Originally posted by Ytse
Not at all. Just illustrating that there is an element of faith inherent in scientific enterprise (by that I mean not only the practical application of science but broad research and development).Ultimately we rely on inductive reasoning to go from specific propositions (that specimen of Cygnus atratus is black), to general ones (all Cygnus atratus are black). And that leads to the problem of induction. That we cannot justify the use of induction except via induction. Hume came to the conclusion that we must adopt "practical skepticism" to survive at all. This is the faith I am talking about.
I'm also trying to set up the idea that religion and science aren't opposites. And that they are generally in entirely different spheres. I'm saying that it is logical to say God sustains the universe and therefore inductive reasoning is justified (and although you could disagree that there is a God in the first place, Im not trying to mount an argument about that, just explaining what I'm getting at).
1) The problem of induction is something that people in ivory towers who don't want to waste their tenure worry about
2) the problem of induction is ingrained into modern statistical analysis, which is why we say that there is a margin of error, and we give the probability that members of a group will have an observed characteristic
3) faith by definition is counter scientific. It means to believe in the face of or in spite of contradictory evidence. Science on the other hand requires no faith. I do not need faith to know gravity or light. even if we accept that this induction problem is inherent in science, the fact remains that any evidence that supports this problem would HAVE to be incorporated into science. Science, by its nature, has no faith in a particular theory.
4) the only place where religion and science are not opposite is in the psychology of truth. I'll gladly explain to you why you think the things you think are true are, why you wont change your mind, and why certain things are more truthful to you than others, it is really my favorite field of science, but my experience is that people get really defensive when you start to break down their dualism.
5) God fails occam's razor. Why can't you just believe without having to misrepresent science? Shouldn't your faith be stronger than any of these follies of man?
Originally posted by inimalist
1) The problem of induction is something that people in ivory towers who don't want to waste their tenure worry about2) the problem of induction is ingrained into modern statistical analysis, which is why we say that there is a margin of error, and we give the probability that members of a group will have an observed characteristic
3) faith by definition is counter scientific. It means to believe in the face of or in spite of contradictory evidence. Science on the other hand requires no faith. I do not need faith to know gravity or light. even if we accept that this induction problem is inherent in science, the fact remains that any evidence that supports this problem would HAVE to be incorporated into science. Science, by its nature, has no faith in a particular theory.
4) the only place where religion and science are not opposite is in the psychology of truth. I'll gladly explain to you why you think the things you think are true are, why you wont change your mind, and why certain things are more truthful to you than others, it is really my favorite field of science, but my experience is that people get really defensive when you start to break down their dualism.
5) God fails occam's razor. Why can't you just believe without having to misrepresent science? Shouldn't your faith be stronger than any of these follies of man?
if you want...I can handle this. Its easier than lambasting him with multiple arguments at once...
Originally posted by inimalist
the problem of induction is ingrained into modern statistical analysis, which is why we say that there is a margin of error, and we give the probability that members of a group will have an observed characteristic
What is your point?
faith by definition is counter scientific. It means to believe in the face of or in spite of contradictory evidence. Science on the other hand requires no faith.
Accepting that induction works without being able to explain it isn't faith? And you must accept that for science to be useful at all.
God fails occam's razor. Why can't you just believe without having to misrepresent science? Shouldn't your faith be stronger than any of these follies of man?
How is Occam's Razor relevant here? Occam was a theist himself.
Originally posted by Ytse
Here's what I'm getting at:Science must assume that nature is uniform for it to work at all. For instance we can observe a million times that an apple falling from a tree will move toward earth rather than away from it. But can all of those observation tell us about the future?
We could reason that because falling apples have always been observed to act a particular way in the past that they will continue to act that way in the future. But now we're stuck with trying to justify the idea that the future will be like the past. Well, we could reason that in the past the future was always like the past so in the future it will also be like the past. But that's circular.
So, ultimately science calls upon us to abandon this "radical skepticism" for it to work at all. Now, that seems to be a bit internally incoherent to me. Science demands all sorts of rigor for knowledge to be validated but at it's very core is an assumption. And assumptions aren't very scientific.
Yep. For science to work, it relies on naturalistic assumptions (ie. gravity pulls everything down then, now, and in the future) supported by objective and verifiable studies on the subject matter, which makes scientific explanations superior to supernatural explanations.
Originally posted by Alliance
I'd prefer if you actually addressed me point by point.
Okay.
Thus you are placing the absurd specification that everything be able to be explained by science.
I never said "that everything [must] be able to be explained by science"
it has demonstrated as such. An Apple in China falls the same way as it does in Mexico.
