Should Science Speak To Faith? - Page 5

calpurnpiso · 06-26-2007, 09:24 AM

Lily wrote:

"Memes are not testable, I don't think, yet it doesn't stop a whole mess of people, scientists among them, from accepting them as an adequate theoretical explanation for various phenomena."

Well, retard, neither are THOUGHTS and yet, when they become distorted, making people ACCEPT stupid, idiotic, puerile, DELUSIONS-- the essence of ALL religious beliefs --as if they were reality we can clearly SEE and FEEL the results! While Dawkins defines them as viruses of the mind, I believe they are the result of a primordial anomaly that made the hominid brain, over 6 millions years ago, evolved into the brain we have today giving it the ability to grasp abstract concepts ( higher cognition). The problem is that with this evolution irrational delusions slowly separating from the animal instinct had to be accepted as reality as in children brains over million of year later. Religious absurd beliefs were born.

Science should expose faith for the psychosis it truly is.

Sternwallow · 06-26-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote

Quote:

a different tim wrote

Nah, I'm game. Paradigm shifts (existence of) is a historical issue that bears on the topic of the thread. Lily's a historian. It's fair enough as far as I can see.

You could argue the case either way. You could claim that the citations index is unlikely to contain any papers that precipitate genuine paradigm shifts, for example, but I think given the way the sandpile model fits the data the onus is now on the Kuhnians to demonstrate that paradigm shifts actually exist (for people who don't know what I'm talking about go via the link on post 17). There might also, as I said, be some Godel type proof (e.g. demonstrating mathematically the possibility that semantically incommensurable theories can be abstracted from the same data set) that I am unaware of. Rhino knows about that stuff. Calling Rhino!

It seems to me that "paradigm shifts" only look like they exist to people who aren't actually involved in the work. Nobody remembers all the near misses, or the mountain of work that backs up the big ideas but was published as a curiosity or in some obscure journal. The large breakthroughs happen with a huge base of less inspiring, but still necessary material beneath it. It's like building a house and only recognizing that it exists after the roof is on.

The notion of a paradigm as a perspective or world view or set of conceptual tools is very appealing when one can point to commonly recognized things like science or religion as examples. One might also use politics. The reaction of a foreign state to an imposed tariff is immeasurably different from a physical reaction. The characterization of paradigms as being totally incommensurate, however cannot be correct. The fact that propositions in a given paradigm can grow, change and progress would make a slightly different paradigm which was still highly commensurate with its predecessor is immediate refutation. In order for activities in one paradigm to affect any of them in another paradigm, there must be some amount of intersection between them. The paradigms are then commensurate simply by their relation to the common parts.

The failure of religion vs science NOM is due to the huge intersection they share despite some lame attempts by religionists to deny it. If these two paradigms were truly separate, compatibility would be a non-issue.

Religion and science are searches for truth about the two very different environments we seem to be embedded in. We happily accept, without comment, those truths about common things from each side, but we have reasonable problems when the truths actually conflict. Thus, if religion says there was a large round kettle somewhere, that is compatible with science. If, however, religion makes a special effort to say that the kettle was simultaneously round and not-round it is a very definite Overlapping Magesterium issue.

In a simplified form, I see parallel structures for discovering truth in these OMs. Scientifically, facts (confirmed observations of effects in the natural world) define the character of explanations (theories) which produce natural or scientific knowledge. Religion collects facts (inspiration from other than natural sources) which inform supernatural explanation (faith) thus producing religious knowledge.

These two very different understandings of the meaning of truth could have coexisted, each ignoring the other, if it hadn't been for the gross overlaps where conflict between them is so pervasive.

Even without the difficulties in areas of overlap, there would still be a problem on the religious side regarding faith as a method for formulating truth. The truth of the source inspiration is in question. Because inspiration is not under control by the seeker, there is no way to validate it. Was I inspired truthfully to plan a pilgrimage to Charon by some Unicorn? When the FSM whispers in my ear that there is no tri-omni Uncorn, how can the truth of this proposition be certified? The test for truth cannot simply be whether they make me feel more secure or that false revelation turns my stomach. There is simply no way for faith, based on revelation, to be considered a path to truth. This conclusion is born out by the vast majority of humans whose faith contradicts any one else's faith.

