russell jones Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 No, I do not have problems with the points I made about the limitations of science. I think it is at least an argument against realist perspectives on science and that is what I have a problem with. When I initially wanted to study physics, it is because it took the place of the metaphysical arguments of religion to me. But when I realized that physics was just as necessarily wrong/right as any given religion I had to stop studying it. My point is that science is more a matter of creating a consistent system of control rather than explaining the actual workings of the world. We just choose one consistent form of representation and went to town. That is all I am asserting. It still seems like you are looking for an absolute. Do you think philosophy will explain the actual workings of the world more thoroughly? I think I asked you this question before and you said something along the lines of philosophy was the study of understanding of the world or something along those lines... I'm simplifying of course, but let me get all Spinal Tap logic and just say, why don't you just take the method by which you understand the world and call it "science?" After all the Latin origin of the word just means knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 the idea that we cannot grasp god was created to control. and here we are umpteen thousand years later with people who fear the thunder and praise the skies. atheism FTW. (haha) I tend to agree. Saying that we don't understand God's ways or the concept of an eternal deity with no origin is just a cop out. It's not an answer to the origin problem. If you are going to say that everything comes from something, that everything has an origin, then you must say that God has an origin as well, and therein lies your problem fellas. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share Posted November 22, 2007 it's like the bad ass kid who disrespects his parents even though they were good to him. If I had a kid like that, once he was accountable for himself I'd boot him out of my house too, and so, those who don't thank God for everything will be booted out , and rightfully so. better prepare, because ya'll are seriously gonna get it. just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Science is a never ending process. It must accept the presupposition of an ending point if its epistemology is to have any sort of validity, but all our pursuits into looking at when we might find that answer only leads to a notion of it as an infinite regress. Here is a simple argument for the necessary failure (and from another perspective, saving grace of) science: Numbers are infinite, no? Yes What is the empirical unit of observation? Misleading question, this is a question of instrumentation and its observational capacity. Precision, if you will. Science relies on empirical evidence to make theories based on it. It seeks to create normality and abhors the novel. When all evidence has been accounted for and be further predicted, a theory works, based on continual observation. We may see observation as the perpetual testing of scientific theory. Re-frame the initial question then as this "What is our method of representation for observation?" Numbers. We express data as observed by some measurable quality. This measure of difference is augmented/restricted by the level of observational precision we are capable of. How many points past the decimal place are we when we speak on the Macro, Micro, and beyond level? We are speaking of observation through an infinite medium. We seek an end in something that by its very structure can not have one. The point is this, observational data can always be reduced to a new level of observational precision via the possibility of another decimal place. Thus theoretical testing can always go on. Theories are developed at a certain level of observation and can only accurately speak to that level. But we just noticed that observational level can always be focused further, and that possibility alone necessitates the rejection of an end point to Science. For when we suppose to say something about how the world in fact is, we are only speaking of it at a level that is always irrelevant in the future. This is straight bullshit from start to finish. You frame this whole argument so badly that serious scientists would have a case calling it a straw man you set up just to knock down. I attacked infinity in the "general philosophy" thread and I stand by what I wrote there. So while mathematics is a useful artificial structure, it has its limitations, which we discover when we push the boundaries of what is best known by science. Where math has been useful, we have learned much about the universe, although the stuff we know best is close by and at the human scale. But even without math, science as a function of meticulous observations followed by the application of logic has created a wealth of qualitative knowledge that doesn't need math to check out. The most ridiculous assertion you make is that science is aiming for an endpoint. That's bullshit. It is the open-ended quest for knowledge about the reality that we inhabit, and the only chance of it being doomed is if enough luddites, religious zealots, and other fools who prefer their faces in the sand instead of looking forward into the unknown acquire power and use it to destroy the curious. I hope you're on some devil's advocate, debate-for-debate's-sake shit here, because your premise is dogmess and I find it hard to believe that you're serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 You say its bullshit, but I am sayin go do reading on it. What I say is not from some random pull out my ass thoughts. I know I didn't get to your response on the infinite in the General Philo thread. I think that argument you have well in hand, and I am sorry I didn't respond to that. However, this argument about science, I am not wrong. All I am talking about is showing the relationship between theory, instruments used to test theory, and time. I am speaking to the argument of "realism" vs, "anti-realism" in philosophy of science. The former holds that the entities we discuss in theory are in fact existent, and the latter to the contrary. I am part of the latter, as are you. I do not think science needs an end point. All I was trying to say is