Keith Russell

Starboy: I think I understand your distinction. If there is evidence that is works it is an axiom, but if there is not it is dogma. Using your definition, science started out as dogma but has graduated to an axiom due to the evidence of its success.

Keith: Yeah, I think I can agree with that.

Starboy: Do you insist that what you call an axiom must be followed in order to claim what you are doing is science?

Keith: The above seems a really odd way to phrase things. The ‘axiom’ in question is the idea that reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth. I cannot think of a reason why someone, who chooses not to ‘follow’ this axiom, would still wish to call their endeavors ‘science’. Even proponents of ID claim to view reality as the arbiter of God’s truth, and thus they wish to claim that ID is science, and that reality corresponds to their understanding of the claims made about 'God'. They don’t intend to prove Scripture instead of reality, they want to prove that reality supports Scripture.

Starboy: If you did not follow it, then would what you did automatically be disqualified as science?

Keith: If you didn’t follow the axiom that reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth, then what would you follow, instead? Religious dogma? Blind faith? Wishes? Whims? Vain hopes? How would following any of those, allow one to claim that one is still ‘doing science’?

Starboy: If that is so, then wouldn't it be more than an axiom? Or would you allow people to skip the authority of nature part but still call it science?

Keith: No. ‘Science’, as I use the term, is the endeavor to discover the nature of existence, the 'truth' of reality. If one isn’t interested in finding out about reality, then why would one wish to use the term ‘science’ to describe one’s actions?

Starboy: I may seem to be going overboard, but I have a point to all this. There are a great deal of Christians out there that seem to think that skipping the authority of nature part is fine as long as they resort to the authority of god.

Keith: If someone openly acknowledges that one is skipping ‘the authority of nature part’, then there should be no question that one is not ‘doing science’. The question comes from the fact that many Christians seem frustrated by, and envious of, the successes of science. They cannot understand how science can discover so much about reality, and yet reveal so little about ‘God’. So, they actually believe that the 'bias' against 'God' that science seems to have, comes from the scientists, and not from reality. Accepting their 'dogma', they believe that reality, having been created by 'God', must support the existence of 'God'.

It isn’t that they abandon the authority of nature, but that they believe that an understanding of nature will reveal the ultimate authority of ‘God’. When nature doesn’t yield answers about ‘God’, they do begin to ignore some of nature’s revelations—but they certainly don’t acknowledge this openly.

Starboy: There is no way to argue with them because as far as they are concerned what is important is not how well creationism work in reality but how well it works with the bible. Not insisting that authority of nature is scientific dogma is exactly what is allowing them to get away with talking school boards into allowing creationism into biology classes. It happens because it is not clearly understood by people that authority to nature IS how science it done, no ifs, no buts, no maybes--in a word: science dogma.

Keith: I disagree. ‘Dogma’ is a heavily loaded word, and it usually works in favour of religionists. If you start calling ‘science’ a form of ‘dogma’, the theists will simply say ‘well, if science is just another dogmatic assertion, then on what basis do you reject our ‘dogma’?' They will--at this point rightly--ask, 'wouldn’t one ‘dogmatic assertion’ be just as valid, good, and/or useful as any other?'

But, science is not a ‘dogmatic’ assertion. The methods for doing science are objective, demonstrable, and self-validating. There are reasons why reality--and not the Bible, Koran, Tao, or any other mystical, spiritual, or supernatural claims—are the only valid basis for doing science.

Starboy: I would also like to add that if there is a comparison between science dogma and religious dogma, you could separate them by looking for the dogma that actually works.

Keith: Again, if ‘science’ actually works, there are reasons why it actually works, and those reasons can be known and understood. Once they are known and understood, why claim that ‘science’ is based on 'dogma'? Instead, explain that science is firmly supported by those reasons.

Starboy: This is also corroborating evidence that nature exists and god does not.

Keith: Again, if there is evidence, why claim that it is 'dogma'? 'Dogma' is never supported by 'evidence', to the best of my knowledge.

Starboy: You see, religious dogma has a bad name precisely because it doesn’t work.

Keith: That is why we call it ‘dogma’, and not ‘science’.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Starboy

Keith,

Our disagreements appear to be purely semantic. The problem is that the word dogma has a range of strength. It goes from weak to the strong, weak being what I would call science dogma and strong being religious dogma. For scientific dogma to persist all that is required is evidence. For religious dogma to persist all that is required is faith. There in lies the difference. The difficulty we have seen in this discussion is the broad range of meanings for the word dogma.

