to think of new ways to test the claims, which either result in further confirmation or the establishment of a new, evidence based claim, for which skeptical scientists could conduct the experiments and gather the evidence... [rinse and repeat as necessary].
Notice that nowhere along this chain is it ever required for anyone to believe (put faith in an idea in the absence of evidence) in a proposition. The minute you ask for or demand belief in the absence of scientific inquiry, you have stepped out of the realm of science altogether.
People can develop hypotheses prior to looking for ways to test their hypothesis and test its validity, but if all they do is come up with the hypothesis and declare it to be accurate, then they haven't engaged in science. |
I'm picking up on a lot of faith in scientific inquiry & method as the one & only true way of understanding the external world, though. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 06:27:40 PM · #577 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I'm picking up on a lot of faith in scientific inquiry & method as the one & only true way of understanding the external world, though. |
Yup. It helps that, just like theory, faith has a variety of different meanings. Isn't language fun for twisting understandings to suit our purposes. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 06:34:33 PM · #578 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Would it help if I described science as a systematic way of believing based on direct personal experience? |
No, that is actually even worse. Our "direct personal experience" of the world would appear to indicate that the Earth is flat, the sun and stars orbit around the Earth, that the sun is a different kind of celestial body from the stars, that astronomical bodies are essentially static and unchanging, that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat, that objects fall at different speeds based upon their weight, that water is a homogeneous substance made up of only one type of matter, etc., etc., etc.
All of these things were considered true at one point or another, and the "truth" of these things carried religious connotations. Science looked for and found new information that showed these beliefs to be false. If science was truly as hostile to new information as you want to believe (using the word deliberately as "in the absence of evidence and presence of evidence to the contrary"), then the true nature of none of these things would have been discovered. Science would have said, "well the new information doesn't fit the status quo, so it must be false" and gone home. Instead, each advancement was able to show to other scientists the evidence for its adoption, and skeptical scientists were able to conduct the experiments and gather the evidence for themselves in order to confirm the new claims. Later scientists continue to think of new ways to test the claims, which either result in further confirmation or the establishment of a new, evidence based claim, for which skeptical scientists could conduct the experiments and gather the evidence... [rinse and repeat as necessary].
Notice that nowhere along this chain is it ever required for anyone to believe (put faith in an idea in the absence of evidence) in a proposition. The minute you ask for or demand belief in the absence of scientific inquiry, you have stepped out of the realm of science altogether.
People can develop hypotheses prior to looking for ways to test their hypothesis and test its validity, but if all they do is come up with the hypothesis and declare it to be accurate, then they haven't engaged in science. |
I'm picking up on a lot of faith in scientific inquiry & method as the one & only true way of understanding the external world, though. |
If you mean "faith" colloquially, in the sense of confidence in the proven ability of science and scientific inquiry to provide reliable, testable, and evidence-based answers, then yes. If you mean "faith" in the specific meaning as applied within a religious context, "belief in the absence of evidence," then clearly no.
You got mad at me earlier for wondering if you were just engaging in sophistry, but I'll just point out that being imprecise with language does not an argument make and it is a very disingenuous mode of debate.
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 18:58:38. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 06:54:04 PM · #579 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Thanks for the links. The first is not a photo of al electron but an article describing an image that is "the first-ever picture of a single molecular orbital." |
it is an article explaining how the image caught in the second link was taken.
Originally posted by pixelpig:
The pictures are only colored shapes on my screen. |
For someone who believes in omnipotent superbeings based on millennia old writings, you sure do have a high threshold for proof. Does it make it easier if you know that you could take an image of the same thing with the equipment used? If not, if even a photograph is unconvicing, I'm not sure how I could persuade you of the existence of anything beyond your direct line of sight...
Originally posted by pixelpig:
The effect of god or God on people seems (going by what I hear) fairly predictable, repeatable, & duplicatable. Do this or that & you are guaranteed a certain result. And so on. |
Strange â in my experience there appears to be quite a bit of divergence on even the very basics (like whether there is one god or thousands) let alone the detailed impact of one or more gods on peoples' everyday lives.
