Mlodinow & Hawking on Model-Dependent Realism

If the model is made to scale and made to accurately reflect the skyscraper in every detail wouldn't it then just be a replica skyscraper?I am not sure your skyscraper analogy is very good exactly because the perfect model of a skyscraper would be a replica skyscraper. Whereas no scientific theory or model will ever actually be that which it models.An accurate description would seem to be the best we can hope for. Yes. And how do we determine which model best reflects reality? Ability to consistently explain all known observations and further ability to predict new observations?That seems to be the best method we have hit upon to determine the accuracy of our models.

Indeed. So how do you decide between competing models as to which one most accurately describes or reflects reality?E.g. Biblical Genesis Vs Big Bang or Adam and Eve Vs evolution.

Whose religion? All religions?You do realise that there would probably be no such thing as science if that particular rule had been adhered to don't you? Think Galileo.So should science stay silent om matters such as: How the universe came to exist? How man's sense of morality came to exist? The nature of consciousness? The beginnings of life? Why humans are inclined to believe in the supernatural? What actually causes religious experiences? Why humans are inclined to imbue mindless physical processes with conscious intent? Why is that we humans feel the need to ask "why" questions and seek meaning when it may well be the case that none exists?Are these the sorts of matters that science should be silent on in your opinion?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If only you were willing to apply this same answer consistently CS.Consistently to questions like: Why humans are inclined to believe in the supernatural? What actually causes religious experiences?But these are for another thread I guess.....

Yup - I think that is a very key point.

Well yes and no. For a long long time many people did indeed believe in the Genesis account of both universe formation and the origins of mankind. They obviously would have considered these beliefs to be evidenced.So the question is what ultimately made one set of evidence (or one model) superior to the other? I probably won't because that doesn't really float my ark. But you feel free and I might join in a bit if you do.

What does that even mean?On what subjects are you saying science should remain silent exactly? Be specific.If science suggests that faith itself is a human psychological phenomenon then what?

Well science can certainly refute faith based conclusions and it demonstrably has done.If not a faith based conclusion then from where is the conclusion (for example) that the bible is literally true and that the Earth is thus less than 10,000 years old originate?Has science not refuted this once widely held faith based conclusion?So when you say that "science must remain silent on matters of faith" what are you talking about if not this sort of conclusion? We can certainly examine the human psychological phenomenon called "faith" scientifically. Just as we can any other human emtion or psychological state.Why wouldn't we be able to?

Which would suggest that where they come to opposing conclusions the scientific conclusion would be a better bet. But what has this to do with your "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion" assertion? What has the lack of correlation between two things that cannot be correlated got to do with your assertion that "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion"?What religious matter exactly is it that science should be silent on? Can you give a specific example?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So you are simply and exclusively talking about religious institutional arrangements?In the name of clarity - Can you confirm this is the case?If you are simply talking about how religious institutions should arrange and organise themselves then I doubt science has any more to say on this than it does as to whether Liverpool Football Club should merge with Everton football club or whether the Kensington ladies knitting circle should merge with the Chelsea flower arranging circle.If that is your point then (frankly) it is a fucking silly one.And it is hardly unique to religious organisations is it?

OK. So with regard to the topic (remember that?) of different models and how one model can be considered superior we can agree that scientific knowledge meets certain standards. Right? How is "spiritual inner well being" different from psychology (which we can and do study scientifically)?How are the practices of various religions not an aspect of anthropology (which we can and do study scientifically)?And what the hell are "non evidenced materials"?It still seems that your assertion that "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion" doesn't apply any more specifically to religion than it does to knitting circles."Science should be silent on matters concerning knitting circles". Well OK. I suppose so. So what? So - What is it specifically that science should be silent upon that is unique to religion?I am not even saying you are wrong. I just have no idea what sort of thing it is you have in mind that pertains to the topic regarding different models of reality.

Because you are not making any sense. Yes in such a way that your arguments applied to the institutional organisation of knitting circles as much as they do religious institutions. No. I am simply asking you for a specific example of what exactly you mean by "matters of faith". You have yet to supply any that:A) Have any relevance to the topic of modelling reality
B) That don't apply equally to the institutional arrangements of knitting circles Give me an example of one of these non-evidenced conclusions or models on which science must stay silent then. Please give an example of a specific matter unique to faith on which science must stay silent. All that is required for knitting circle membership is that one like knitting. So what? what does this have to do with modelling reality? OK. So why can't you give an example of a specific matter unique to faith on which science must stay silent? If you cannot provide a single example of something specific that is related to the topic and on which science must stay silent then I guess so.But as things stand you could have made your exact same point with the pronouncement that "Science should be silent on matters concerning the institutional arrangements of knitting circles".

So now you are saying that science should stay silent on the causal relationship between rain and frogs? What does your latest example have to do with you assertion that science should remain silent on matters of faith?What are these matters of faith that science should remain silent on? Be specific. I am in more danger of dying of laughter.

Well now that you have (sort of) provided something concrete to work with let’s see. If your sole and single point is to say that science cannot disprove the existence of gods then why don’t you just say that and be done? A scientist studying a causal relationship between rain and frog prevalence wouldn’t be doing anything other than seeking a predictively verifiable naturalistic explanation for the observed correlation between rain and increased frog numbers.A predictively powerful naturalistic explanation would arguably make the role of said frog god rather redundant. Many of a more rational disposition may well consider the frogmeister to have been effectively refuted to all practical intents and purposes by such an explanation. History certainly suggests that this will be the case. Why do you think nobody now considers Thor to be the cause of thunder and lightening? Why do you think creos and IDists get so excited by abiogenesis and the origins of the universe? The theistically inclined indisputably love a good gap.But more to the point we can study the beliefs of people from a psychological and anthropological perspective and gain an insight into why they invoke the explanations that they do. Even come to evidence based conclusions regarding the very things that cause people to have faith in things like frog gods. Well as I have described above science in fact has a great deal to say about the source of the frog god as a concept and the viability of the frog god as an explanation for the observed phenomenon under consideration. So I dispute your assertion as applied to your example. I don’t know why you think I would find that hard to believe. I think the instinct to invoke the unknowable in the form of supernatural beings as an explanation for things is a very powerful human trait.

The fact that science isn't silent on the "matter of faith" example that you supplied is quite blatantly very relevant to the question of whether science must be silent on matters of faith as applied to the example you have provided. This sentence makes no sense. What is the "frog god phenomenon" if not the causal relationship which science was able to find a naturalistic explanation for or the concept of the frog god himself which again science can study the causes and origins of?Either way science isn't silent. Are you saying science must stay silent on any matters where it's conclusions may conflict with culturally important and religiously accepted ones?If so Galileo and others disagree. The role of science is to "further humanitys knowlege through evidenced based diciplines" whether this brings it into conflict with "hocus pocus" or not.It remains a mystery why you think science "must remain silent" on any of the matters you have raised or even what a "matter of faith" is exactly.Should science have advocated a heliocentric model based on evidence in the face of massive religious opposition to this idea? Or was this "culturally important" enough to demand that science must stay silent?