Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 03-09-2003, 08:02 PM

Here's the problem and why you'll never improve the situation by qualifing termonology. In order to make a meaningful statement about anything, any "fact" you must know that fact exhaustively and you must know every other fact exhaustively because facts do now exist by themselves.

In science (I should always qualify "naturalistic/materialistic science, but that is annoying), you'd have to know all the properties of matter, motion, etc. and all the possible interactions of those things in relationship to each other throughout space and time including absolute knowledge of the observer.

Such knowledge is clearly impossible. Therefore science can make no meaningful statements about the nature of things. Honest statements would have to be so qualified that they would be worthless.

As I said above, if this argument applies to me, then it applies to you, and your "honest statements" about existence must likewise be qualfied to the point they become worthless.

Science generates models, not actualities or "facts". These models are flexible, and tend to evolve as new evidence arises and new analysis is performed.

Mageth · 03-09-2003, 08:07 PM

That is, of course, unless it begins with assumptoins about the nature of reality which it cannot possibly know apart from an authoritative communication from some outside the system.

One more time: if science is so limited, so are you in evaluating the "authoritative communication from some[thing] outside the system." You use your cognition to read, hear, understand and/or interpret what you call "authoritative communication" (I'm assuming the bible). You make assumptions about the nature of reality based on that "authoriative communication." But, get this, according to you, you can't trust your own intellect in evaluating that "authoriative communication" without another level of "authoritative communication" from outside the system, and so on, and so on to the point of absurdity.

theophilus · 03-09-2003, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Then that "straman" is named Carl Sagan. Sagan, probably the best known scientist of the last quarter of the 20th century was in the habit of making distinctly absolute statemtns:"The Cosmos is all that has ever been and all that ever will be."

To be correct, the quote is "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

And it's still a strawman. Are we talking about Sagan or the scientific method here?

Sagan is in this case making a philosophicalstatement, not a scientific claim. I assume the statement is based upon his understanding of science and perhaps other factors. In any case, he was not speaking for Science in general. Further, Sagan was more respectful of religion than many other scientists.

All human enterprises, including science, operate on underlying assumptions. The scientific method does not operate in a vacuum. It is based on certain assumptions, unprovable, about the nature of reality, the reliability of sense perception and intellectual processes as interpreters of data. Therefore, every scientist operates as a philosopher and every scientific statement has a philosophical aspect.

Further, if the cosmos is defined to include every imaginable entity, then the statement is trivially true. Not to mention a tautology: "everything there is is everything there is."

I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is. To be precise, it is neither trivally true nor a tautology unless you assume that all "things" share an ontological unity. In order for Sagan to make this statement he had to assert (and did) that there is no "mind" above matter. That human intellect and consciousness are merely matter in motion. In doing this, he destroyed the foundation of any notion of right and wrong or truth or falsehood - matter is not moral.

Some other philosophical statements Sagan made:

"I believe that the extraordinary should be pursued.
But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Well, since his "beliefs" are just a function of his brain (matter in motion) they are no more meaningful than the rantings of a madman. After all, who's to say which of them is correct?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (this seems to contradict the qoute you mentioned).

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." (I like this one. If you're a fan of Sagan's, perhaps you should take it to heart. Of course, it could be read to cut both ways.)

Of courese, it cuts neither way. Statements about being "far better" and "delusion" are meaningless from someone who claims that thought is just a function of matter and has no bais for asserting that his matter is functioning correctly while someone else's is not.

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."

I think I affirmed this in my statement about the inherent philosophical nature of secular science.

Scientists present themselves and their method as the sole discoverers of and custodians of truth.

A generalization, and obviously not true for all scientists[/b]

How could it be otherwise. If all knowledge is restricted to naturalistic/materrialistic interpretation and science is the means to such knowledge, then that is the unavoidable conclusion, stated or otherwise.

Creationism is not "science" because it is not conform to their naturalistic/materialistic assumptions about the nature of reality.