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Scientists can be as fanatical, as emotional, as any other person about their belief system being strong enough to use as a foundation for their life. I certainly mean no disrespect to anyone for their beliefs, for without them how could we go on? |
Indeed - âbeliefsâ that constantly prove universally true for all people. But then it is no wonder that they get a bit âfanaticalâ when someone tells them that the evidence that they are looking at is wrong, and better explained by the words of a person who heard voices a millennia or so ago.
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 18:55:42.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 06:57:38 PM · #580 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Would it help if I described science as a systematic way of believing based on direct personal experience? |
No, that is actually even worse. Our "direct personal experience" of the world would appear to indicate that the Earth is flat, the sun and stars orbit around the Earth, that the sun is a different kind of celestial body from the stars, that astronomical bodies are essentially static and unchanging, that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat, that objects fall at different speeds based upon their weight, that water is a homogeneous substance made up of only one type of matter, etc., etc., etc.
All of these things were considered true at one point or another, and the "truth" of these things carried religious connotations. Science looked for and found new information that showed these beliefs to be false. If science was truly as hostile to new information as you want to believe (using the word deliberately as "in the absence of evidence and presence of evidence to the contrary"), then the true nature of none of these things would have been discovered. Science would have said, "well the new information doesn't fit the status quo, so it must be false" and gone home. Instead, each advancement was able to show to other scientists the evidence for its adoption, and skeptical scientists were able to conduct the experiments and gather the evidence for themselves in order to confirm the new claims. Later scientists continue to think of new ways to test the claims, which either result in further confirmation or the establishment of a new, evidence based claim, for which skeptical scientists could conduct the experiments and gather the evidence... [rinse and repeat as necessary].
Notice that nowhere along this chain is it ever required for anyone to believe (put faith in an idea in the absence of evidence) in a proposition. The minute you ask for or demand belief in the absence of scientific inquiry, you have stepped out of the realm of science altogether.
People can develop hypotheses prior to looking for ways to test their hypothesis and test its validity, but if all they do is come up with the hypothesis and declare it to be accurate, then they haven't engaged in science. |
I'm picking up on a lot of faith in scientific inquiry & method as the one & only true way of understanding the external world, though. |
If you mean "faith" colloquially, in the sense of confidence in the proven ability of the scientific method to provide reliable, testable, and evidence-based answers, then yes. If you mean "faith" in the specific meaning as applied within a religious context, "belief in the absence of evidence," then clearly no.
You got mad at me earlier for wondering if you were just engaging in sophistry, but I'll just point out that being imprecise with language does not an argument make and it is a very disingenuous mode of debate. |
I mean "faith" in the sense of confidence that the truth revealed by scientific method is the only truth there is about the external world. You do argue like a true believer, too.
[eta]For the Record, I find it strange that some of you are concluding that I am a person of faith, apparently based on my opinion that science is a belief system. For people of science, having no evidence to go on, that is truly wierd.
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 19:09:16. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 07:05:15 PM · #581 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
If you mean "faith" colloquially, in the sense of confidence in the proven ability of the scientific method to provide reliable, testable, and evidence-based answers, then yes. If you mean "faith" in the specific meaning as applied within a religious context, "belief in the absence of evidence," then clearly no.
You got mad at me earlier for wondering if you were just engaging in sophistry, but I'll just point out that being imprecise with language does not an argument make and it is a very disingenuous mode of debate. |
I mean "faith" in the sense of confidence that the truth revealed by scientific method is the only truth there is about the external world. You do argue like a true believer, too. |
Well, I have seen no evidence that there are truths about the external world that are not fair game for scientific inquiry. Are you taking the position that there are some things that science should not seek to understand, that certain questions are sacred and that science should ignore them? Or, are you taking the position that there are things about the external world that are better explained by religion or some other non-evidence-based belief? |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 07:12:33 PM · #582 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
If you mean "faith" colloquially, in the sense of confidence in the proven ability of the scientific method to provide reliable, testable, and evidence-based answers, then yes. If you mean "faith" in the specific meaning as applied within a religious context, "belief in the absence of evidence," then clearly no.
