Scientific Knowledge

Can you give an example of a "religious truth".....? They both share something rather important in common. Objectivity. And where there is a conflict between different "truths" what do we do?

RAZD, I have some questions about your statement: Who are "we"?What evidence do "we" have?What test methods do " we" have and how do you know what they show?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

In what sense do "we accept" them? What is the "context" you speak of? In what sense do they "work"?I would say that we accept our successful theories (i.e. the ones that make accurate and reliable predictions) as being accurate (but probably imperfect) descriptions and models of physical reality. Better approximations to reality than those theories or explanations which don't "work". Well why do they "work" more successfully than the alternatives unless they are more accurate descriptions of reality than the alternatives? More "correct" than the alternatives, if you will.When (for example) evolutionary theory says that humans and chimps share a common ancestor is this a statement about "what works" or are we actually saying (albeit tentatively) that this actually physically occurred? Does this explanation "work" better than (for example) the biblical literalist account because it is more correct?If your use of what "works" entails being a closer description to reality than those theories that don't "work" then I don't see how you are saying anything fundamentally different to me.

I did nothing of the sort. I simply gave you the opportunity to unambiguously clarify your position as to what the rational conclusion regarding the age of the Earth should be given that we have both a highly evidenced answer and a range of untestable alternative possibilities.More generally I am giving you the opportunity to clarify how it is that we can make evidence based conclusions regarding physical reality in the face of unevidenced but unfalsifiable/untestable alternatives. I am asking questions so that you can clarify your position. Can we at least try to put our differences aside and actually progress this by avoiding evasive or personally confrontational approaches? With that aim in mind here are the questions again:

1. Do you agree that objectively evidenced conclusions are far more likely to be correct than evidentially baseless ones (no matter how untestable these evidentially baseless propositions may be)?
   ​
2. If the answer to 1) is effectively "No" why do you think we bother to base our conclusions on objective evidence at all? What is the point?
   ​
3. I would say that it is very probable that the Earth is billions of years old and correspondingly very improbable that it was created omphamistically at some point in the relatively recent past. Does this make me a pseudoskeptic with regard to untestable omphalistic propositions?
   ​
4. What do you think the rational conclusion regarding the age of the Earth is?
   ​
5. How confident can we be that this rational conclusion is an accurate reflection of reality (i.e. the actual age of the Earth)?

There are no trick questions here. Just answer the above genuinely and the validity of your position should become clear to all. (AbE - Note the new list formatting!!) But what, if anything, does this evidence tell us about the actual age of the Earth? What conclusion regarding physical reality can we draw from the evidence you speak of?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The Adam and Eve story is a religious truth for some religious groups.The existence of a spiritual soul is a widely held religious truth. For some meanings of "objectivity." We argue (and sometimes we start wars).

Let me get this straight, we are now arguing over what constitutes knowledge? I am a pragmatist/empiricist. If Straggler drops his pen I do not KNOW it will fall to the desk, no more than I can KNOW anything. We cant KNOW. However, we can with confidence live our lives with the present KNOWLEDGE that there is order and predictabilty in the physical laws that matter seems to obey. David Hume deduced that our knowledge of reality is based on two things:Our empirical experience of existence, as of right now, the act of perceiving itself (in the present tense only).
Axioms, from which we could derive and conclude whatever we like about reality depending on what axioms we choose.
http://www.phy.duke.edu/.../Beowulf/axioms/axioms/node4.html

Is it a truth or is it believed to be true? Do you recognise that there is a difference at all? It is a widely held belief. In what sense is it a "truth" of any kind? Well what meaning of "objectivity" are you applying? In what sense is the existence of a spiritual soul objective? As I use the term the value of pi (for example) and the spectral line of hydrogen can be considered "objective" (that is why they are used by SETI Link) Nobody ever started a war about the value of pi or the spectral line of hydrogen.

