Belief In Science
Wheeee
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">Why?</div> I'll weigh in with my opinion on this later.
Initial observations: as Descartes (and many other philosophers) have said, we cannot be sure that our senses are not decieving us. Not only that, but empyrical science assumes a set of premises (even Russell & White's 60+ page proof that 1+1 = 2 had some basic premises) that we are not sure apply to this universe. Therefore, why should we as reasonable people believe in empyrical science?
note, this discussion is intended to be read literally, there are no hidden agendas in it, although it is intended to be a parallel to the "Why one believes in God" topic.
*edit* and please don't point to Occam's Razor, because it's such a weak tool that it serves practically no purpose other than to reiterate the fact that we don't know whether any explanations are equivalent, nor do we know which one is simpler. In fact, I'm pretty sure that philosophically if one explanation and another have equivalent outcomes, they are in fact isomorphic (one and the same).
*edit again*
Please post your reasons (after you post your opinion)
*edit once again*
It's probably good for me to define the term "science" so we don't get into petty semantic debates - In the most general terms, I am speaking about science as an organized scheme of categorizing and describing natural phenomena and/or approximating the behavior of the universe as we know it through empyrical observations and data analysis.
*edit for grammar*
Initial observations: as Descartes (and many other philosophers) have said, we cannot be sure that our senses are not decieving us. Not only that, but empyrical science assumes a set of premises (even Russell & White's 60+ page proof that 1+1 = 2 had some basic premises) that we are not sure apply to this universe. Therefore, why should we as reasonable people believe in empyrical science?
note, this discussion is intended to be read literally, there are no hidden agendas in it, although it is intended to be a parallel to the "Why one believes in God" topic.
*edit* and please don't point to Occam's Razor, because it's such a weak tool that it serves practically no purpose other than to reiterate the fact that we don't know whether any explanations are equivalent, nor do we know which one is simpler. In fact, I'm pretty sure that philosophically if one explanation and another have equivalent outcomes, they are in fact isomorphic (one and the same).
*edit again*
Please post your reasons (after you post your opinion)
*edit once again*
It's probably good for me to define the term "science" so we don't get into petty semantic debates - In the most general terms, I am speaking about science as an organized scheme of categorizing and describing natural phenomena and/or approximating the behavior of the universe as we know it through empyrical observations and data analysis.
*edit for grammar*
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Carbon dating.
Is the world really millions of years old ? Why ? We have no real conclusive reason to believe so since carbon dating cannot be accurate because it is relative to other objects, since we have no beginning point.
Discuss.
If I remember there are four forms of knowledge
Emperical
Authoratative
Logical
and uhh...help me out here Intuative?
Carbon dating.
Is the world really millions of years old ? Why ? We have no real conclusive reason to believe so since carbon dating cannot be accurate because it is relative to other objects, since we have no beginning point.
Discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Carbon dating is as accurate as the price a desperate car salesman gives.
It's Intu<i>i</i>tive.
Science is defined as, literally, systematic knowledge. So it fails at the sacred levels, be it religion and philosophy. It constricts itself to the empirical, operating by assimilating the unknown to the known. The reverse: by discanting the known, is both one of the hallmarks of science (discanting Ptolemy's earth-centered system) and problematic (doubting the universe, atomic theories). Naturally, doing both and calling both science presents some problems.
Paradoxes also pokes holes in science. More famous examples are here: <a href='http://www.wordsmith.demon.co.uk/paradoxes/' target='_blank'>http://www.wordsmith.demon.co.uk/paradoxes/</a>
Naturally, some of these don't make sense on the logical level, but science unfortunately can offer no remedies (partly because its logic has caused them).
Sorry for posting after another, but this quote particularly riled me. Philosophy does NOT suck. It answers those very questions and provides those very supports to that which science and religion do and sometimes can not.