I was using the falling apple to illustrate what inductive reasoning is and where it's limits lie.
Lets have a practical demonstratoin. Would you ever step off a cliff, or drink EtBr assuming you're not going to plumet to your death or develop cancers?
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying here. I am not saying that science isn't useful.
What is "radical skepticism"? Where are you pulling this from?
Philosopher David Hume advocated practical skepticism over radical skepticism. A brief definition:
Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.
Originally posted by Ytse
I never said "that everything [must] be able to be explained by science"
Originally posted by Ytse
I was using the falling apple to illustrate what inductive reasoning is and where it's limits lie.
Originally posted by Ytse
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying here. I am not saying that science isn't useful.
Then what are you trying to say?
Originally posted by Ytse
Philosopher David Hume advocated practical skepticism over radical skepticism. A brief definition:Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.
And what is science other than the seaching of proof? Thats the concept of the scientific method.
Besides...you're using the ideas of an 18th century philospher to critique a science that is much more recent. If this method is valid, there is clearly some disjunction.
Originally posted by Ytse
Not in a theistic worldview.((lame response perhaps, but it's just as much an argument as yours))
😉
Actually, it is lame, because your worldview presumes that everyone has the smae faith, which they do not. So no, you really don't have an argument there.
A scientific approach simply capitalizes on the fact that we all inhabit the same world.
Anywhay, you are clearly creating an abstraction and not actually analyzing concepts.
Originally posted by Alliance
Then why must science be explained by science? Thats right, it shouldn't be.
I kind of feel like I have to keep battering down strawmen.
I responded to essentially the same kind of comment by inimalist. I never claimed that science itself has any such burden, but that science ultimately relies on a kind of faith to be useful.
Then what are you trying to say?
See above.
Besides...you're using the ideas of an 18th century philospher to critique a science that is much more recent.
What're you saying?
your worldview presumes that everyone has the smae faith
Umm, no?
A scientific approach simply capitalizes on the fact that we all inhabit the same world.
What does that even mean?
**** you.
Originally posted by Ytse
Why don't you tell me why science is successful then? It certainly cannot justify itself.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
..the point all along has been that science itself can not justify it's own existence..so based on this, how can we accept anything as scientific?
Originally posted by Ytse
Not in a theistic worldview.((lame response perhaps, but it's just as much an argument as yours))
😉
Was finally able to read some of these theistic worldview sites and boy do they blow!
Specified complexity!
God is the First Cause!
God is Infinite!
God is beyond comprehension!
BS
Anyway, the theistic worldview (ie. to generalize, the stance that a powerful supernatural being caused all things to be) relies on subjective and unreliable supernatural explanations (god did this, god did that, god is capable of this and god is capable of that) which is waaay inferior in terms of use and explanatory power, to the objective and verifiable scientific explanation than science offers.
Originally posted by Ytse
...that science ultimately relies on a kind of faith to be useful.
What you may be referring to, with regard to science and faith, is the validity of the reality map science offers. In this sense, I would agree with you.
However, while faith may be involved regarding the validity of a scientific or religionistic POV, the latter is not reliable (certainly not to the same degree) that the former is, as evidenced by religion's inability to make testable predictions.
It is not for nothing that the scientific method is often described as "applied common sense."
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIn my opinion, a stalemate is enough not to believe he exists, I only beileve what can be proven, or has a probability of truth above 50%.
Science cannnot disprove the existence of God.
Religion cannnot prove the existence of God.Stalemate. Or at least it would be if it was possible to prove a negative without possessing omniscience.
Originally posted by Templares
Was finally able to read some of these theistic worldview sites and boy do they blow!
Who exactly are you arguing with here? You're quoting me but responding to some websites...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mindship
Science does not rely on faith to be useful. It is useful whether you have faith in it or not, as evidenced by its ability to allow prediction and control.
I'm saying it ultimately lies on faith in inductive reasoning. If one does not accept that induction is justifiable at the outset then science can have no use. The doctor wouldn't know which medicine to give because he couldn't know if it would continue to work as it had before. No buildings could be built because the workers couldn't know if the next steel beam would support like the previous one. Etc, etc.
Hume (and later Bertrand Russell) came to the conclusion that we have no grounds for accepting inductive inferences as rational. But that we needed to abandon such skepticism to survive at all.
However, while faith may be involved regarding the validity of a scientific or religionistic POV, the latter is not reliable (certainly not to the same degree) that the former is, as evidenced by religion's inability to make testable predictions.
I'm arguing that theism can justify the principle of induction and thereby support scientific enterprise.