What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only)

In order to fully understand what you are saying I need to try and make it less abstract. As such I would like to throw it back at you in terms of considering 'red'ness and how you would apply your theory to this very simple example.

The question as I see it is partly one of subjective knowledge Vs objective knowledge and the reliability of each.

Science sets out to achieve objective knowledge by subjecting conclusions to various tests and using various methods in order to maximise the objectivity of these conclusions and tests (prediction, independent corroboration, repeatability etc. etc. etc.)

In order to illustrate the difference between religious conclusions and scientific conclusions I ask you to consider the colour ‘red’.

The following is a modified repeat of my post msg 121 in the "We know there is a God because...." thread.

Imagine the colour red. The 'redness' I imagine and the colour you imagine may or may not be the same. As far as I am aware there is no way to tell. Our perception of red is subjective and independent of each other to such an extent that we just cannot know whether or not we see the same thing inside our heads when we think of the colour red.

However we can experiment 'scientifically' to see if there is a non-subjective 'red' that is not merely a product of subjective personal perception alone.
We can try and find a basis for our subjective perception that exists in a common external reality.

This experiment could take the following form -

We each independently pick out the red cards from a pack of different coloured cards and then compare to see if we both picked out the same cards from the same deck.
We can take things further and measure the frequency of light reflected from the cards that we are both calling 'red'. We can determine the physical properties of that which we are both calling 'red'.
We can extend the experiment to other objects and their perceived redness across a larger sample of people.

Eventually we will find a consistency of what is termed 'red' across the test population in terms of the physical characteristics of red (wavelength, frequency etc.)
We can then make predictions that light of a certain wavelength and frequency will be consistently identified independently and objectively by test subjects as 'red' (or whatever name you choose to give it in whatever language - the key is the consistency of identification and corroboration across test subjects).

These predictions can be tested across a larger population test group and conclusions drawn.

We still don't know that any of us are actually perceiving red as exactly the same thing in our mind’s eye.
BUT we do know that light with certain properties is consistently identified as 'red' across the population and that the concept 'red'ness therefore has a basis is a shared reality and can be said to exist objectively and independently of internal perception alone.

God is like the colour red above but with no opportunity to experiment or verify with others that what you mean by God is what they mean by 'God'. It is all inside your head with no possible reference to an objective reality.

Yes you can describe your perception and others can describe theirs in the same way two people could both try to describe the concept of 'redness' as they imagine it. It may even sound as though you agree as to the nature and properties of 'God'. But without any way to look inside the heads of others there can never be any way to confirm that you are actually experiencing the same thing. There can be no way to confirm that God exists anywhere but as a figment of your subjective thought and imagination.

As such perception of God is subject to personal delusion in ways that physical objective empirical corroborated scientific evidence is not.

CONCLUSIONS
1) Where there exists a common non-subjective reality inhabited by multiple conscious beings reliable conclusions can be drawn as to the nature of that reality through processes of independent corroboration.
2) These conclusions are more reliable, less prone to delusion and therefore superior to wholly subjective conclusions for which no such corroborative tests are possible.
3) Conclusions of the first type can by definition only relate to the shared external physicality of the reality. These can be considered to be scientific conclusions.
4) Conclusions of the second type include those founded on personal faith in physically undetectable entities.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That is simply untrue. The writers of the Bible experienced the same thing. It's quite remarkable actually to see how they describe with exisite detail what is happening to me. The problem is you don't have any way of verify it, until you test it. And whether we are willing to test it honestly depends upon whether or not we want it to be true.

In my opinion this sort of testimony is worth little more than a newspaper astrology entry.
With some clever(ish) writing it is possible to convince people that what is written is incredibly insightful and personally relevant to them. Especially so if they want it to be true.
I know nothing of astrology and make no claim to know anything of people's hidden thoughts or feelings but I would be willing to bet I could write an astrological entry that a large number of people would find an uncannilly accurate description of their present situation.