Philosophy is of two kinds: theoretical attempts of understanding, like science; and the means of a spiritual catharsis, like religion. Philosophy is related to science and religion for they all hunt for some noble goal of man, be it wisdom, knowledge, or the sacred (awe). However, the goals of science are not like those of philosophy and the unyielding dogma and beliefs of religion are too constraining for the openness and questioning required for philosophy. Philosophy is an undoing of assumptions and truths, the questioning of answers and the act of questioning itself, something science avoids and even contradicts in its quest for assimilating the unknown into the known. Religion makes a commitment to better a world found confusing by figuring it out, finding some truth to cling to.
Nietzsche said, “Convictions are prisons.” Philosophy means to do away with such convictions and prisons. Philosophy frees the mind because it questions the limits that binds humans and instills fear by either what is different or what is discomforting. By questioning, we overcome former limits, it changes us. Self-overcoming is not remaining trapped in one’s limits, but creatively using these limits to become new.
Philosophy allows us to marvel and wonder about the world which we take for granted, or many times overlook in the rush of our lives. That wonder is a powerful lure on humans which drives us to question and inquire. Herein lies the foundation of science and religion.
Thank you.
Edit: Addendum, please see sig.
Please please please stop using carbon dating in terms of millions of years. The most generous estimates to reasonable accuracy of carbon dating puts it at about 50000 years. If you want to talk dating methods going back millions, please use potassium argon dating instead.
Carbon dating works within 50,000 years of the death of the animal/plant. Don't believe me? Look it up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kind of silly to throw out something like Occam's Razor since we are talking philosophically... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you even read my refutation of it?
Please please please stop using carbon dating in terms of millions of years. The most generous estimates to reasonable accuracy of carbon dating puts it at about 50000 years. If you want to talk dating methods going back millions, please use potassium argon dating instead.
Carbon dating works within 50,000 years of the death of the animal/plant. Don't believe me? Look it up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You beat me to it.
Doubting science I believe to be a sign of ignorance. If you're doubting science, you might as well not even be alive, because science is basically a system of learning through deductive reasoning, something our brains are specially evolved to handle.
First off, there is nothing wrong with doubting science. Science is constantly updated with "new" facts. Old ideas are thrown out, new ones are accepted. I seriously doubt many things about science. Be very wary of accepting anyones hypothesis. The general public is VERY susceptible to believing all scientists follow the scientific method and are completely unbiased. The Kinsey report is a perfect example.
My personal gripe with science is the theory of evolution, but hey. Doubting logical reasoning as valid is I believe ignorance. However you have to avoid the trap of believeing that anything that cannot be proved logically cannot exist. If something exists that cannot be explained with science, then your mind will already be shut to that idea. A mind shut to an idea cant be good.
The scientific method is inductive, meaning that small observations are generalized. Such reasoning always leads to probabilities. Science is by definition unable to produce indubitable truths.These truths are reserved for schools of thought which operate deductively, such as mathematics, philosophy or theology.
Therefore, when a scientist talks about topics beyond the scope of the method he uses professionally, such as morals, the origin of the universe or the afterlife, he must remember to take off his scientists' hat, so as not to discredit his profession.
Philosophy is of two kinds: theoretical attempts of understanding, like science; and the means of a spiritual catharsis, like religion. Philosophy is related to science and religion for they all hunt for some noble goal of man, be it wisdom, knowledge, or the sacred (awe). However, the goals of science are not like those of philosophy and the unyielding dogma and beliefs of religion are too constraining for the openness and questioning required for philosophy. Philosophy is an undoing of assumptions and truths, the questioning of answers and the act of questioning itself, something science avoids and even contradicts in its quest for assimilating the unknown into the known. Religion makes a commitment to better a world found confusing by figuring it out, finding some truth to cling to.
Nietzsche said, “Convictions are prisons.” Philosophy means to do away with such convictions and prisons. Philosophy frees the mind because it questions the limits that binds humans and instills fear by either what is different or what is discomforting. By questioning, we overcome former limits, it changes us. Self-overcoming is not remaining trapped in one’s limits, but creatively using these limits to become new.