You got mad at me earlier for wondering if you were just engaging in sophistry, but I'll just point out that being imprecise with language does not an argument make and it is a very disingenuous mode of debate. |
I mean "faith" in the sense of confidence that the truth revealed by scientific method is the only truth there is about the external world. You do argue like a true believer, too. |
Well, I have seen no evidence that there are truths about the external world that are not fair game for scientific inquiry. Are you taking the position that there are some things that science should not seek to understand, that certain questions are sacred and that science should ignore them? Or, are you taking the position that there are things about the external world that are better explained by religion or some other non-evidence-based belief? |
I'm taking the position that an open, inquring mind is good. I'm taking the position that no system of thought or belief can explain everything available to the human experience. I'm taking the position that too much faith results in hardening of the mental arteries. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 07:13:42 PM · #583 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I mean "faith" in the sense of confidence that the truth revealed by scientific method is the only truth there is about the external world. You do argue like a true believer, too. |
Most people with a scientific bent would say that science gives them the best possible explanations based on the evidence, not "the truth".
Ignoring this I'll agree with you. Scientists trust their senses to provide them with evidence about the world. It is a fairly basic tenet of faith - that your senses are broadly reliable.
If you start from the premise that you cannot trust your own senses, then no evidence is reliable beyond "I am". Not a very productive philosophy, but I guess that if you want to believe in the supernatural then it might be the only way to rationalise life.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 07:15:26 PM · #584 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Better question is why doesn't religion revise its tenets and beliefs when presented with overwhelming evidence (that is, measurable, observable, and testable evidence) that those tenets are false or misguided? |
A couple of examples might be helpful for me to clearly understand exactly your meaning. Specifically, I am aware of much archeological testing that has resulted in huge transformations in scriptural thought. One example is the past representation of the Philistines as backward peoples (from the story of Samson), yet modern archeology is protraying them as actually an advanced people over their Israelite counterparts. The Dead Sea Scrolls are another example of illumunation gained from scientific work in translating ancient texts/messages. These add to the understanding. Your sepcific examples would be helpful for me to more clearly understand your point. |
A quick and easy one:
Early Christians firmly believe that the Earth sat at the center of the universe, which rotated around it. There was very clear evidence to the contrary by the middle of the last millenium to refute this worldview, but religion rejected this evidence as heresy and brutally sanctioned any who dared to voice support or advocate further inquiry. It was only after the evidence against the Earth-centered universe became so overwhelmingly known as to make the religious belief laughable that religion abandoned this view.
Another:
Until the germ theory of disease was discovered, religious belief dictated that illness was caused by sin -- a physical manifestation of spiritual corruption. Even now, despite the mountains of evidence as tothe physiological and perfectly material mechanisms involved with bacterial infection, viral infection, cancer, etc. many believers and faiths hold to the idea that physical illness is caused by spiritual sin. Some faiths and believers take this to the extreme length of refusing all medical treatment as being sinful as well.
edited to give Copernicus (and all modern astronomers) the credit they deserve |
What I read from your examples are instances where the rulers/decision makers of the governing church held views that were in contradiction to scientific evidence of the time. Likewise, some proponents of some christian denominations today (Jehovah's Witnesses I believe) hold that blood transfusions are against thier belief structure. I read that you believe that these are examples of religion's shortfalls.
My point differs in that in my examples, scientific research (namely archeology) assisted in a clearer understanding of the Holy Scripture. Your examples do not to me domonstrate a relationship to scripture as much as they show the shortfall of man. You simply show that illogical person's can embrace a logical faith and thereby make it illogical. It is no different with any philosophy. I'm certain you could cite examples (at least I could) of illogical scientists who embraced a logical theory and forced an illogical conclusion. That does not make all scientists (especially the ones that agree with me) any more all illogical than your examples make all scripture a contradiction of science.
Do illogical conclusions find their way into denominational dogma - sure, but certainly you are not claiming that science is exempt - are you?
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 07:40:16 PM · #585 |
[quote]Most people with a scientific bent would say that science gives them the best possible explanations based on the evidence, not "the truth".
Ignoring this I'll agree with you. Scientists trust their senses to provide them with evidence about the world. It is a fairly basic tenet of faith - that your senses are broadly reliable.