I started this discussion with the comment that it all depends on what you mean by the word dogma and it appears that is where the discussion will end.

Starboy

Keith Russell

Starboy, regardless, the word 'dogma' does carry a great deal of religious undertones.

I would never use the word 'dogma' in association with anything I view as 'scientifice', for the reasons I've already explained.

Keith.

Calvan

Starboy:

Assuming that you are right about semantics being the obstacle to agreement, then the solution must be sought in understanding what others are saying. (It is a shame, in my view, to fail to profit from a discussion because of the disregard for either denotative or connotative meanings being conveyed by others. In the interests of the pursuit of reality, it therefore behooves me to ensure that I understand what you are saying.
Wanting to not attribute meanings you don’t intend by providing feedback to obtain validation that I have correctly understood you, I offer the following validity checks.

Validity check:
You are saying the scientist prejudges that what happens in nature has a natural explanation. This prejudgment is therefore an act of prejudice or contains prejudice. Starboy, have I got your meanings right?

Validity check:
If while doing science the scientist comes up with a blank, the efficacy of his existing knowledge about scientific method kicks in making the scientist look at nature to find what is real. Starboy, have I got your meanings right?

Validity check:
I take it you are saying philosophers
(a) do not arrive at answers. They just keep on asking, and they
(b) have no means to understand the workings of nature, and unlike others scientists, they
(c) find no foundation from nature to guide their thinking and therefore have no scientific method, no meaningful success, let alone be compared to science.
Starboy, have I got your meanings right?

Thank you again, Starboy. No insult taken at all.

Validity check:
Philosophers, being as reality challenged as the religious, have no ability to pursue reality because they cannot explain natural events in natural terms. What they say therefore has no relevance in a discussion that is concerned with the pursuit of reality. Starboy, have I got your meanings right?

Validity check:
Science has weak dogma because it provides evidence whereas religion has strong dogma because it requires faith. Philosophy has no dogma at all because it requires neither faith nor evidence. Starboy, have I got your meanings right?

Calvan

Starboy

Hi Calvan,

Yes, to prejudge the source of the explanation is to be prejudiced.

When you are in a lab and the data is staring you in the face and you have no idea what could be the explanation for it, you will always look for natural causes. You look not just because it has worked in the past, but because if you proposed anything else you would be laughed out of the department. It would be like deciding to use Pepsi to paint a house. It is just inappropriate to consider anything other than natural explanations. What would you call a course of action that is mandated in such a fashion?

In order a) no, b) no, c) no.

I apologize if I did not make myself clear. If philosophy resorted to nature to resolve conflicts in philosophy then it would be science. It should be obvious to all that philosophy is not science. What I am saying is that science has nature as an objective authority with which to settle disagreements. Philosophy has no objective authority. What this results in is a historical deposit of philosophical ideas with no way other than intuition to sort them out. Objectively, one philosophical point of view is as good as another. So the best that people can do is pick a philosophy that suites them, appropriate or not.

I often see philosophers on this forum spend a great deal of time arguing about reality. Yet they are not troubled at all that they know next to nothing about reality itself. Please tell me this is not hilarious! It is something that could only happen in philosophy or religion.

Explaining things naturally is not what philosophers do. Philosophy has little relevance to a discussion of reality because most philosophers don’t know that much about reality in the first place. Philosophers are arm chair realists, scientists are soldiers of reality.

Not quite. Science dogma is weak dogma because it can be backed by evidence. Religious dogma is strong dogma because it requires faith. Philosophy may have dogma. It is my understanding that philosophical arguments are required to be logical. But it has no objective authority and thus anything goes.

Starboy

Keith Russell

Starboy:

What, IYO, would qualify as an objective authority'?

Keith.

Calvan

Hi Starboy,

Calvan: Validity check: You are saying the scientist prejudges that what happens in nature has a natural explanation. This prejudgment is therefore an act of prejudice or contains prejudice. Starboy, have I got your meanings right?
Starboy: Yes, to prejudge the source of the explanation is to be prejudiced.