Philosophy allows us to marvel and wonder about the world which we take for granted, or many times overlook in the rush of our lives. That wonder is a powerful lure on humans which drives us to question and inquire. Herein lies the foundation of science and religion.
Thank you.
Edit: Addendum, please see sig. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My original statement was a bit hasty. I just have a problem with philosophy that questions science and God in an unreasonable way, pseudo-intellectual philosophy (commonly seen in "The Matrix"). Well thought out philosophy doesn't bother me.
But I do find Nietzsche obnoxious. I only read this one book titled <i>Basic Writing of Nietzsche</i> translated by Walter Kaufmann. The only section I enjoyed was "Seventy-five Aphorisms from Five Volumes". I read it a few years ago (and a few years before that). Maybe I'll read it once again. I welcome any suggestions on what to read written by Nietzsche or general philosophy.
Of course keep in mind the writer does have a Christian bias, but he is pretty good in pointing out the pros and cons of each philosophy.
EDIT
Just thought I'd point out the greatest part of Christian literature - the better it is the cheaper it gets. You know a books really good if they are giving em out for free <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
forgive me for saying, but i dont see that point in that arguement, where is it going, what are you getting at.
i mean, that argument aside, science pretty much proves itself everyday, everywhere you go and everywhere you look.
I just find it rather pointless to try to denounce science and everything that has been gained from exploring these natural occurances all because 'we might not even exist'.
perhaps high end sciences, we may have reason to doubt, in that we dont really understand the processes used, and are pretty much accepting it because some guy in a lab coat says its so. But can you really doubt things like electricity with a line like; "perhaps the light bulb isnt on, we only 'think' its on".
forgive me for saying, but i dont see that point in that arguement, where is it going, what are you getting at.
i mean, that argument aside, science pretty much proves itself everyday, everywhere you go and everywhere you look.
I just find it rather pointless to try to denounce science and everything that has been gained from exploring these natural occurances all because 'we might not even exist'.
perhaps high end sciences, we may have reason to doubt, in that we dont really understand the processes used, and are pretty much accepting it because some guy in a lab coat says its so. But can you really doubt things like electricity with a line like; "perhaps the light bulb isnt on, we only 'think' its on". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen Melatonin,
That philosophy is interesting to think about, but ultimately its completely useless for anything then food for thought.
I tried to say the same thing in a smaller sentence.
"Doubting logical reasoning as valid is I believe ignorance."
Initial observations: as Descartes (and many other philosophers) have said, we cannot be sure that our senses are not decieving us. Not only that, but empyrical science assumes a set of premises (even Russell & White's 60+ page proof that 1+1 = 2 had some basic premises) that we are not sure apply to this universe. Therefore, why should we as reasonable people believe in empyrical science? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright, don't know that your senses are true? There's a simple test. Do not simply view your own observation, but see if the facts you observed in your origional observation hold up in all cases. Do you think you're holding a 3 foot long stick in your hand? Try to poke something that's 3 feet away, if you are successful in your poking, congrajulations, you have a 3 foot long stick in your hand! And if you can't even believe that, then ask yourself, what is the purpose of questioning existence? When I observe the things around me, even if they are not truly real in the philosophical sense, they hold purpose for me, they affect me in many way, and they move in predictable and measurable ways. So even if when science explains something they don't explain what something REALLY is, that's not the point of scince. The point of science is to explain how and why things act in the manner they do. If science gets the wrong answer, but it is still correct in all manners of application and calculation, it is still the right answer for all intents and purposes, so even if it is technically incorrect it doesn't matter since it fits the scenario.
The goal of science is to describe the universe accurately with as few assumptions as possible. What more rational system could you ask for?
I believe my senses because I assume what I am seeing is what's actually happening. Even though what I'm seeing could be some illusion, why would I assume otherwise? Where would be the practical benefit in believing that a falling rock is really a fluffy bunny prancing on a meadow? You have a point in that since our senses may not be accurate, and science is built around our senses, science may not be accurate; but it doesn't matter because the "real" accuracy obviously has no effect or benefit over our "inaccurate" senses.