Faith backed up by facts is knowledge. Faith without facts cannot be verified and is often false.

Choobus · 06-26-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote

Quote:

Choobus wrote

And have you heard of Jan Henrick Schon? He tried to do some difficult experiments, and he was certain they would work. But they didn't. However, he had a conviction of the mind, based on [what he thought was] adequate evidence, and so he falsified his data, probably as a result of his convictions continuing as a confidence in his heart or emotions (based on conviction). All this was of course crowned in his willful act to write phony articles, because to him they were not phony, he just didn't have the scientific proof he needed. He did, however, have faith, and because he really believed he thought it was ok to present what is in actuality fraudulent data. Schon made the mistake of confusing arbitrary invented knowledge with actual scientific evidence. It turns out that the only evidence that is in fact adequate can be tested, whereas the "adequate" evidence needed for faith not only can't be tested, but need not even be real.

I have read that science has been pushed forward on more than one occasion on the insubstantial wings of theories that did not have a lot of support from the available evidence. This wouldn't surprise me, if it is true, because I would expect that the "gut feelings" or intuitions of trained scientists would be worth pursuing. Schon sounds like a sad case to me but, since scientific fraud is a well-known phenomenon, I assume it is his emotional investment in what he really, really wanted to be true that sets him apart from the rest. I certainly understand that phenomeon, as do most of us. More than one woman has stayed with an abusive husband for just that reason ...

As far as Griffith-Thomas is concerned, what is it with Victorian era Brit academics that they can't write plain English??? If I understand him correctly (and I emphasize if) then yes, I do agree with him.

Beyond that, you still believe, like so many scientists, that there is no evidence and that we believe blindly, blah, blah, blah. It simply isn't so and it can't be stated often enough. I intend to state it at least two more times today. Fair warning.

(Edited to correct horrid grammatical error.)

I would be most interested to know what evidence there is for faith. It seems to me that the entire structure of religon is set up to avoid the need for any pesky evidence "blessed is he who has seen me, but super double blessed is he who has not seen me and still believes! Ha ha, suckers... what, is this thing still on? Oh for fu..... "

Choobus · 06-26-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

Quote:

Choobus wrote

Quote:

a different tim wrote

Nah, I'm game. Paradigm shifts (existence of) is a historical issue that bears on the topic of the thread. Lily's a historian. It's fair enough as far as I can see.

You could argue the case either way. You could claim that the citations index is unlikely to contain any papers that precipitate genuine paradigm shifts, for example, but I think given the way the sandpile model fits the data the onus is now on the Kuhnians to demonstrate that paradigm shifts actually exist (for people who don't know what I'm talking about go via the link on post 17). There might also, as I said, be some Godel type proof (e.g. demonstrating mathematically the possibility that semantically incommensurable theories can be abstracted from the same data set) that I am unaware of. Rhino knows about that stuff. Calling Rhino!

It seems to me that "paradigm shifts" only look like they exist to people who aren't actually involved in the work. Nobody remembers all the near misses, or the mountain of work that backs up the big ideas but was published as a curiosity or in some obscure journal. The large breakthroughs happen with a huge base of less inspiring, but still necessary material beneath it. It's like building a house and only recognizing that it exists after the roof is on.

The notion of a paradigm as a perspective or world view or set of conceptual tools is very appealing when one can point to commonly recognized things like science or religion as examples. One might also use politics. The reaction of a foreign state to an imposed tariff is immeasurably different from a physical reaction. The characterization of paradigms as being totally incommensurate, however cannot be correct. The fact that propositions in a given paradigm can grow, change and progress would make a slightly different paradigm which was still highly commensurate with its predecessor is immediate refutation. In order for activities in one paradigm to affect any of them in another paradigm, there must be some amount of intersection between them. The paradigms are then commensurate simply by their relation to the common parts.