Whether you call it "know" or something else you surely can tell the evidential difference between something like the predicted behaviour of a soon-to-be-dropped pen and (for example) the claim that there is an immaterial soul? Do you really claim no more "knowledge" regarding one than the other? Really? I agree. But that is because I consider objectively evidenced conclusions to be far more likely to be correct than evidentially baseless ones.On what basis do you have "confidence" that the physical laws "matter seems to obey" will continue into the future or that your memory of these laws is even based on reality rather than false memories of the type described by the 1 second universe proposition described in the OP? I am about to drop my pen "right now" - Tell me what you think it will do and what basis you make that conclusion? Is it really based on "right now"...? Or does it inductively rely on past experience? We can axiomatically create a mathematical model of the universe in which masses repel rather than attract each other. This model is entirely logically consistent and mathematically "true" in every mathematical deductive sense.But as a description of our universe, as a piece of physical science pertaining to our universe, it is fantasy bordering on gibberish.So your proposed axiomatic approach seems to have little relevance to investigating physical reality. Can you give a specific example of where you think this approach is justified outside of mathematics? (and why you think it is justified?)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Sigh! I said that it is a religious truth. I did not say that it is a truth.I have no interest in participating in a ridiculous inquisition conducted by Pope Straggler.That ends my participation in this subthread.

What you actually said (in typically ambiguous fashion) is that there are "many kinds of truth". Well if you want to be pointlessly all inclusive I suppose you could describe astrological claims as "astrological truths" and Tarot reading claims as "Tarot truths". In this sense religious claims are "religious truths"........But so what?Are you suggesting that all claims are equally "true"......?

Message 34Is that it? An acknowledgement?I give you the opportunity to tackle one of the great problems in the philosophy of science - Namely how we view objectively evidenced conclusions regarding reality in the presence of evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable alternatives....And all you do is "acknowledge this reply"....... Message 41This "approximation of reality" approach is very very much in line with my own "objectively evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than evidentially baseless propositions" approach - No?Verisimilitude by any other name...........

Should we evaluate a proposition based on it’s consequences? Or it’s source? I put it to you that the former results in inconsistencies whilst the latter is the only sane/rational approach. With that in mind consider the following propositions. PROPOSITIONS

Proposition1: The universe was created omphamistically at some point in the relatively recent past. E.g.last Thursday. Currently and going forwards there is no evidential way to distinguish between the universe that this proposition results in from one that we experience.

​

Proposition2: The universe was created fully formed 1 second ago with subtly different physical laws to the ones we falsely remember. Going forwards this will become evident. Some dropped pens might loop the loop instead of falling as expected, the Sun won’t rise tomorrow as anticipated, putting salt on your chips will result in elves appearing etc. etc. etc. But until we experience these differences there is no way to know what they will be.

​

Proposition3: There exists some etheral intelligent conscious entity that created the universe but which is now off existing in some supernatural and undetectable state.

​

So let us first consider the consequences of these propositions:

​

CONSEQUENCES
1) The consequences of Proposition1 are that we can say nothing about the past. What is the age of the Earth? Well the scientific evidence tells us that it is billions of years old. But if we take the omphalos hypothesis seriously the validity of this evidence is wholly undermined. Did species evolve or were they created? Again the scientific evidence is clear but the validity of this evidence is rendered useless by the omphalos proposition. Any scientific conclusions about the past (evolution of the universe, formation of stars, age of the Earth, origin of species etc. etc. etc.) are utterly pointless in the face of proposition1. We are necessarily rendered entirely agnostic about all past events. It seems (as some have hinted at here) that the only way out of this pickle is to assume (or state as some sort of an axiom) that scientific evidence will be taken as valid and that things like the omphalos hypothesis will be assumed to be false for the sake of practicality. But ultimately it’s just an assumption.

​

And if we are concluding things like the age of the Earth and the fact of evolution on a baseless assumption/axiom how can we complain when a creationist assumes (or takes as an axiom) the opposite view? A creationist who takes as an axiom that the bible is literally true and that anything which disagrees with it has either been misinterpreted or intentionally placed there to deceive us into ungodly conclusions has just as much validity as any other assumption/axiom. The creationist’s axiom is just as axiomatically valid as the scientific view. Both are just based on subjective assumptions. Oh dear.