Having read your essay I think you have missed something fundamental that is relevant to this point.
A key method of scientific investigation is to improve objectivity by seperating the comparitive test used from the actual theory being tested.

For example - using the colour red example again -

Rather than comparing coloured cards etc etc. etc. ourselves we could design an experiment in which the experimenters and the experimentees know nothing of the conclusions that will be drawn from their results.

They will just be instructed on the methods to be used.

All comparisons within the experiment itself require only that the perception and identification of the colour red by one subject is compared with the perception and identification of the colour red by other subjects.
All the experimenters do is record the results.

No bias can be present as to whether or not they want the theory to be verified or not as neither experimenter nor experimentee have any idea what the theory being tested actually is.

The objective results can then be provided to us and we can use them to verify or refute our predictions (made before the test results were known - another key point!!!) regarding the basis of 'red'ness in an objective reality.

There are many examples of this technique being used in scientific investigation to improve the objectivity and therefore the validity of the results.

Religious conclusions allow no such objectification of the verification/refutation process as far as I can see?
The tester always has a personal investment in the conclusion and knows in advance the result they wish to find.

As such it is my claim that religious conclusions are inferior in terms of reliability.

Over to you.......

At this point I have no idea what you mean.

I doubt I am alone in my confusion.

How does any of the above relate to th equestion at hand - How does religious and scientific reasoning differ?

How exactly does your theory relate to a concrete but simple example such as the perception of the colour red

Well I see your point... I have so much to gain by preaching the gospel

Would your life have more or less meaning without God in it? I think that you believe that you personally gain much from your faith whatever difficulties it might also result in

Sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously...

There are many who seem to NEED a god in their life for whatever reason (comfort, meaning, morality etc. etc.)
People will find gods for these reasons whether any exist or not so to dismiss this point with sarcasm does not do it justice.

You don't seem to deny the fact that any test for a personal god is inherently wholly subjective and thus prone to conclusions that tell us more about the needs and desires of the individual than anything else more fundamental about the world.

The question of this discussion is whether or not science - or methodical naturalism - is subject to the same sort of inherent weaknesses.

Do you agree as to the subjective nature of religious conclusions?
Do you agree as to the aim of the discussion?

Sience is logic. And natural science is logic applied to the natural world. That's the premise

I don't think that is the premise.

At a deeper level I would say that science at it's most fundamental is a quest for the truths of nature (whether those truths actually exist or not is another interesting question but I do think science necessarily assumes that they do)

The methods of science such as the appliance of logic, prediction, objectivity etc. etc. are just the tools used to ensure that the investigation leads to the most reliable and accurate findings humanly possible (i.e. those closest to the truth)

Science is not a method despite the fact that it is often presented in those terms.

In my view science is an attitude to investigation applied to nature.
Namely that the truth is the overriding objective and that every effort is made to ensure that findings are as close to the truth as possible.

Could it be... that great wealth (even fortunes) of sexual treasure, material prosperity, intellectual esteem, and power cloud the judgement of naturalists who hold the major chairs of science?

The main failing of science is that it is practiced by imperfect beings. Beings whose other desires can obscure the desire to understand the natural world.
The methods of science are what they are exactly because we recognise that we are imperefect in this respect.
The methods of science are what they are, at least in part, to stop us fooling ourselves and others into false conclusions that we may have drawn for all sorts of other less noble reasons that we may or may not be consciously aware of.
As a result the methods of science allow us to derive knowledge that we can rely on to a much greater extent than knowledge gained without the same methods imposed.

Whilst science is not method alone - It is the application of the methods of science that allow us be confident that the search for truth in nature is the overriding objective (of course as imperfect beings we can apply the methods imperfectly but that is another question)

Without the application of these methods no practical attempt has been made to meet the main objective of ensuring truthfulness. As such these investigations cannot be considered scientific.

The methods of science are restricted to the empirical material world. Thus so is scientific investigation.

This is not the result of a philosophical position. It is a practical limitation.

Over to you.......