Creationism is not science simply because it does not conform to the scientific method. Science can only deal with reality by definition. [/B]

Ah, "reality by definition!" But what is reality, by definition? Scientists have no inherent knowledge of the true nature of reality.
Anyway, your statement is not true. If the essence of science is observation and interpretation, then creationism is as scientific as evolution. They work with the same data and there is no necessity of drawing evolutionary conclusions. If science is based on hypotheses, then creationism is as legitimately science as naturalism.

Philosoft · 03-09-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
I'm sorry, I don't recall saying "knowledge without revelation is a contradiction." I have said (and you'll need to read my posts for an explanation) that knowledge is impossible without revelation. Whitout some authoritative statements about the nature of reality, which can clearly not come through mere observation, no knowledge is possible.

Is it possible or not to have "knowledge without revelation"?

Quote:

Yet, people do have knowledge. HOw is that possible? It is because they operate on a Christian worldview even while denying it.

Why is the Christian worldview the only one that can provide knowledge? Is the Hindu worldview operating on the Christian worldview also?

Quote:

I hope that's a sufficient answer.

No, it isn't. All I see are a bunch of tautological assertions. It seems like what you're saying is, "The Christian worldview provides the only means for knowledge because it claims it provides the only means for knowledge."

theophilus · 03-09-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
That is, of course, unless it begins with assumptoins about the nature of reality which it cannot possibly know apart from an authoritative communication from some outside the system.

One more time: if science is so limited, so are you in evaluating the "authoritative communication from some[thing] outside the system." You use your cognition to read, hear, understand and/or interpret what you call "authoritative communication" (I'm assuming the bible). You make assumptions about the nature of reality based on that "authoriative communication." But, get this, according to you, you can't trust your own intellect in evaluating that "authoriative communication" without another level of "authoritative communication" from outside the system, and so on, and so on to the point of absurdity.

One more time, indeed. The fact that God's communication is mediated through and comprehended by my intellect does not establish the authority of that communication.

I accept its authority as the necessary pre-requisite for all knowledge, so I cannot prejudge it by some other standard.

Its authority establishes the trustworthiness of my experience, not the other way around.

The question is, how does your presuppositon, your own cognition, provide any basis for knowledge, seeing it cannot validate itself?

You must and do assume (unacknowledged) the truth of God's revelaiton as the standard of truth, or knowledge would be impossible. If it is otherwise, please explain how.

Philosoft · 03-09-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus

If science is based on hypotheses, then creationism is as legitimately science as naturalism.

Oh, dear.

Creation science, simplified (or, perhaps enhanced): Some being (with unknown and unknowable properties) poofed stuff into existence using some method at some undetermined time (maybe 6000 years ago, maybe 10 billion).

Seriously, if you can fill in any of these blanks using the scientific method, you will be regarded as some kind of magisteric demi-urge.

Shadowy Man · 03-09-2003, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Depending on how you define scientists and what you mean by talking to them, I guess I have.

I define scientists as people whose career it is to do science. People who are held to the standards of the scientific method. Whose work is put forward for all their peers to examine and critique.

Based on your crude understanding of how science is actually performed on a day-to-day basis, I don't think you've talked to many (if any).

Quote:

As I said, the rain sample was crude and simplistic, but the point is sound.

No it is not, because that's not how science is done.

Quote:

In actual practice, it would work something more like this.
Astronomers are trying to determine if a certain event occurred somewhere in the universe's distant past. They "know" that if this event took place, it would have left evidence of a certain kind, e.g., a "red shift." They train their telescopes in the direction where they think this event occurred and look for the "evidence." Finding the red shift (or whatever) they conclude that the event did in fact take place.

Well, measuring redshift is a relatively trivial thing to do. There is currently a theory that explains why the redshift is there. This theory explains many other things that astronomers see as well.

Quote:

Of course, this is all logical nonsense. In order to even have a probability of being true they would have to know at the outset that:
1. The evidence could only have been produced by their event.
2. That their event always produced such evidence.
3. That there are not other factors at work of which they are not aware.

And astronomers test these things all the time. There have been, and still are, different theories to explain things like redshift. We can test those theories, and their predictions, to get a more accurate picture of what is going on.