Caalvan: Funk and Wagnalls says:

prejudice n. 1. A judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without thoughtful examination of the pertinent facts, issues, or arguments; especially, an unfavorable, irrational opinion. 2. The act or state of holding preconceived, irrational opinions. 3. Hatred of or dislike for a particular group, race, religion, etc. …-Syn. (noun) Prejudice, bias, partiality, and prepossession are compared as they denote an attitude of mind that interferes with fair judgment. Only prejudice is necessarily a term of opprobrium; literally, it signifies prejudgment without adequate hearing or consideration, but it is chiefly used to refer to a strong emotional bias. A bias is an imbalance of mind, an inclination in some direction that prevents a fair weighing of issues.

Starboy, I take it from your answer that you are going with the first part of 1. : “A judgment or opinion formed beforehand” as your meaning for prejudice. O.K. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
In my thinking, I employed the full meanings of 1. & 2. That is why I could not perceive your point of view.

Calvan: Validity check: If while doing science the scientist comes up with a blank, the efficacy of his existing knowledge about scientific method kicks in making the scientist look at nature to find what is real. Starboy, have I got your meanings right?
Starboy: When you are in a lab and the data is staring you in the face and you have no idea what could be the explanation for it, you will always look for natural causes.

Calvan: I agree.

But I have to ask, has the hypothetical you been using the scientific method prior to the point that he/she decides to look for natural causes?

Starboy: You look not just because it has worked in the past, but because if you proposed anything else you would be laughed out of the department. It would be like deciding to use Pepsi to paint a house.

Calvan: Starboy, Yes you do look just because it has worked in the past. Has this method not been demonstrated above all other methods by experience to be the only efficacious methodology? Is not looking for natural explanations the essence of scientific method? If you agree, would not looking for anything other than natural explanations be a deviation from the scientific method and common sense?

Starboy: It is just inappropriate to consider anything other than natural explanations.

Calvan: We seem to be agreeing. Progress!

Starboy: What would you call a course of action that is mandated in such a fashion?

Calvan: I can’t definitely discern what course of action nor the fashion to which you are referring. So I will assume the course of action you mean is abandoning the scientific method. To adapt such a methodology would not make any sense if one was doing science. Such an action would be turning one’s back on nature as the source of scientific discovery.

If I assume the course of action you mean is adopting the scientific method, I have to wonder what it is that you had been doing up to the point at which you decided to employ the scientific method? If you had been doing something other than the scientific method such as painting with pepsi, well, I have to agree and laugh. But I have trouble figuring out how or why such a starting point even got into the discussion. I have assumed that we are talking about a scientist and the scientific method. None of this discussion seems relevant to anyone else.

Calvan: Validity check: I take it you are saying philosophers
(a) do not arrive at answers. They just keep on asking, and they
(b) have no means to understand the workings of nature, and unlike others scientists, they
(c) find no foundation from nature to guide their thinking and therefore have no scientific method, no meaningful success, let alone be compared to science.
Starboy, have I got your meanings right?
Starboy: In order a) no, b) no, c) no.
I apologize if I did not make myself clear. If philosophy resorted to nature to resolve conflicts in philosophy then it would be science. It should be obvious to all that philosophy is not science. What I am saying is that science has nature as an objective authority with which to settle disagreements. Philosophy has no objective authority.

Calvan: Is not what we are doing philosophizing? And are we not employing the scientific method in the process? And are we not each a part of nature or the natural world or a part of the universe? And are we each not an authority? Do we not consult each other and ourselves? Is not one objective of the scientific method to arrive at objective assumptions or facts or axioms or whatever you want to call them? Are we not ourselves valuing and seeking objectivity above all else? Is not objectivity also antithetical to dogma? I would respond with a resounding yes to all the questions. What you say next indicates you have a very different view of what we are doing.
Starboy: What this results in is a historical deposit of philosophical ideas with no way other than intuition to sort them out. Objectively, one philosophical point of view is as good as another. So the best that people can do is pick a philosophy that suites them, appropriate or not.