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I did say at the beginning that you were going to have to break this down and 'deabstractionalise' it to some degree if we were to have any meaningful discussion.........

It appears that this is indeed the case.

In case you missed it, our current definition of science says that 'only material explanations are scientific' though that definition is itself only a philosophical proposition

I have explained why I think this is not a philosophical position but a practical limitation.

You need to explain exactly how you have refuted this.

The conflict between science and religion is not over the existence of God because the terms God and reality are synonymous. Both are absolute, ultimate, and sovereign. The question is really one of God’s (or reality's) characteristics.

The key difference of characteristic is that physical 'reality' can be perceived collectively, tested collectively, verified as consistent and concluded to exist objectively whilst recognising the fact that we must perceive it subjectively (i.e. back to the colour red argument).
Personal perceptions of God are wholly subjective so no reliable conclusion as to the existence of God is possible.

You need to explain how you have refuted this as well.

This point begs to be repeated; if nature is ordered in an intelligible, logical, and coherent fashion, then our philosophical constructs (theories) regarding it, must also be coherent if they are to be compatible with the assumed empirical order.

The empirical evidence suggests that nature does display these characteristics. This is a conclusion based on empirical evidence.
Never mind science - your day to day life would be impossible if it were not so (try and imagine life is a random, disordered and incoherent world ....)

For example your first point, we all have a God that we worship; a view of reality that protects whatever needs we perceive that we need

I do indeed perceive reality. Apparently the same reality that we can all demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that we all share.
The same cannot be said of your perception of God.
That is the difference that you have yet to address as far as I can see.

I realise that it may be frustrating but unless you can explain this in a way that I can understand there is little point continuing (I would like to continue). If you are unable to explain it in more a more accessible format (i.e broken down into parts that can be individually argued rather than one extended argument) then you are unlikely to have much success with a wider audience.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The question of this discussion is whether or not science - or methodical naturalism - is subject to the same sort of inherent weaknesses as religion.

Do you agree as to the wholly subjective nature of religious conclusions?

Do you agree as to the aim of the discussion as stated above?

So I am a bit perturbed that you imply ambiguity on my part. The whole point of my excersize is to de-abstractinalize methodological naturalism. Nonetheless, I will answer your questions and put aside any feelings.

Whether any lack of clarity is due to ambiguity on your part, the inherent complexity of the argument or my own shortcomings I have yet to ascertain fully. It is not my intention to frustrate. Merely to break things down into smaller, simpler and thus easier to analyse pieces. Maybe it is just the scientist in me……..

First off, there is nothing that is abstract about coherence

Abstract or otherwise there does seem to be some debate as to what exactly a theory of logical coherence entails as well as the conclusion (by Russel) that it actually fails it's own test of being internally consistent and thus coherent. Is this relevant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth

If it is not valid, then any debate or observation is futile

If what is not valid? The theory of logical coherence? Are you assuming that this theory itself is logically coherent? Is this necessarily the case?

We still seem to be talking at cross purposes here.
In my mind logic is a tool used by science in order to achieve it's fundamental aim of investigating the truths of nature in the most reliabale way possible whilst recognsing that those undertaking the investigation are subjective and illogical creatures naturally predisposed to making false and innaccurate conclusions with regard to a complex and often baffling world.

In your argument logic plays a far greater and more fundamental role than being a mere tool. It is both the essence and failing of science. For the sake of clarity I would like to try and break your argument down by separateing the premise and the conclusions from the reasoning as I for one remain unclear as to what exactly the premise or the concluions are (whilst appreciating that the reasoning might be necessarily complex)

Can you verify (or correct) the following summary of your thinking (putting the actual complex reasoning to one side for a moment and just concentrating on the conclusions

My attempt to summarise your argument as I understand it.

