Equating science with faith

quote:

---

It could be I’m thinking too much like an engineer, but I’d still not be too quick to accept that a pragmatist would redefine truth so much as to devalue it. Useful would replace truth as the gold standard. But science is not mere engineering. Science seeks a much deeper "truth" than what is merely useful.

​

However, if I’m arguing with a philosopher's definitions I’m out of my league. I’d serve all concerned best if I sat out for a spell. I'll be listening.

---

It took me a moment to formulate an answer. I like how you put truth in quotes because it really is an arbitrary and linguistic term. However let me start off by saying that idealism, or better trancendentalist idealism, is this notion that knowledge is the result of interaction between dialectical systems, such as objective evidence and subjective reasoning. Kant was known for more than his deontological reasoning in this way.Redefining truth is against the rules of pragmatism, and thats the point really. Truth as we know it is something which can be confirmed by any epistemological system, but only so far as the system allows. Epistemology is the ideas which people have verified that people use for finding what they consider to be fact. Any one of these theories can be argued to be more or less valid than the other, but a historical analysis will usually show which of the systems was less subject to this notion of a truth which changes.Truth is an extreme ideal. It's like in statistics or in engineering where the 'its right unless its wrong' applies. If you were to engineer something based on a mathematical figure which was incorrect, the construct of this engineering would not function as it was intended. Epistemology is the same way. In order to find truth no matter how ambiguous a tool must be engineered to apply to the finding of this artifact.However in any system of belief there is the possability of error, which can usually only be detected given a span of time. The greater the span of time, the more likely it is that an error can be detected.If you appreciate engineering you will understand that sometimes things do not go as expected, like for example haliburton when building a nuclear facility had aquired a tank, a device which was faulty by means of faulty engineering. In epistemology the same kinds of problems can take place but they change the objectivity of truth instead of changing the decided function of a machine.Truth by its definition cannot be changed. Only the standard of proof for that which is considered to be true can. So when you say that useful would replace truth, not so much a reality however, the usefulness of a tool such as epistemology is still a valid concern.I apologize if you felt out of your league, that was the initial point of the statement when I said I would not use too many big words. If any of these systems is elusive to you, I would be glad to explain them.
-----
etymology of the word 'true'

quote:

---

--O.E. triewe (W.Saxon), treowe (Mercian) "faithful, trustworthy," from P.Gmc. *trewwjaz "having or characterized by good faith" (cf. O.Fris. triuwi, Du. getrouw, O.H.G. gatriuwu, Ger. treu, O.N. tryggr, Goth. triggws "faithful, trusty"), perhaps ultimately from PIE *dru- "tree," on the notion of "steadfast as an oak." Cf., from same root, Lith. drutas "firm," Welsh drud, O.Ir. dron "strong," Welsh derw "true," O.Ir. derb "sure." Sense of "consistent with fact" first recorded c.1205; that of "real, genuine, not counterfeit" is from 1398; that of "agreeing with a certain standard" (as true north) is from c.1550. Of artifacts, "accurately fitted or shaped" it is recorded from 1474; the verb in this sense is from 1841. Truism "self-evident truth" is from 1708, first attested in writings of Swift. True-love (adj.) is recorded from 1495; true-born first attested 1591. True-false as a type of test question is recorded from 1923. --

---

Etymonline - Online Etymology Dictionary

It’s not so much that it's elusive. It’s more that I’m gonna’ sit and watch it take the long way round the bush and catch it when it gets back over here.

---

KindlyWhy use an inertial fastening system when a nail will do just as well?

Hi OurCynic,Reading through your posts I noticed that at one point you referred to truth as an ideal, which I would argue is something that really has no place in science. Also, by using the word truth there's the rather obvious confusion with the so-called timeless truths of religion. I think the word truth is best avoided in discussions of science.There's reality on the one hand, and then there's our understanding of reality on the other. Science seeks to consistently improve our understanding of reality through empirical investigation.So when you say this: I'd reply that using the word "truth" is ambiguous. Measuring the expansion rate of the universe over time is a much different effort than deciding whether good triumphs over evil. One is a scientific problem, the other is not, or if you beg to differ, then I'll qualify it by saying it is not a problem of the hard sciences. Where faith has been brought to bear on scientific problems it has been woefully wrong, not less accurate. The modern example is creationist's insistence that the world is 6000 years old and modern geography is the result of a global flood. Revelation and contemplation in the absence of evidence have proven themselves the worst ways imaginable for deciphering reality.This topic is intended to explore the argument that though creationism's tenets are based upon faith, so are those of science. As far as I can tell you disagree with this argument, so other than your of use the word "truth" there's probably little we disagree about.--Percy

quote:

---

I'd reply that using the word "truth" is ambiguous. Measuring the expansion rate of the universe over time is a much different effort than deciding whether good triumphs over evil. One is a scientific problem, the other is not, or if you beg to differ, then I'll qualify it by saying it is not a problem of the hard sciences. Where faith has been brought to bear on scientific problems it has been woefully wrong, not less accurate. The modern example is creationist's insistence that the world is 6000 years old and modern geography is the result of a global flood. Revelation and contemplation in the absence of evidence have proven themselves the worst ways imaginable for deciphering reality.