If you start from the premise that you cannot trust your own senses, then no evidence is reliable beyond "I am". Not a very productive philosophy, but I guess that if you want to believe in the supernatural then it might be the only way to rationalise life. [/quote]
Well, if I start from the premise that my only direct knowledge of the world comes from information gathered by my 5 senses & processed by my brain, then even the conclusion that "I am" is iffy because the only information I have about the external world is always at least just slightly in the past. I feel no impulse to find a rational explanation for it all. But I enjoy reading/learning about the various ways others have found what seems to them to be an explanation for it all. I feel pretty good that the information I've gathered w/my 5 sense has kept me alive, healthy, & productive so far. As far as I know, I've done no harm. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 07:46:37 PM · #586 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Well, if I start from the premise that my only direct knowledge of the world comes from information gathered by my 5 senses & processed by my brain, then even the conclusion that "I am" is iffy because the only information I have about the external world is always at least just slightly in the past. |
Yes - you cannot prove the existence of an external world, nor that you existed at any moment in the past. The only thing of which you can be sure is that by thinking "you are" in the immediate present.
If you choose to rely on your senses, why wouldn't you accept empirical evidence (meaning evidence that you can sense through your senses)?
If you choose to be sceptical about things that are outside the scope of your senses, why would you believe in a supernatural being?
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 08:17:22 PM · #587 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Well, if I start from the premise that my only direct knowledge of the world comes from information gathered by my 5 senses & processed by my brain, then even the conclusion that "I am" is iffy because the only information I have about the external world is always at least just slightly in the past. |
Yes - you cannot prove the existence of an external world, nor that you existed at any moment in the past. The only thing of which you can be sure is that by thinking "you are" in the immediate present.
If you choose to rely on your senses, why wouldn't you accept empirical evidence (meaning evidence that you can sense through your senses)?
If you choose to be sceptical about things that are outside the scope of your senses, why would you believe in a supernatural being? |
Most of the time, accepting empirical evidence works out very well--but I still like to question it. Remember what it was to use your eyes for the first time, or to suck on a slice of lemon for the first time, or any of the first time experiences of a very young human? Your parents were there to tell you how best to relate to it all. Do you ever wonder what you would've made of it by yourself, if you'd lived to think about it? As to the supernatural--if I can't sense it, doesn't mean it's not there. I can't even see light. I'm interested, w/questions. Why would I limit what I think about to only those things I can pick up on w/my senses? What about that moment of certainty, with my finger on the shutter release, when I know I'm in the right place at the right time? There is no scientific method that's going to get me to the right place at the right time, that I know of. People who talk/write like they limit their life to stuff that can be proved by the scientific method are very strange to me. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 09:10:41 PM · #588 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My point differs in that in my examples, scientific research (namely archeology) assisted in a clearer understanding of the Holy Scripture. |
Utter nonsense. When archaeologists find evidence of a lost city or name mentioned in the Bible, all it shows is that the authors incorporated real names and places in their stories (as authors commonly do). It would be similar to regarding the city of London and the name Wendy as supporting evidence for the truth of Peter Pan.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Scientists trust their senses to provide them with evidence about the world. It is a fairly basic tenet of faith - that your senses are broadly reliable. |
Oh, there's considerably more to it than that. Scientists are a skeptical lot, and often DON'T trust their own senses. That's why peer review and confirmation are so important. Through technology we can detect much more than our limited senses, too. We can send up a satellite to observe that the earth isn't flat, we can use telescopes to show that not everything revolves around the earth, we can photograph scenes in infrared light, we can image ultrasound, we can use microscopes to see a protozoan, and so on. Science proved the existence and characteristics of atoms long before we could actually see them. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 09:17:15 PM · #589 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
When archaeologists find evidence of a lost city or name mentioned in the Bible, all it shows is that the authors incorporated real names and places in their stories (as authors commonly do). It would be similar to regarding the city of London and the name Wendy as supporting evidence for the truth of Peter Pan.
|
But you only believe that Peter Pan didn't exist. You can't prove it. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 10:22:40 PM · #590 |
I've been doing some iteresting reading. It seems an orbital is not an electron. "...atomic orbitals are the possible quantum states of an individual electron in the electron cloud around a single atom..."
[eta]"The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says - loosely - that you can't know with certainty both where an electron is and where it's going next. (What it actually says is that it is impossible to define with absolute precision, at the same time, both the position and the momentum of an electron.)"
This is entertaining //www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXN9r6tPgHU
So, I still have not even seen a picture of an electron. Much less an actual electron.
