Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mlodinow & Hawking on Model-Dependent Realism
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 16 of 72 (588694)
10-27-2010 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
10-27-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Competing Models
quote:
So how do you decide between competing models as to which one most accurately describes or reflects reality?
How about predictive ability? We can make any model explain existing observations by adding ad hoc assumptions. But when a model can be used to predict observations that are made later, the model is telling us something important about reality.
The BB theory predicted that we should find patterns in the cosmic microwave background radiation that were later found. The ToE predicted that we would find weakly electric fish that cannot stun prey but would have some other function for their electric organs, and these fish were found and the functions of their electric discharges were determined.
I'm not aware of any such confirmed predictions that have been made based on the Biblical account of creation.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2010 2:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 10-28-2010 1:34 PM Stephen Push has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 17 of 72 (588699)
10-27-2010 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
10-27-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Competing Models
So how do you decide between competing models as to which one most accurately describes or reflects reality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2010 2:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 10-28-2010 12:56 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 18 of 72 (588701)
10-27-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
10-27-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Competing Models
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.
Simple: There is evidence for one, and no evidence for the other.
Off topic here, but how about starting a thread Adam and Eve Vs evolution?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2010 2:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Straggler, posted 10-28-2010 1:38 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 19 of 72 (588811)
10-28-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
10-27-2010 2:52 PM


Re: Competing Models
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.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2010 2:52 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 20 of 72 (588814)
10-28-2010 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Stephen Push
10-27-2010 2:29 PM


Re: Competing Models
SP writes:
How about predictive ability? We can make any model explain existing observations by adding ad hoc assumptions. But when a model can be used to predict observations that are made later, the model is telling us something important about reality.
Yup - I think that is a very key point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Stephen Push, posted 10-27-2010 2:29 PM Stephen Push has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 21 of 72 (588816)
10-28-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Coyote
10-27-2010 2:54 PM


Re: Competing Models
Coyote writes:
Simple: There is evidence for one, and no evidence for the other.
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?
Coyote writes:
Off topic here, but how about starting a thread Adam and Eve Vs evolution?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 10-27-2010 2:54 PM Coyote has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 22 of 72 (589280)
11-01-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Straggler
10-27-2010 2:13 PM


Re: "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion"
Hello Straggler,
Straggler writes:
Whose religion? All religions?
You’re right that is a broad erroneous statement. I will rephrase:
Science is silent on matters concerning faith.
You do realize that there would probably be no such thing as science if that particular rule had been adhered to don't you? Think Galileo.
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.
Straggler writes:
So should science stay silent on matters such as: How the universe came to exist?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2010 2:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2010 4:47 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 23 of 72 (589649)
11-03-2010 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by 1.61803
11-01-2010 11:30 AM


Re: "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion"
Numbers writes:
Science is silent on matters concerning faith.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by 1.61803, posted 11-01-2010 11:30 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by 1.61803, posted 11-05-2010 10:16 AM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 24 of 72 (589968)
11-05-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Straggler
11-03-2010 4:47 PM


Re: "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2010 4:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 11-06-2010 10:22 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 25 of 72 (590150)
11-06-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by 1.61803
11-05-2010 10:16 AM


Re: "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion"
Numbers writes:
While you and anyone else can certainly be of the opinion that Science can verify matters of faith.
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?
Numbers writes:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by 1.61803, posted 11-05-2010 10:16 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by 1.61803, posted 11-08-2010 11:00 AM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 26 of 72 (590460)
11-08-2010 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Straggler
11-06-2010 10:22 AM


Re: "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion"
Faith is based on non evidence. Science is based on evidence.
Please correlate.
Edited by 1.61803, : reword.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 11-06-2010 10:22 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Straggler, posted 11-08-2010 12:54 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 27 of 72 (590491)
11-08-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by 1.61803
11-08-2010 11:00 AM


Re: "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion"
Numbers writes:
Faith is based on non evidence. Science is based on evidence.
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?
Numbers writes:
Please correlate.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by 1.61803, posted 11-08-2010 11:00 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by 1.61803, posted 11-08-2010 2:40 PM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 28 of 72 (590514)
11-08-2010 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Straggler
11-08-2010 12:54 PM


Re: "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion"
straggler writes:
What religious matter exactly is it that science should be silent on?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Straggler, posted 11-08-2010 12:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 11-08-2010 2:54 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 29 of 72 (590516)
11-08-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by 1.61803
11-08-2010 2:40 PM


Re: "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion"
Numbers writes:
Straggler writes:
What religious matter exactly is it that science should be silent on?
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?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by 1.61803, posted 11-08-2010 2:40 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by 1.61803, posted 11-08-2010 3:10 PM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 30 of 72 (590518)
11-08-2010 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Straggler
11-08-2010 2:54 PM


Re: "Science should be silent on matters concerning religion"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 11-08-2010 2:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 12:58 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024