---

When you say that one is a scientific problem and the other is not, in my opinion that would be correct. One question which remains is whether or not there are truths, or no, facts in metaphysical systems. So I would say that pretty much closes the discussion on whether or not science and faith are the same type of system, given that these systems are classifiable this way. Another question remains in my mind whether the tenets of science can be applied to faith, as you can see I have been doing in this discussion.The notion that the world is 6000 years old is based on the idea that all verifiable history pertaining to humans is 6000 years old. It is obviously not accurate, except in metaphor. Some civilizations had existed before this time, but we have not found the rosetta stones to examine whether or not they could be considered intelligent. Religion is funny that way, the use of metaphor to describe things such as to answer questions indirectly, like the question 'how long has consciousness existed?' where the word 'consciousness' is used to replace the word 'world'.Since we're talking about words, I'll admit that the use of the word truth in the place of the word fact, is arguably best avoided. However in language they are practically synonomous, though you'd be right that they are not used in this context very easily.As to whether or not facts exist in metaphysical systems, I think again its a question which epistemology can be used to examine. The reason is that there are standards of proof, though ordained by some annointed person somewhere, these standards exist in metaphysics. The same way that they exist in science, though science never implies a conclusion, and it never suggests an answer as fact until a conclusion is verified through peer review and eventually becomes law, or not. I would say that perhaps, there are many exceptions in this contrast which further stipulate that facts do not exist in faith based systems. At least, under critical review of the word fact.So with that, there are a few questions, but I would also say that perhaps there is not a lot we disagree on.

Did you forget this?Name me one form of dating that does what you say it does for co-gentic samples.

quote:

---

Not the basic laws of physics only the interpretation of the geologic record.

---

Why? Explain. Uniformitarism is based on the laws of physics. Those laws dictate rates. Why would massive abnormal events such as the Yucatan asteroid change the interpretation at all? Explain how few events which leave obvious evidence of their occurrence change the rates of sediment as well as radioactivity.

OurCynic writes

quote:

---

Except I would have questioned instead whether truth exists.

---

Does it matter?

quote:

---

Suggesting that science given the opportunity to explain the weather patterns does not attain something closer to the truth, or try to, is really kindof a silly assessment looking at things historically.

---

I didn't say that science doesn't bring us closer to truth. I said that science's purpose isn't to find out truths. Whether a scientific finding is closer to the truth or not is purely a side affect.

I don't know if it's your use of the word faith here, or your use of the word truth, or both, but could you explain this?On this thread, the word faith is really being used to mean the acceptance of things as being true without evidence. The question being, does science do this in the way that religions do? As for truth, I'm thinking of the common modern usage. Something like "in keeping with the facts".That's why I want to question your view that faith is a system for finding truth.Firstly, which of the following best fits your use of the word "truth" when you're claiming that faith is a system for finding truth. (I don't even see it as a system, but leave that for the moment).Truth Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.I ask this because I think the opposite. That faith, as in religious faith, has nothing to do with finding out "truths", but rather, it is consistently used to avoid doing so, and to prevent others from doing so.So, either we're using the words faith and truth (or one of them) in very different ways, or we're in complete disagreement.

Nevermind. It wasn't helpful, anyway.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

Great thicknesses of sedimentary rock can be produced by little water over long periods of time or a lot of water over short periods.
It is a philisophical decision, not a scientific one to prefer the former interpretation to the latter. After all if evolution occurred, you need vast periods of time.
Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly...uniformatarianism.Guy Berthault's experiments showed that fine layers are formed by a self-sorting mechanism and the same layer thicknesses were formed regardless of the flow rate.Since fossil formation is a rare event perhaps something major occurred to produce such vast amounts of fossilization. Fossils don't form slowly, they would rot.
Bias and faith in evolution accounts for the general acceptance of uniformatarian principles.Got to turn this computer off before it gets zapped by lightning so can't finish now.