It's like being in tune in a chamber group. The group just needs to tune to each other; everyone might be 23 cents sharp, but what's the harm in that? Why tune to 440 hz? For all we know, a "perfect" concert A might be 446.2 Hz, but we tune to 440, and we're perfectly fine.
1) This is not a discussion about religion, it is about science and its merits.
2) I would trust the existence of a god, (not necessarily the Judeo-christian one) because our minds, which are the only things we possess, are flawed and imperfect. If you claim your mind is perfect, that's a different story. *edit* In fact, Descartes did arrive at the conclusion that there was a God, a "higher good" if you will, through a series of logical deductions (although the arguments are a bit...presumptive, I guess).
3) Let's get back on topic here.
However, doubting science as a whole, doubting the scientific method, trying to dispute scientific findings with unsubstantiated claims... that doesn't really help anyone.
Edit. I trust science when it is a <i>hypothesis</i>, which is <i>accurately</i> tested and proved. Evolution is about as much accurate science, as a wild conspiracy is as much accurate history. Sure they would be possible if every single assumption was true.
Edit. I trust science when it is a <i>hypothesis</i>, which is <i>accurately</i> tested and proved. Evolution is about as much accurate science, as a wild conspiracy is as much accurate history. Sure they would be possible if every single assumption was true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't think the gradual change in the genes and physical structure of an organism over time can be recorded? Well 1)there's DNA testing on organisms that exist today and are shown to change in a way that supports evolution 2)there's a thing called "The fossil record" and 3)drawing logical conclusions that fit the scenario presented is an accepted scientific practice, it doesn't matter if something is technically correct (Which evolution is, I believe), as long as it fits the scenario and explains our observations it can be considered correct for drawing new conclusions.
Disputing evolution simply on the grounds that it can't be reproduced on a large scale in a lab is silly. To the extent that the theory of evolution CAN be tested, it's held up quite nicely - we're able to observe small-scale evolution within our own lifetimes, we're able to run simulations, and we've able to observe what look like the effects of evolution in the fossil record. Heck, most of what Darwin did in his research was to travel around and try to analyze different animal species in the context of the theory of evolution, and he used that to build his case.
If you want to dispute evolution on scientific grounds, come up with a scientific process that yields better explanations. Otherwise, be content muttering to yourself in a corner. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
You can say "Evolution is true"
"Example 1 gives evidence that my suggest that is possible, Example 2 further could also possibly allow for evolution to be true and example 3 is just common sense, even though it is completely subjective"
I honestly don't see how it's any different from people making up conspiracies. Because they also give examples of things that would leave possible evidence. Just think of the moon landing conspiracy, there are some points that could be used to say that the moon landing didn't happen, if presented my scientists everywhere it would certainly seem true, but does that make it true ?
Until evolution is observed <i>first-hand</i>, then I will accept it, until then, it's nothing but speculation even if well organized.
edit. Dr.D I can drop something and see that gravity is true. Now, what if you were not able to do that ?
And Samwise, I thought drawing logical conclusions was <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=philosophy' target='_blank'>philosophy.</a> ?
"Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=empirical' target='_blank'>empirical</a> methods. "
"Empirical :
Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine. "
Now, same with evolution. There is evidence up the wazoo and good logical reasoning behind everything. Of course, the evidence could have been planted by evil time traveling pixies, but the more plausible explanation is that the theory of evolution is more or less accurate. In fact, evolution is far MORE plausible than moon landing conspiracy theories, because evolution actually CAN be reproduced in a laboratory, albeit on a short time scale, and there isn't any really good reason to suppose that if it works on a small scale, it wouldn't work on a large scale. Not to mention there's WAY more evidence supporting evolution than either moon landing hypothesis - tons and tons and tons of fossil records, developmental clues in both living and extinct species... it goes on and on.
Sure, it's not 100% proven scientific fact. But it's sufficiently substantiated that I'd be willing to put it at 99.999%. And that's about as sure as I am of most things.