|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4887 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mlodinow & Hawking on Model-Dependent Realism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: 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...... 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?
Numbers continues writes: ......faith is concerned with among other things spiritual inner well being, the practice of various religions and the beliefs based on dogma, religion and non evidenced materials. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: I believe it is obvious we are not able to come to agreement on this. Because you are not making any sense.
Numbers writes: I rephased my statement to matters of faith. Yes in such a way that your arguments applied to the institutional organisation of knitting circles as much as they do religious institutions.
Numbers writes: I explained my position adequately and yet you persist that science has something to say over matters of faith. 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 realityB) That don't apply equally to the institutional arrangements of knitting circles Numbers writes: I asked how could this be if faith by definition is based on non evidence. Give me an example of one of these non-evidenced conclusions or models on which science must stay silent then.
Numbers writes: Please reference the definition of Faith. Please give an example of a specific matter unique to faith on which science must stay silent.
Numbers writes: All that is required is one believe. All that is required for knitting circle membership is that one like knitting. So what? what does this have to do with modelling reality?
Numbers writes: Not a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled multi center trial. OK. So why can't you give an example of a specific matter unique to faith on which science must stay silent?
Numbers writes: Thus I conclude we are deadlocked. 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Straggler writes:
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? 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 realityB) That don't apply equally to the institutional arrangements of knitting circles 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So now you are saying that science should stay silent on the causal relationship between rain and frogs?
Numbers writes: A increase in frogs after the rains. Is knowlege of science required for these people to get the information they need to survive? 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.
Numbers writes: I hope you dont have a stroke after reading my post. I am in more danger of dying of laughter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: Now "Science is silent on matters concerning faith". Well now that you have (sort of) provided something concrete to work with let’s see.
Numbers writes: A scientist would be hard pressed to show through rigorous scientific research that frog gods do not exist. 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?
Numbers writes: A scientist would be hard pressed to show through rigorous scientific research that frog gods do not exist. 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.
Numbers writes: Now "Science is silent on matters concerning faith". 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.
Numbers writes: That is why there are physcians who have faith and belief in God. Hard as that may seem to you to believe. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Straggler writes: 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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4887 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined:
|
1.61803 writes: 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. I see several issues arising in this discussion. One involves the "is-ought problem." Another involves the difference between religion as a sourse of values and religion as an explanation of facts about the world. Some people derive their moral values from their religious tradition. Science has something to say about how those values arise, how they are transmitted, what effects they have on society. But science cannot tell people what their values ought to be. Your frog-god worshippers are not just looking to their god for values. They are using their god as an explanation of a fact about the world. While science cannot prove the frog god does not exist, it can show that the frog god is superfluous to a well-confirmed theory about the cause of changes in the frog population. In fact, science has a distinct advantage over religion in the matter of predicting frog population changes. That is because, during a drought, science would suggest that people who want more frogs should dig irrigation ditches. I would venture to guess that irrigation ditches would be more likley to boost the frog population than praying to the frog god would. It is true that faith exists in the absence of evidence -- even in the face of evidence to the contrary. But as Straggler has explained, science can productively study the phenomenon of faith. And ditch-digging heretics will probably explain that science has greater practical value when one wants to affect facts about the word, even though some of the ditch diggers many continue to pray to the frog god. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: Stragler writes: 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. Irrelevant. 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.
Numbers writes: Science can as I described in not so many words, literally, show evidence for the frog god phenomenon that otherwise requires none. 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.
Numbers writes: Furthermore the redundancy of a frog god is not taking into account cultral and religious importance. 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.
Numbers writes: Thus it is as I stated before the role of science is to further humanitys knowlege through evidenced based diciplines and not hocus pocus. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi Stephan, he knows wtf I am talking about. He is just being Stragger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
1.61803 writes:
Do you think that explaining Straggler's understanding to Stephen will effect how much Stephen disagrees with you? Hi Stephan, he knows wtf I am talking about. Did you honestly read Stephen's post and think it supported your arguement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
So, basically, you want science to stay away from your faith because it can (and has) provided evidence contrary to most matters of faith, and you feel there is a necessity for people to believe things strictly on faith but science comes in and fucks that up, what with it's facts and all. Is that about right? This shines through with your frog-god and how science can provide evidence that this deity is not necessary, but you claim that people would still wish to hold on to this notion: mainly because, IMO, it makes them .....feel good?
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
hooah212002 writes:
Absolutely not. My statement is that science is silent on matters of faith. So, basically, you want science to stay away from your faith....etc. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024