The failure of religion vs science NOM is due to the huge intersection they share despite some lame attempts by religionists to deny it. If these two paradigms were truly separate, compatibility would be a non-issue.

Religion and science are searches for truth about the two very different environments we seem to be embedded in. We happily accept, without comment, those truths about common things from each side, but we have reasonable problems when the truths actually conflict. Thus, if religion says there was a large round kettle somewhere, that is compatible with science. If, however, religion makes a special effort to say that the kettle was simultaneously round and not-round it is a very definite Overlapping Magesterium issue.

In a simplified form, I see parallel structures for discovering truth in these OMs. Scientifically, facts (confirmed observations of effects in the natural world) define the character of explanations (theories) which produce natural or scientific knowledge. Religion collects facts (inspiration from other than natural sources) which inform supernatural explanation (faith) thus producing religious knowledge.

These two very different understandings of the meaning of truth could have coexisted, each ignoring the other, if it hadn't been for the gross overlaps where conflict between them is so pervasive.

Even without the difficulties in areas of overlap, there would still be a problem on the religious side regarding faith as a method for formulating truth. The truth of the source inspiration is in question. Because inspiration is not under control by the seeker, there is no way to validate it. Was I inspired truthfully to plan a pilgrimage to Charon by some Unicorn? When the FSM whispers in my ear that there is no tri-omni Uncorn, how can the truth of this proposition be certified? The test for truth cannot simply be whether they make me feel more secure or that false revelation turns my stomach. There is simply no way for faith, based on revelation, to be considered a path to truth. This conclusion is born out by the vast majority of humans whose faith contradicts any one else's faith.

Faith backed up by facts is knowledge. Faith without facts cannot be verified and is often false.

I can accept that all encompassing shifts (I suppose you can call them paradigm shifts if you really want to) exist in areas where a cascade can occur rapidly and change something that is not a reflection of reality in the way that science is. For example, there have been many gold rush type scientific endeavours (cold fusion for example) where it looked like somehting was going to happen and everyone was trying, but it simply didn't work, and the paradigm remained unshifted. In politics or religon or the stock market things will change if people think they are changing, or want them to. In fact the stock market is absurdly sensitive to this shit, and we call the resulting shifts depressions. I don't know how Kuhn type ideas apply to such things, but I just don't think there is any good evidence that it really describes the progress of science. Religious "knowledge" depends entirely on interpretation, whereas scientific knowledge depends only slightly on interpretation. [You can interpret MAxwells eequations any way you like, but if you want to build a microwave communications network that actually works your interpretation choices become limited). Faith backed up by facts is just some facts. The faith is irrelevent. If a doctor injects you with an experimental vaccine its efficacy doesn't depend on whether or not that doctor likes cheese.

06-26-2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote

I would be most interested to know what evidence there is for faith. It seems to me that the entire structure of religon is set up to avoid the need for any pesky evidence "blessed is he who has seen me, but super double blessed is he who has not seen me and still believes! Ha ha, suckers... what, is this thing still on? Oh for fu..... "

I thank G--, er, my lucky stars-- no, no! wait... I thank my sterilized test tubes for Dr. C. Were it not for you, Dr. C. I would have failed to repeat for the third time today, as promised, that belief is not (necessarily) blind. It is not unreasonable, nor is it illogical.

I suppose I could try to lay out the case for belief. It would be quite a feat, if I could bring it off, well. But first I would need to know from you your view on how we know anything at all. Would you accept the traditional understanding that knowledge is "justified true belief"?

Beliefs in this formulation are expectations grounded in experience; true=reliable experiential expectations; justified means that our beliefs are supported by evidence (of some kind) such that we can be confident about them.

So naturally, we have to see if we are on the same page about what constitutes evidence (justification). I have to ask what kinds of evidence can establish that we know something? How much evidence is required and how good does it have to be, before we can have justified true belief?

