Mlodinow & Hawking on Model-Dependent Realism

1. A copy that can not be distinquished from the original is the same thing . there is no difference.
2. Parsimony yet prevails
3. We are only as accurate as our most accurate model.4.It makes no sense to look for zebras and then be stampeded by horses.5.Rare things are rare.6. Science should be silent on matters concerning religion.
7.Proof is a function of mathmatics
Thats all I can think of at the moment.Oh wait one more.
8.Has the supernatural hypothesis failed? a) yes b) not if your superstitious.

Agreed, take the Catholic church and the banning of condomns as an example. HIV being the targeted dz.I meant more in terms of Science concerning itself with reality rather than religion. But I get your meaning fully.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by 1.61803, : add quotation

Hello Straggler, You’re right that is a broad erroneous statement. I will rephrase:
Science is silent on matters concerning faith. Yes. The Catholic Church was guilty of suppressing any knowledge that was not in keeping with that religion. In so doing did a great deal to obstruct scientist. Think Bruno. Science is not a religion is it? It is based on testable, falsifiable data. Science is data not dogma. So it seems to me superfluous to conflate religion and science imo. Unless of course science is your religion.In other words scientist, using the scientific method, furthers the advancement of human knowledge. If that knowledge happens to refute someone’s religious beliefs then the onus is on that person to either accept they're beliefs are based on dogma and not data. Scientist does not concern themselves with mythology or voodoo or any other practice that is based on the supernatural. Unless those practices are capable of producing data that is able to be confirmed by the scientific method. Up until now I have not read or seen anything to confirm the existence of the supernatural. If anyone has they can win one million by submitting it to JREF - Home

While you and anyone else can certainly be of the opinion that Science can verify matters of faith. I welcome anyone to explain how a methodolgy based on evidenced testable, reproduciable experiments and theories; can evidence and verify a phenomenon such as faith, that's fundamental criteria is non evidenced and subjective. Good luck.

Faith is based on non evidence. Science is based on evidence.
Please correlate.Edited by 1.61803, : reword.

What scientific reference do you have that has anything to say about whether the Eastern Orthodox church and the Catholic faith will someday merge. Or if there are any good scientific references or scientific articles I can find on the Catechisms of the Holy Roman Catholic Church? Please add a link or PDF file that would be good.

I was talking about how the field of science is concerned with knowlege obtained by testing theorys, doing experiments and verifying knowlege and faith is concerned with amoung other things spiritual inner well being, the practice of various religions and the beliefs based on dogma, religion and non evidenced materials. What can Science add to that other than..um no its all clap trap.

I believe it is obvious we are not able to come to agreement on this. I rephased my statement to matters of faith. I explained my position adequately and yet you persist that science has something to say over matters of faith. I asked how could this be if faith by definition is based on non evidence. Please reference the definition of Faith. All that is required is one believe. Not a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled multi center trial. Thus I conclude we are deadlocked.

If a primitive tribe of people have faith in a Rain god that produces frogs after the rains, how is that faith's results any different from the fact that the rain actually provides a habitat that supports a increase in frogs. The end result is the same no? A increase in frogs after the rains. Is knowlege of science required for these people to get the information they need to survive?If a model of reality serves it serves.
I hope you dont have a stroke after reading my post.Edited by 1.61803, : added the word "that"

Ok once again, as in the example these frog worshippers have faith that the rain god will bring the frogs. Lets call this reality model A.Now the scientific model( B) through the rigorious study of frog behavior and habitats indicates the frog populations increase due to favorable conditions.Now "Science is silent on matters concerning faith"My opinion is that the indigenous people of Rain god forest have faith. A scientist would be hard pressed to show through rigorous scientific research that frog gods do not exist.
All he could show is his inferences to data that is collected as evidence. He could show data plots and graphs and all manner of scientfic evidence and all it would do would be to show that the rain is favorable to frog abundance. Faith being unshaken and unperturbed due to the mere fact that evidence is not a criteria for faith. Say it with me... Evidence is not required. Science is silent on matters concerning faith. Why because science is evidence based. That is why there are such a thing as theist scientist. That is why there are physcians who have faith and belief in God. Hard as that may seem for you to believe. Edited by 1.61803, : replace the word :to with the word "for"

Irrelevant. Science can as I described in not so many words, literally, show evidence for the frog god phenomenon that otherwise requires none. Furthermore the redundancy of a frog god is not taking into account cultral and religious importance. Thus it is as I stated before the role of science is to further humanitys knowlege through evidenced based diciplines and not hocus pocus.

Mr. Straggler, you are teasing out a argument where there is none. And I appreciate your queries because they do cause me to further examine my own statements.My statement in regards to matters of faith simply meant that scientific knowlege is evidence based. In the case of faith in something that requires no evidence there is no way to apply science. Because by definition Science requires evidence.You are the one who is manipulating the post into some argument that require I stipulate on a ambiguous subject like faith. That I specifically name a subject that science must be silent on. As if there is some scientist tied up with duck tape around his mouth forcing him to maintain silence while I read him Genesis I. lol.Face it you look for arguments and when you find a thread you pull it to see where it leads. Sorry I did not supply you with enough meat. It was a rather empty statement to begin with.Another poster asked me about the same statement and I in one post told him that of course Science can dispute and refute religious beliefs. And if by chance those religious beliefs are in someway harmful of course scientist must educate.The scientific method imo is the best way to obtain accurate models of reality. If one believes that frog gods bring the rains. That is there business. I can not show them through applying science one does not exist. I can show them evidence that the big bang was the orgin of the universe. I can show them evidence on the theory of evolution, chemistry, physics, on and on. But faith in something does not require one seek out these facts. All it requires is one believe. Why would they?
Perhaps it is their culture or family traditions rooted in a religion.
Perhaps they are delusional? What ever it is it flies in the face of science. It is hardly worth getting your panties in a wad over. I again think I have adequately explained my position. You have no argument sir. You made your point. The statement stands, albeit a ignorant one so what it makes sense to me.

Hi Stephan, he knows wtf I am talking about. He is just being Stragger.

Absolutely not. My statement is that science is silent on matters of faith.Why? Strictly my opinion now, Science is based on evidence and faith is based on belief in the absence of evidence.Thats it. No deeper meaning. How could a scientist design a scientific study based on the absence of evidence. It was a tounge in cheek statement that ballooned into a argument.

Precisely, and in such case science would have nothing to say about it. Hmmm where did I hear that before??