IF science is the appliance of logic to the material world in the form of the law of contradiction
THEN the only scientific conclusions possible are logical conclusions regarding the material world

IF science must assume that nature is logical, coherent and material
THEN science itself must be logical coherent and material in order to be valid

IF science is to be considered valid
THEN the basis of the assumption on which it is founded must be subject to logical coherence in the form of the law of contradiction as applied to the material world

IF the assumption on which science is based cannot be verified by the law of contradiction as applied to the material world
THEN the findings of science are invalid

My apologies if I have completely misrepresented you. I await your clarification.

Thus far I don't think anyone has refuted anything. We have just made separate arguments based on different assumptions that in many ways answer different questions. I understood the debate to be as to the reliability of science as compared to religion and have barely considered strict logical coherence as even important. You have dismissed all my arguments simply by arguing that you have demonstrated science to be internally incoherent and thus necessarily invalid regardless of whether or not it actually can be shown to produce reliable results or not. We have come to opposing conclusions by very different routes and as yet either one or both could be demonstrated to be either right or wrong.
In order to claim refutation we need to have demonstrated point by point why the arguments or key assumptions made by the other are actually wrong rather than just continually reiterating our own argument.

I will attempt to do this once I get the necessary clarification back from you re the IF THEN statements above.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Is science coherent... yes or no?

I don't know. Nor do I know if it matters in any practical sense.

Is logic itself coherent within the limitations you apply?

By applying logic do we not assume that reality (material or otherwise) is logical consistent and coherent?

How could we apply logic meaningfully if reality (material or otherwsie) were illogical, inconsistent and incoherent?

If the appliance of logic requires the same assumptions that you accuse science of requiring does your own argument not conclude itself to be invalid?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You have misquoted yourself!!

You said

Is science coherent... yes or no?

To which I replied

I don't know. Nor do I know if it matters in any practical sense.

Why did you feel the need to change this in your last post to -

Rob: is science logical??

Science is logical in it's methods I agree. However within the boundaries and definitions YOU have set for coherence I don’t know if it can be described as “coherent” or not.

The question here is whether or not your appliance of logical coherence and resulting argument against the validity of science is itself logically coherent and thus valid in terms of your own arguments.

I am not sure that it is.

1) In order to derive conclusions by applying logic to a system you implicitly assume that the system is logical, consistent and coherent.

2) Unless you are able to derive this assumption logically the very application of logical coherence in order to derive logical conclusions is itself a philosophical position and not a logical one

3) If the application of logical coherence cannot itself be shown to be logically coherent then it is itself invalid by it’s own definitions

4) If the application of logical coherence is itself invalid then any conclusions that you have drawn by means of testing for logical coherence are also invalid

Thus, in these terms, the only valid answer to the question

Is science coherent

is

I don’t know

Obviously (assuming a logical, consistent and coherent reality;))

Logic cannot contradict itself by definition.

.

The question is whether or not logical coherence in the form that YOU have applied it is itself coherent.

It is up to you to show that it is.

If you could summarise your essay into a series of IF THEN statements to which we can then apply the detailed and complex reasoning for each in turn, it really would make the whole thing much more accessible and open to the constructive criticism and analysis that you say you desire.
As things stand I (and I doubt I am alone) am finding it almost impossible to decipher.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Although our knowledge based upon this faith in logic is not comprehensive, it is our only light. We simply have no other authority for any form of objective revelation. That is not an ecclesiastical proclamation, but is the self evident and profound nature of logical propositions.

In other words - Logic itself cannot be used to validate or invalidate the application of logic.

Is that what you are saying?

What I am saying is that logic is self validating.

Thus the application of logic is deemed to be inherently valid?

Rob

What I am saying is that logic is self validating.

Straggler: Thus the application of logic is deemed to be inherently valid? Think this through very hard Straggler... As I said in the proposal; logic is our only scientific way, for the purposes of coming to terms with the real world (reality). Logic is the only possible truth. It is the only possible life. Now hear me... It is not something we can prove. Rather, it is something we cannot deny without inferring that illogical applications and inferences would be valid alternatives. No-one excepting perhaps Charles Manson would consciously infer such a thing.

Can I take this as a 'Yes'?