Sternwallow · 06-26-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote

Quote:

Choobus wrote

And have you heard of Jan Henrick Schon? He tried to do some difficult experiments, and he was certain they would work. But they didn't. However, he had a conviction of the mind, based on [what he thought was] adequate evidence, and so he falsified his data, probably as a result of his convictions continuing as a confidence in his heart or emotions (based on conviction). All this was of course crowned in his willful act to write phony articles, because to him they were not phony, he just didn't have the scientific proof he needed. He did, however, have faith, and because he really believed he thought it was ok to present what is in actuality fraudulent data. Schon made the mistake of confusing arbitrary invented knowledge with actual scientific evidence. It turns out that the only evidence that is in fact adequate can be tested, whereas the "adequate" evidence needed for faith not only can't be tested, but need not even be real.

I have read that science has been pushed forward on more than one occasion on the insubstantial wings of theories that did not have a lot of support from the available evidence. This wouldn't surprise me, if it is true, because I would expect that the "gut feelings" or intuitions of trained scientists would be worth pursuing. Schon sounds like a sad case to me but, since scientific fraud is a well-known phenomenon, I assume it is his emotional investment in what he really, really wanted to be true that sets him apart from the rest. I certainly understand that phenomeon, as do most of us. More than one woman has stayed with an abusive husband for just that reason ...

As far as Griffith-Thomas is concerned, what is it with Victorian era Brit academics that they can't write plain English??? If I understand him correctly (and I emphasize if) then yes, I do agree with him.

Beyond that, you still believe, like so many scientists, that there is no evidence and that we believe blindly, blah, blah, blah. It simply isn't so and it can't be stated often enough. I intend to state it at least two more times today. Fair warning.

(Edited to correct horrid grammatical error.)

Once again you promise evidence (this time specifically in the scientific paradigm (arena)) rather than actually stating it. I no longer expect you to honor this often-made promise.

Choobus · 06-26-2007, 06:33 PM

First of all (Lily), if you can't accept that there might not be a god then you are in hot water because any belief system about anything at all has, in my opinion , to admit to the possibility of being wrong. This is obviously true in science, as your earlier Feynman quote points out. QED (which he helped invent) is amazingly well tested. It is the most understood theory of physics and has the most stringent tests. As soon as new technology is invented that can make a more accurate determination of the theory it always turns out to be right (so far). And yet even then we have to say it could be all wrong. It's HIGHLY unlikely, but it could be wrong. Can you make that assertion about God's existance?

Sternwallow · 06-26-2007, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote

Memes are not testable, I don't think, yet it doesn't stop a whole mess of people, scientists among them, from accepting them as an adequate theoretical explanation for various phenomena. I am not sure that scientists are quite as disinterested as they like to pretend. (I exempt Choobus from this critique because he is obviously measured and rational in all his opinions.)

I don't think my challenge is to persuade scientists of anything. They inhabit the same world I do. Since there are any number of phenomena that they cannot test, I think I would like to see them use reason and logic to deal with them, not claim that they don't exist because they can't be reduced to something that can be tested in a lab.

I am not averse to to using a bludgeon, however. Ahem. ... Belief is not (necessarily) blind. It is not unreasonable nor is it illogical.

One more to come.

Oh drat-- I see ADT got a message in while I was writing. Still, I think what I wrote holds for him too. However, in Phil's defense-- he wasn't being less than polite, he was being his usual subtle and sardonic self. I value that about him, just as I value your (adt's) excellent manners!

Memes are an adequate explanation for the coherence and replication of notions in society. They have supporting evidence in the form of demonstrably applicable formulas from epedemiology. It is not proof, of course, but it is scientific supporting evidence.

What formula do you have that will, to even the slightest degree, predict the behavior of your god? Not even the scattered prophesies can be used as predictors. It is admitted that events were arranged to satisfy prophesy and that is prime invalidation of both the prophesy and the event.