The laws of physics are not the universe itself. The laws of physics are a model of how the universe works. I will openly and gladly admit to that.

Quote:

I am always amused when there are announcements that scientists have "discovered" an new astronomic body. Upon reading the details, it is clear that they have discovered nothing. They have observed certain phenomenon which they associate with the behavior (they assume) of planets, etc., and conclude that it is the result of such a planet.

Well, for one, as Mageth points out, information gleaned from the press is not always an accurate representation of what the scientists themselves would actually say.

But for example, if you are referring to the "discovery" of extra-solar planets based on the effect their presence has on the wobble of the star around which they orbit, it's a pretty solid theory, and if you are able to come up with another theory that explains the data as well, feel free to forward it to any scientists working on the problem. In fact, when these "wobbles" were first discovered there was a lot of talk about what might be causing them. One option was an orbiting planet. Another was stellar oscillations. But from what we understand about stellar oscillations there would be other signatures. Those are not seen.

I don't really know what you are looking for. If you want me, as a scientist, to say that science can't "know" anything, I would ask you how you are defining the word "know".

We "know" that distant objects are redshifted with as much certainty that you "know" the stoplight is red. Maybe this "knowing" isn't good enough for your standards.

Do you believe that science has to "know" things in an axiomatic sense? Like you believe your god knows things.

Sorry, but science doesn't "know" things that way. It doesn't live up to your standard. But so what? Does it have to? Is it any more useless if it doesn't? Not knowing doesn't seem to be interfering with your ability to take full advantage of the benefits of science.

I mean really.. there's nothing about science that says your god can't exist. But if your god created the universe, it certainly created it in such a way that it works in a very systematic, comprehensible, repeatable, consistent manner that can be represented very accurately by the man-made creation of science.

Mageth · 03-09-2003, 08:39 PM

Ah, "reality by definition!" But what is reality, by definition? Scientists have no inherent knowledge of the true nature of reality.

Umm, obviously, for clarity, my statement should have been phrased as "Science, by definition, can only deal with reality." I thought what I was saying was clear, but I guess not...I guess divine revelation didn't work for you in this case.

Anyway, your statement is not true.

Why, certainly it is. Science, by definition, can only deal with reality!

If the essence of science is observation and interpretation, then creationism is as scientific as evolution. They work with the same data and there is no necessity of drawing evolutionary conclusions. If science is based on hypotheses, then creationism is as legitimately science as naturalism.

Creationism doesn't base its claims in any way on observation and interpretation of the "natural" evidence; it bases its claims on "divine revelation." So Creationism is not science. Further, Creationism claims no scientifically testable (or useful) hypotheses to explain what we see.

Mageth · 03-09-2003, 08:43 PM

One more time, indeed. The fact that God's communication is mediated though and comprehended by my intellect does not establish its authority.
I accept its authority as the necessary pre-requisite for all knowledge, so I cannot prejudge it by some other standard.
Its authority establishes the trustworthiness of my experience, not the other way around.
The question is, how does your presuppositon, your own cognition, provide any basis for knowledge, seeing it cannot validate itself?

One more time, you keep asserting that you "accept its authority as the necessary pre-requisite for all knowledge, so I cannot prejudge it by some other standard." I once again contend (and haven't seen you answer satisfactorily, and don't think you can) that you must use your cognition to perform the abovementioned "accepting". Therefore, you fall under the same limitations of cognition as you are charging us with. Simply put, your rational conclusions can't be trusted if our rational conclusions can't be trusted. You have no greater claim on "knowing" anything than we do.

theophilus · 03-09-2003, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Oh, dear.

Creation science, simplified (or, perhaps enhanced): Some being (with unknown and unknowable properties) poofed stuff into existence using some method at some undetermined time (maybe 6000 years ago, maybe 10 billion).

Seriously, if you can fill in any of these blanks using the scientific method, you will be regarded as some kind of magisteric demi-urge.

You shouldn't use the word "seriously" following such a silly statement.

I am not aware that ridicule is part of the scientific method. Any system that excludes certain conclusions at the outset, has no right to claim that it is on a search for truth or knowledge.