I have repeatedly requested that Rob break down the main points of his essay into a series of IF THEN type statements so that we can explore and analyse the reasoning behind each of these individually and in more depth.

This format would make clear exactly what conclusions he is making based on each premise (which I am still unclear about)

I still think this would help but am open to suggestions as to alternative methods of making things clearer?

I wholly agree that the discussion is a confused mess (on my part at least)

It was my aim to take Rob’s stance that – science = the application of logic alone

Based on –

. The objective authority of scientific revelation is found in the power of logical coherence. The whole purpose of science is to lead us wherever logic will go without bias.

It is obvious that if science is not logical, then it is meaningless to us

Combine this with -

What I am saying is that logic is self validating

We rest and rely upon logic as self evident

And then apply his thinking to his own phrase -

That is fascinating since coherence is both the authority that founds science, and the revelation given by the scientific method

By replacing “science” with “the application of logic” to form something along the lines of –

“Logic is both the basis of ‘the application of logic’ and the ‘application of logic’ results in logic”

Which (despite the fact this in itself is pretty meaningless) I took to mean something like “The validity of applying logic cannot be logically determined it must be assumed”

Then by attacking that assumption (regardless of whether I think it true or not) I hoped to get Rob to defend logic in such a way as to be incompatible with his view of science as being the application of logic alone.

That was my confused thinking anyway. I completely admit that I have gone in circles and ended up in a mess and still have no real idea what Rob is on about in terms of his main conclusions or reasoning for them.

I think the separation of premise and conclusion from reasoning is needed if I am to be able to progress at all.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am sorry that you feel the need to leave this rather than restructure your argument in any way at all.

Before you go would you be willing to clarify a couple of things?(these are questions I probably should have asked much earlier)

What is it that you mean by the following? Can you explain in simpler terms exactly what you mean?

That is fascinating since coherence is both the authority that founds science, and the revelation given by the scientific method.

You have stated the following -

The term empirical is a corruptive and deceptive label that conjures images of material certainty. This is not the case! The empirical world is only one of the entities in a natural science equation, and it must be tested against our ideas in order to provide a tested result. In other words, we must look at the evidence through the lens of logical coherence.

How in practise would you reliably apply this method of comparison with regard to a non-material "empirical" conclusion?
Can you give an example of such a conclusion, what elements were compared and what was the method by which you assessed the validity of the conclusion?

In terms of "believability" how does knowledge gained in the way you decribe compare to the independently repeatable verification of specific physically measurable quantities predicted by the logically necessary outcomes of hypotheses? (i.e much of conventional science)

I am not going to plague myself with dragging every kicking and screaming detractor who will never believe it no matter what the arguments are. I am going to take it to those who are looking for the truth

I don't think that is a fair assessmnet of my attempted contribution.
The fact that you have systematically used the term 'science' to describe that which you argue science SHOULD be (as opposed to that which it is generally accepted to be) has been confusing and frankly led me down the blind alley of questioning the validity of logic itself.

If you don't choose to continue I wish you luck in explaining your thoughts to a wider audience.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This thread is unintelligible.

The reponsibility for this is partly mine. My apologies.

However I do think I have finally unravelled the fundamentals of what it is Rob is saying.

As I understand it Rob's argument can be summed up thus -

1) Science (should) = Evidence form perception (in it's widest definition) + The application of logic

2) Evidence should include ALL forms of perception including those that do NOT pertain to the material world alone

3) The current view of science as applying logic ONLY to perception of the material world alone is unjustified in that other forms of perception are equally logically/philosophically as valid

If the above is an accurate summary of Rob's thinking then it seems a shame to leave things now that I have finally deciphered his arguments.

If the above is not an accurate summary of Rob's thinking then I can only repeat my calls for clarification (which Rob seems unwilling to meet)

And I see no need to force you to agree, or base the credibility of my proposition upon your ability/inability to comprehend the matter.

Either way I don't want it to be said that I did not at least try and understand.............

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.