|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4888 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mlodinow & Hawking on Model-Dependent Realism | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4888 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
So how do you decide between competing models as to which one most accurately describes or reflects reality?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So how do you decide between competing models as to which one most accurately describes or reflects reality?
Simple: There is evidence for one, and no evidence for the other. E.g. Biblical Genesis Vs Big Bang or Adam and Eve Vs evolution. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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: 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. So should science stay silent on matters such as: How the universe came to exist? 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Faith is based on non evidence. Science is based on evidence.
Please correlate. Edited by 1.61803, : reword.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
straggler writes: 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.
What religious matter exactly is it that science should be silent on?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024