Calvan: (Starboy, I admire and enjoy that you employ freedom to speak your mind.) You introduce the term “intuition”. (This may not be relevant to the discussion but over the years that I have observed my universe, that which has been demonstrated by not only the universe itself but by scientists in it to possess the most potential for truth is not my awareness or knowledge but intuition. I therefore think that intuition is the prime mover of most if not all scientific discovery. I perceive it as a very powerful scientific tool.)
I would suggest that philosophy employs much objectivity. One merely has to look at Principia Cybernetica at
<a href="http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/NUTSHELL.html" target="_blank">http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/NUTSHELL.html</a>
for substantiation. However, let us assume for the moment and for the sake of returning to the main issues that you are correct.
Starboy: I often see philosophers on this forum spend a great deal of time arguing about reality. Yet they are not troubled at all that they know next to nothing about reality itself.
Please tell me this is not hilarious! It is something that could only happen in philosophy or religion.

Calvan: My friend, I am such a person. I spend a great deal of time thinking about reality. (Understand, I am not taking this personally at all. I am simply stating fact as I understand it.) I am not troubled that I do not know more than I do. But I have an interest in discovering more than I have already. I may be re-inventing your wheel, but each new discovery for me, especially when it is discovered by what I perceive to be the scientific method, rather than bu indoctrination, is exciting and rewarding for me. And it is this kind of discovery that I find to be validated by the universe as I experience it much more than the indoctrination to which I have been subjected. I happen to consider that I am an authority about my own life experience. I consider my life experience an authority.

But perhaps it is hilarious! I am willing to look at your idea that what I do and philosophizing could only happen in philosophy or religion.

I have to tell you, I hate being compared to a religionist either in mental or intellectual process or content.


Calvan: Validity check: Philosophers, being as reality challenged as the religious, have no ability to pursue reality because they cannot explain natural events in natural terms. What they say therefore has no relevance in a discussion that is concerned with the pursuit of reality. Starboy, have I got your meanings right?
Starboy: Explaining things naturally is not what philosophers do. Philosophy has little relevance to a discussion of reality because most philosophers don’t know that much about reality in the first place. Philosophers are arm chair realists, scientists are soldiers of reality.

Calvan: Aren’t you being rather prejudicial when you call them “arm chair realists”. I am afraid I don’t know what a realist is to you. I know what it is to me but I suspect that does not come close to what you think it is. Perhaps I am demonstrating your point for you?
Calvan: Validity check: Science has weak dogma because it provides evidence whereas religion has strong dogma because it requires faith. Philosophy has no dogma at all because it requires neither faith nor evidence. Starboy, have I got your meanings right?
Starboy: Not quite. Science dogma is weak dogma because it can be backed by evidence. Religious dogma is strong dogma because it requires faith. Philosophy may have dogma. It is my understanding that philosophical arguments are required to be logical. But it has no objective authority and thus anything goes.


Calvan

Starboy

An objective authority is something having the power to influence thought or opinion and exists in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

For science objective authority is nature. For religion it is god. As for philosophy, as far as I can tell it is the intuition of man.

Starboy

Starboy

I do see that what we are doing collectively is philosophizing. What I personally hope to get out of it are hypotheses. I hope you do not mind, but I find that creating a tension of ideas allows me to better see things, and is a process of discovery.

Simply hypothesizing is insufficient in itself to being called the scientific method. The way one produces the hypothesis is unimportant. What is important is that the hypothesis is testable. This means that from the hypothesis one MUST be able to deduce statements that then can be tested objectively. An objective test is not only a test you can perform, but a test that anyone else could perform as well. The test is run and the results are compared to the predictions, if they match to reasonable agreement, then you may be on to something. The test is the crucial component of the method. In science the test is the appeal to the authority of nature. I call it an appeal because nature doesn’t always cooperate. Experimental science is very hard to do well. Any experiment is a messy thing indeed. There can be many alternate explanations to what is observed. Great care must be taken to identify and address as many as is possible. Those that can’t be addressed must be included in any report of the experiment. And that is just the half of it. Brilliant experimentalists are able to concoct experiments that examine only those things pertinent to the phenomena under examination.

The hypotheses that I have so far are:

Science – authority of nature
Religion – authority of god

I am beginning to form a tentative hypothesis of:

Philosophy – authority of intuition

These statements are about activities of man. So any predictions will be about the behavior of man. Experiments to verify the hypothesis must be conducted on man.

I do not have time to address all your observations and comments at this time. I hope this will do for now.

Starboy

Calvan

Thanks Starboy,
I enjoy your exchanges. Sometimes thinking about what you say is like eating candy. Other times it is like eating pomegranate.
Calvan

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Calvan ]</p>