that because science is necessarily tied to mathematics (and you can not dispute that, science works under the auspice that the logic of mathematics works, look at people who believe the reduction of the world is to physics or calculus) it is a infinite process as well. When I say science is based around the notion of an endpoint, it is about the ideal of causation. Also, you can not tell me there are not practicing scientists who think TOE's (Theory of Everything, as coined by Stephen Hawking) are what science is about. We can only go so far as we can count, but it is our potential to count that leads us to a belief in the infinite. This is the same thing as our belief in science. Science requires an appreciation of a fallacious argument, not for its logical validity, but because of its effectiveness in providing us what we want: technology. Science is a process based on its own failure. Again, I am not arguing that science is pointless or that it is bad, I am arguing for the perception of it as just a pragmatic approach to controlling the world around us not as some cannon of "truth". There is no difference between my BELIEF in Science and dawood's BELIEF in Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 What science is not reliant upon mathematics? It damn sure ain't physics or any subset there of. It ain't chemistry or any subset thereof. It ain't biology or any subset thereof. etc. And when you say: "So while mathematics is a useful artificial structure, it has its limitations, which we discover when we push the boundaries of what is best known by science." And science is not an artificial structure? And what is the difference between logic and mathematics? You say it in your own comment (pardon the paraphras): we find the limitations of mathematics through pushing the boundaries of science. This is essentially saying the limitations of mathematics are the limitations of science. Look at the structure of your statement. If physics is nothing but causal laws, how are those laws expressed? I tend to think it is in mathematical notation. "Where math has been useful, we have learned much about the universe, although the stuff we know best is close by and at the human scale. But even without math, science as a function of meticulous observations followed by the application of logic has created a wealth of qualitative knowledge that doesn't need math to check out." Science is not "a function of meticulous observations followed by application of logic." Science is a process where a proposition is posed as a causal nexus (if Gravity exists in this way: F=MmG/r^2, than an object of mass M will have an attraction of force F to another object with mass m.), thus the terms of observation are defined, and the observation is encoded into an observational language. Science seeks quantifiable observational data because it lacks the possibility of disagreement that qualitative data does. Mathematics provides the universal logical nature of science you seem to be so championing. My argument is that science, just like mathematics is a never ending process. Neither is "truth" or explicitly stating how the world "actually" is. Any theory in either will always be a guess as to reality. Science and any other metaphysical argument are on par. Our choice to believe in science is no more "right" than to believe in any other system of belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I don't have time for a proper response. I feel like we're jousting on opposite sides of a wide-median interstate and skewering air instead of reaching each other. You frame things strangely and pull QEDs out of a hat. I'll try to go into detail later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Cracked ass, do you believe in electrons? and if so, define what they are for me. tell me where to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 in all honesty, I have never known what QED meant. care to enlighten? and don't mind me right now, i am bored and in vermont. it is cold and i am bitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 QED. (latin) literally, "quod erat demonstrandum" — meaning that which was to be demonstrated, used to formally earmark the end of a logical or mathematical proof. I won't mind you right now...you keep throwing out new questions and I'm still working on answering the initial rebuttal. And it's 2:17AM and I'm full of turkey and apple pie. We might want to go back to the general philosophy thread to continue, since we're now on the philosophy of science rather than the nature of the creator. I dunno, I'll have somthing up in one or the other soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 word, see ya there. i just finished a plate of turkey myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 it's like the bad ass kid who disrespects his parents even though they were good to him. If I had a kid like that, once he was accountable for himself I'd boot him out of my house too, and so, those who don't thank God for everything will be booted out , and rightfully so. better prepare, because ya'll are seriously gonna get it. just sayin' I think all you've convinced me of is that God is an asshole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share Posted November 23, 2007 you've convinced yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I'll take a stab at it. it's almost like the teacher who's been teaching his students all year and knows who studied, who slacked off and knows who will do well and who won't but he tests them anyway just to be fair instead of just grading them based on what he knows of them. Idk if thats what i was looking for. In Judaism we believe that G-d doesn't test anyone in a way they cant pass. Meaning if you, for example, leave a candy bar on the table in your house, it would be tempting for your children to eat it even if they aren't supposed to, but they can pass and not eat it. G-d also will help someone pass if they ask for help. Also the Satan doesnt effect the other nations. There is an angel that is in charge of the respective other nations. Whether it is the angels job to point out their failures or not I do not know. In the end G-d makes the final decisions. Basically, its much easier not to be Jewish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share Posted November 26, 2007 that's a trip. if I thought I was Chosen by god. I'd want God