​

2) The consequences of Proposition2 are even worse!! Proposition2 if taken seriously negates our ability to say anything about either the past or the future. The consequences of proposition2 are that we must be entirely agnostic about absolutely everything. From the motion of a soon-to-be-dropped pen to the taste of chicken via the colour of grass and whether or not the moon is made of cheese. Not a single conclusion we have ever come to has any validity at all. Unless again we assume that such considerations can just be ignored because they have to be for practical reasons. In which case the man who refuses to let go of his pen because he axiomatically assumes it will loop the loop and poke his eye out is just as axiomatically justified as any other conclusion.

​

3) The consequences of proposition3 are non-existent. If one is a disciple of the school of absolute agnosticism then there is no need to assume anything and you can just be agnostic without getting yourself into the sort of axiomatic/assumption based tangles that the previous two propositions result in. But if you are going to argue that the previous two unfalsifiable propositions can be rightfully assumed to be false (or axiomatically dismissed) how can you start yelling pseudoskeptic when this one is as well? It’s inconsistent isn’t it? But hold on!! There is another way.

​

SOURCE
Where did propositions 1, 2 and 3 originate from? If these things are as unknowable as they are defined to be how can anyone have any basis for putting forward such a proposition? And if there is no basis for such a proposition how can it be anything other than dreamed up by the minds of creative, intelligent beings prone to inventing such philosophical conundrums?

​

I put it to you that we don’t need to consider the consequences of the sort of evidentially baseless propositions above. I put it to you that those who preach the gospel of absolute agnosticism are so obsessed with evaluating the consequences of such propositions in terms of whether they are tested or not that they have lost sight of reality. I don’t need to treat the 1 second universe hypothesis as anything other than improbable nonsense because in the absence of any reason to think it even might be true I can be very confident indeed that it’s just made-up. That’s why I can drop my pen and KNOW (albeit with the degree of philosophical tentativity that ANY unfalsified notion demands) that it is going to fall to the ground rather than leap up and gouge my eyes out.

​

(**Straggler drops pen. It falls as expected**)

​

See.

​

CONCLUSION
Now I apply this approach consistently to ALL evidentially baseless propositions. I don’t need to start calling the rejection of some propositions assumptions, some axioms and others pseudoskeptical. Because I treat them all the same. And yes that includes the evidentially baseless notions of gods that so many here insist we be silent upon. Those who simultaneously advocate an equally pseudoskeptical view to the sort of unfalsifiable propositions above on the basis that they are axioms.

​

To those I ask - Can you really not see the inconsistency of your approach?

I agree. And to those cheering your post (hello RAZ and Jon) I would like to point out Panda's other posts on this point. Message 1716 and Message 1682The question (in this thread at least) now becomes one of asking how valid is the "evidence, test methods and information we currently have" with regard to drawing conclusions about reality in the face of evidentially baseless and unfalsifiable alternatives.For example I would say that we can claim to scientifically know (bearing in mind that I consider ALL scientific knowledge to be tentative to some degree) that ALL filament bulbs produce light and heat as a result of electrical resistance.However given that I have not actually tested every single flament bulb to check that some aren't being powered by ethereal salamanders (for example), given that this conclusion is necessarily inductive, I suspect that some here would call me a "pseudoskeptic" for dimissing the ethereal salamander proposition in the way that this claim of scientific knowledge necessarily does.But who knows? Maybe we can just axiomatically dismiss ethereal salamanders as far as they are concerned?Until a consistent approach is taken to evidentially basless propositions we are left wondering which ones the likes of RAZD will claim as necessary assumptions and which will be classed as psedoskeptical.

I have found the cheers/jeers to have been very inconsistent.RAZD says:
"we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old.""
Chuck cheers.I say:
"We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have predict that the pen will fall downwards."
RAZD cheers.I say:
"We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings."
Chuck jeers.
RAZD acknowledges the reply. I see no evidence of an omphamistically universe.
I see no evidence of a 1 second universe.
I see no evidence of an undetectable entity.
Describing a situation (e.g the universe was created fully formed 1 second ago) is not evidence of that situation - it is simply evidence of human imagination. I suspect that RAZD would have agreed if Bluegenes had said:
"We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of ghosts."Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I don't think he would. This is someone who won't denounce the magically undetectable Easter Bunny as something which is almost certainly a human fiction. But until he comes back with a consistent position who knows.......?