The details of the sedimentary layer reveal the rate of sedimentation. Fine-grained layers require relatively still water and long time periods. If the evidence of the sedimentary layers were inconclusive concerning sedimentation rate (it isn't), that wouldn't turn it into a philosophical issue. It would only mean we need to keep working to find more evidence, and until sufficient evidence is available the correct answer would be, "We don't know." You have uniformitarianism defined incorrectly.First, specifically about sedimentation, uniformitarianism means that fine-grained sedimentary layers form in the same way in the past as they do today. Uniformitarianism applies to the nature of the process, not the rate.More generally, uniformitarianism refers to uniformity in the array of processes and forces operating on our planet throughout time. It does not refer to a uniformly slow or gradual rate, but it is widely misinterpreted as having this meaning, which could be why the term uniformitarianism was abandoned nearly a century ago. Whatever the reason, the term is not in play today within scientific circles and is only used by creationists taking advantage of the term's popular misinterpretation. Berthault's experiments were never published in any peer reviewed journal, have never been replicated, never see mention in any legitimate scientific context, and are irrelevant anyway since the specialized conditions of his experiment could by no stretch of even the most devout creationist's imagination have been prevalent everywhere throughout the world during the global flood for the entire period of flood sedimentation. The fate of most deceased organisms is decay and erosion to dust. That's why fossilization is rare, it requires special conditions, for example, rapid burial. As I said, uniformitarianism is not a term that is current within scientific circles, and the definition that you think it has is incorrect, meaning that uniformitarian principles as you understand them are certainly not accepted by science.--Percy

quote:

---

That's why I want to question your view that faith is a system for finding truth.

---

Have you ever, had a dream that told you something? A lucid dream, something that has nothing to do with the substantiation of fact but instead the subjective causality of your existance?Have you ever, had an experience that caused you to be aware of the subjective realities of those around you? Have you ever extrapolated a truth about yourself, without anyone to tell you or show you thier objective analysis?These questions are intended to elucidate my point, that although objective fact and subjective truth are completely different I feel that both realms seek truths. If you have never had such an experience that you are aware of, which told you something about who or what you are without conclusive and rational evidence, then I feel for you I really do.It has been stated that my use of the word truth in this context is ambiguous, and in the above paragraph it really is. But thats the point you see, I cant seem to find a word in the english language that combines the notion of fact and the notion of truth well enough to say that metaphysics is as much a system of belief as rational logic. Perhaps I can recant, and say that although science is a means of finding fact and metaphysics is really a way of finding more subjective truth, both systems are coherent.A valid argument with this standpoint would be to say that if both systems are coherent, than you as a human being could apply completely rational logic to obtain the same introspective conclusions that any kind of metaphysics could bring you. But somehow, I still dont think that these kinds of coherent systems can validate one another.I suppose my use of the word 'faith' is also somewhat misplaced, if you would like to take argument. I have studied many different systems of faith and belief, so the term 'faith' for me is a blanket term. I used 'metaphysics' in this post, but if we really must resort to semantics, why not that argument?

quote:

---

Does it matter?

---

Of course it does. Truth in many ways describes a belief and its coherence with fact. Trouble is, that facts are never interpreted to an absolute, making truth an extreme ideal. In order to know that facts are real, and not misinterpretations of reality, one would need to be omniscient. Such would have rendered your argument completely.

quote:

---

I didn't say that science doesn't bring us closer to truth. I said that science's purpose isn't to find out truths. Whether a scientific finding is closer to the truth or not is purely a side affect.

---

Then let me say that science brings us closer realistic facts than faith does. would you still take argument?

Entire threads could be filled with confusion over the term "truth". To varying degrees it will always be confused with religious truth, and religious truth by no means requires "coherence with fact." Why introduce this confusion?This thread is about whether science invokes faith in the same way as religion. I don't yet see how "truth," whatever it is, is relevant. This is like saying that walking brings you closer to your destination than standing in place. If the goal is to get somewhere then standing in place can't hold a candle to walking, and they're not directed toward the same purpose anyway.Belief based on faith comes from revelation and dogma, not facts. I can't help but repeat that creationism is a prime example of faith ignoring facts.--Percy

Hello OurCynic:The lottery and manufacturing gizmos are both ways of seeking wealth. The meaning of wealth, however, is ambiguous, allowing those who are of a mind to claim that the amusement born of anticipation one receives playing the Lotto or the pride one receives seeing all of those nice, shiny gizmos is a wealth worthy in its own right .This is, of course, merely back end loading: The making of lemon aid when the intended wealth doesn’t materialize, easing the guilt of bad decisions: Rationalization.I’m a bit hard put to understand why, since no one otherwise defined wealth then as cold hard cash when going into the fray, that it should be considered otherwise after the fact.Material wealth and spiritual wealth show no cause to be discussed in the same breath as if they somehow had anything close to the same meaning. They should, indeed, be given different names. “Knowledge” and “belief” would do if they weren’t already taken.Edited by lyx2no, : Punc.

---

KindlyWhen I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

Message/minute limit restriction removed.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director