to "choose" others as well. As for God testing people in a way they can't pass, no, that would be unreasonable, I guess that's why it's difficult to discuss religion on msg boards because there's so much to applying a way of life to your everyday life that can't effectively be articulated in one post. God says in the quran that he never burdens a soul beyond what it can bear. BTW. Mar...I just had a son and named him Musa (Moshe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Mazal Tov! Thats a really nice name. I hope he brings you much pride and joy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Dumielle Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Colloquially, a theory is an idea. Scientifically, a theory is an accepted synthesis of a large body of knowledge, consisting of well-tested hypotheses, laws and scientific facts, which concurrently describe and connect natural phenomena. There are actually very few theories in science, including atomic theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of the standard model of particle physics. Without the ability to test the hypotheses of Intelligent Design, it cannot be considered a theory in the scientific sense. Only in common, conversational instances can the "theory" of a "god" be actually considered a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Wrong how? http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Verification and justification in science is in some respects just as murky as unquestioning faith. My only point is that science is on par with any other metaphysical argument. Law's in science are only valid in the system they contend. It is a bit like circular definition to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Verification and justification in science is in some respects just as murky as unquestioning faith. My only point is that science is on par with any other metaphysical argument. No, it is not; and No, it is not. Respectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 First of all, we don't even agree on the definition of science, so we better clear that up. Earlier I called it "meticulous observation followed by the application of logic". I also buy Dumielle's description above. IF YOU DON'T, then we are not even talking about the same thing. Science is what we said. If you say no, then you're off on some semantics bullshit, talking some cryptic irrelevancies and calling them "science". I speak of the science that consists of meticulous observations followed by the application of logic. What are YOU speaking of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Module X Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 ^I don't think you understand crooked's argument. Crooked, I think you might be going too far in equating scientific faith to religious faith. I need to think about it. I really shouldn't involve myself in this thread, I have 3 physics lab reports to write... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 I am not saying science is by any means not meticulous or not about the measured observation of the world as to ascertain its necessary workings. I agree science has a beautiful structure. Something which recognizes its own capacity for failure and builds that into how it revises itself. I question things like the attachment of any given theory to a guess as to the causal relationship the theory contends as true. Any conditional argument presupposes the validity of its premise. To say looking for this or that data, contends that this or that data corresponds to a legitimate entity to be measured within science. But the fact that we constantly and will forever always find newer and different entities with which we choose to describe the world, shows that any one definition of "How" the world is is necessarily wrong. Again, appreciating science for its pragmatic value in making shit go the way we want, I am all for. But seeing it as a cannon of "Truth" I do not agree with. It is at that point which it becomes the same as Christianity or any other dogma of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Actually, addendum: "Necessarily wrong" is a bad phrasing. I should say "Can always be something else." There are an infinitude of consistent ways to describe the world given a certain set of data. Any theory in science is merely but one of those possibilities. That we rely on the progressive failure of each theory to find a newer and more successful one is illusory of the very point of Science I am trying to show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 I speak of the science that consists of meticulous observations followed by the application of logic. What I am speaking of is the limitations of that logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Dumielle Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 My basic point was that the intelligent dsign argument, shouldn't be called a theory in the scientific sense. Simply because it cannot be tested, at all..... If people want to believe in a higher being that is their choice, not mine in particular, but that's why America is great, no? I do however see crooked's point, but I do not feel that because at our current evolutionary stage, the limitations of human logic should then cause some people to treat science as a religion simply because as a race we haven't yet found all the answers we're looking for. I think the fact that science is always trying to move forward in finding answers is one of the biggest things that sets science apart from religions. Becasue scientists always know that there are questions that need to be answered, while religions are completely satisfied with their one answer to everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 oh yeah. agreed. ID is trash. psuedo-science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 ...while religions are completely satisfied with their one answer to everything. I think thats kind of a broad statement. "Because G-d made it so" may be the final answer, but I think religion allows for lots of research into why He made it so. But I mean I can only speak for Judaism, and on a basic level, I'm not a Rabbi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted November 30, 2007 Author Share Posted November 30, 2007 it would be Lolzrageous if rabbis hung out in graffiti forums..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.