And that is exactly the situation. If evolution is only a tentative theory, as all scientific theories are by nature, why should scientists, in their quest for ultimate knowledge, resist the examination of alternate explanations? Is this common in scientific inquiry?

The creation hypothesis does not require any of the details you listed (derisively) above. It is only necessary to ascribe intelligence to a creator, not deity. It could have been accomplished by a higher lifeform, ontologically similar to ourselves (God is not ontologically similar).

No, what we have with evolutionary science is rather the nature of a religion. It is held as an article of faith, not as a scientific necessity. That is why there are adjustments made when aspects of the theory prove untenable, rather than a rejection of the theory.
The current state of affairs, vis a vis, the exclusion of the creation hypothesis from public school classrooms is identical to the situation surrounding the Scopes trial, except the players have changed places.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-09-2003, 08:02 PM	#141
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Here's the problem and why you'll never improve the situation by qualifing termonology. In order to make a meaningful statement about anything, any "fact" you must know that fact exhaustively and you must know every other fact exhaustively because facts do now exist by themselves. In science (I should always qualify "naturalistic/materialistic science, but that is annoying), you'd have to know all the properties of matter, motion, etc. and all the possible interactions of those things in relationship to each other throughout space and time including absolute knowledge of the observer. Such knowledge is clearly impossible. Therefore science can make no meaningful statements about the nature of things. Honest statements would have to be so qualified that they would be worthless. As I said above, if this argument applies to me, then it applies to you, and your "honest statements" about existence must likewise be qualfied to the point they become worthless. Science generates models, not actualities or "facts". These models are flexible, and tend to evolve as new evidence arises and new analysis is performed.

03-09-2003, 08:07 PM	#142
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	That is, of course, unless it begins with assumptoins about the nature of reality which it cannot possibly know apart from an authoritative communication from some outside the system. One more time: if science is so limited, so are you in evaluating the "authoritative communication from some[thing] outside the system." You use your cognition to read, hear, understand and/or interpret what you call "authoritative communication" (I'm assuming the bible). You make assumptions about the nature of reality based on that "authoriative communication." But, get this, according to you, you can't trust your own intellect in evaluating that "authoriative communication" without another level of "authoritative communication" from outside the system, and so on, and so on to the point of absurdity.

03-09-2003, 08:39 PM	#148
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Ah, "reality by definition!" But what is reality, by definition? Scientists have no inherent knowledge of the true nature of reality. Umm, obviously, for clarity, my statement should have been phrased as "Science, by definition, can only deal with reality." I thought what I was saying was clear, but I guess not...I guess divine revelation didn't work for you in this case. Anyway, your statement is not true. Why, certainly it is. Science, by definition, can only deal with reality! If the essence of science is observation and interpretation, then creationism is as scientific as evolution. They work with the same data and there is no necessity of drawing evolutionary conclusions. If science is based on hypotheses, then creationism is as legitimately science as naturalism. Creationism doesn't base its claims in any way on observation and interpretation of the "natural" evidence; it bases its claims on "divine revelation." So Creationism is not science. Further, Creationism claims no scientifically testable (or useful) hypotheses to explain what we see.

03-09-2003, 08:43 PM	#149
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	One more time, indeed. The fact that God's communication is mediated though and comprehended by my intellect does not establish its authority. I accept its authority as the necessary pre-requisite for all knowledge, so I cannot prejudge it by some other standard. Its authority establishes the trustworthiness of my experience, not the other way around. The question is, how does your presuppositon, your own cognition, provide any basis for knowledge, seeing it cannot validate itself? One more time, you keep asserting that you "accept its authority as the necessary pre-requisite for all knowledge, so I cannot prejudge it by some other standard." I once again contend (and haven't seen you answer satisfactorily, and don't think you can) that you must use your cognition to perform the abovementioned "accepting". Therefore, you fall under the same limitations of cognition as you are charging us with. Simply put, your rational conclusions can't be trusted if our rational conclusions can't be trusted. You have no greater claim on "knowing" anything than we do.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.