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 22:27:02. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 10:43:24 PM · #591 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
So, I still have not even seen a picture of an electron. Much less an actual electron. |
Nor are you likely to given their size and speed. You won't ever see a photo of a black hole either (for obvious reasons), but lack of photography does not equal lack of empirical evidence. |
|
|
|
04/15/2008 12:54:01 AM · #592 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
So, I still have not even seen a picture of an electron. Much less an actual electron. |
Nor are you likely to given their size and speed. You won't ever see a photo of a black hole either (for obvious reasons), but lack of photography does not equal lack of empirical evidence. |
What would you consider to be empirical evidence of an electron? Electronic data storage, maybe? Batteries? |
|
|
|
04/15/2008 01:38:57 AM · #593 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
So, I still have not even seen a picture of an electron. Much less an actual electron. |
Nor are you likely to given their size and speed. You won't ever see a photo of a black hole either (for obvious reasons), but lack of photography does not equal lack of empirical evidence. |
What would you consider to be empirical evidence of an electron? Electronic data storage, maybe? Batteries? |
Turn on the light. |
|
|
|
04/15/2008 08:35:42 AM · #594 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Turn on the light. |
You know, when I started studying electronics, not so long ago really, electrons didn't flow down wires. The holes where electrons could potentially go migrated along the wires and the electrons essentially stayed put. Some time about the first year I was studying at University, all of the current flow equations flipped around, positive signs became negative and suddenly electrons were flowing down wires. I still have some text books that talk about conventional current flow. |
|
|
|
04/15/2008 08:52:23 AM · #595 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
What would you consider to be empirical evidence of an electron? |
Ionization, static, the fact that electron microscopes work, and direct experimentation:
"The discovery that the electron was a subatomic particle was made in 1897 by J.J. Thomson at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University, while he was studying cathode ray tubes. A cathode ray tube is a sealed glass cylinder in which two electrodes are separated by a vacuum. When a voltage is applied across the electrodes, cathode rays are generated, causing the tube to glow. Through experimentation, Thomson discovered that the negative charge could not be separated from the rays (by the application of magnetism), and that the rays could be deflected by an electric field. He concluded that these rays, rather than being waves, were composed of negatively charged particles he called "corpuscles". He measured their mass-to-charge ratio and found it to be over a thousand times smaller than that of a hydrogen ion, suggesting that they were either very highly charged or very small in mass. Later experiments by other scientists upheld the latter conclusion. Their mass-to-charge ratio was also independent of the choice of cathode material and the gas originally in the vacuum tube. This led Thomson to conclude that they were universal among all materials." |
|
|
|
04/15/2008 10:16:25 AM · #596 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Turn on the light. |
You know, when I started studying electronics, not so long ago really, electrons didn't flow down wires. The holes where electrons could potentially go migrated along the wires and the electrons essentially stayed put. Some time about the first year I was studying at University, all of the current flow equations flipped around, positive signs became negative and suddenly electrons were flowing down wires. I still have some text books that talk about conventional current flow. |
What! You and your fellow acolytes and priests (students and teachers) didn't rise up and decry the heresy of the new doctrine? But we all know that science is hostile to new information and that it shuns and blackballs those who dare to suggest alternatives based upon newly discovered evidence. [/sarcasm]
Message edited by author 2008-04-15 10:18:08. |
|
|
|
04/15/2008 10:40:46 AM · #597 |
In other news today
Any thoughts on either side of the divide? |
|
|
|
04/15/2008 11:19:49 AM · #598 |
Looks like a parenting and custody issue -- parents using the kid to work out their own problems with each other. Doesn't really have anything to do with the coexistence of science and theology. |
|
|
|
04/15/2008 12:31:54 PM · #599 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Looks like a parenting and custody issue -- parents using the kid to work out their own problems with each other. Doesn't really have anything to do with the coexistence of science and theology. |
This does... sort of. :-P |
|
|
|
04/15/2008 12:54:41 PM · #600 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Looks like a parenting and custody issue -- parents using the kid to work out their own problems with each other. Doesn't really have anything to do with the coexistence of science and theology. |
This does... sort of. :-P |
Oh, if only it were that easy. :)
Message edited by author 2008-04-15 15:47:06. |
|