06-26-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote

First of all (Lily), if you can't accept that there might not be a god then you are in hot water because any belief system about anything at all has, in my opinion , to admit to the possibility of being wrong. This is obviously true in science, as your earlier Feynman quote points out. QED (which he helped invent) is amazingly well tested. It is the most understood theory of physics and has the most stringent tests. As soon as new technology is invented that can make a more accurate determination of the theory it always turns out to be right (so far). And yet even then we have to say it could be all wrong. It's HIGHLY unlikely, but it could be wrong. Can you make that assertion about God's existance?

Actually, yes. I freely admit that it could all be one beautiful dream (or malignant hoax) and untrue. I don't know of anyone who hasn't gone through his or her "dark night of the soul". Sometimes I think that the worst thing about our current state of affairs, at least among the dreaded, much maligned and often non-existent fundies, is that people think that doubt is a bad thing and that somehow not admitting it will make it go away. Frankly, I think that goes a long way towards explaining some of the more bizarre failures among the leadership that
we see every day, it seems. Mr. Haggard springs to mind quite readily as do a host of others.

Did I quote Feynman, earlier? I have only one really good quote from him and I have been saving it for a special occasion...

06-26-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote

Quote:

Choobus wrote

First of all (Lily), if you can't accept that there might not be a god then you are in hot water because any belief system about anything at all has, in my opinion , to admit to the possibility of being wrong. This is obviously true in science, as your earlier Feynman quote points out. QED (which he helped invent) is amazingly well tested. It is the most understood theory of physics and has the most stringent tests. As soon as new technology is invented that can make a more accurate determination of the theory it always turns out to be right (so far). And yet even then we have to say it could be all wrong. It's HIGHLY unlikely, but it could be wrong. Can you make that assertion about God's existance?

Actually, yes. I freely admit that it could all be one beautiful dream (or malignant hoax) and untrue. I don't know of anyone who hasn't gone through his or her "dark night of the soul". Sometimes I think that the worst thing about our current state of affairs, at least among the dreaded, much maligned and often non-existent fundies, is that people think that doubt is a bad thing and that somehow not admitting it will make it go away. Frankly, I think that goes a long way towards explaining some of the more bizarre failures among the leadership that
we see every day, it seems. Mr. Haggard springs to mind quite readily as do a host of others.

Did I quote Feynman, earlier? I have only one really good quote from him and I have been saving it for a special occasion...

Might have been an unconscious quote of Feynman's. lily. Choobus has a mind like a steel trap for that sort of thing. ;)

nkb · 06-26-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote

Quote:

Choobus wrote

I would be most interested to know what evidence there is for faith. It seems to me that the entire structure of religon is set up to avoid the need for any pesky evidence "blessed is he who has seen me, but super double blessed is he who has not seen me and still believes! Ha ha, suckers... what, is this thing still on? Oh for fu..... "

I thank G--, er, my lucky stars-- no, no! wait... I thank my sterilized test tubes for Dr. C. Were it not for you, Dr. C. I would have failed to repeat for the third time today, as promised, that belief is not (necessarily) blind. It is not unreasonable, nor is it illogical.

I suppose I could try to lay out the case for belief. It would be quite a feat, if I could bring it off, well. But first I would need to know from you your view on how we know anything at all. Would you accept the traditional understanding that knowledge is "justified true belief"?

Beliefs in this formulation are expectations grounded in experience; true=reliable experiential expectations; justified means that our beliefs are supported by evidence (of some kind) such that we can be confident about them.

So naturally, we have to see if we are on the same page about what constitutes evidence (justification). I have to ask what kinds of evidence can establish that we know something? How much evidence is required and how good does it have to be, before we can have justified true belief?

Once you've hashed out the ground rules, can you answer the question I posted here?

Quote:

I wrote

Refresh my memory, what is the evidence of Jesus' resurrection, apart from second-hand accounts from anonymous authors?

Choobus · 06-26-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote

(I exempt Choobus from this critique because he is obviously measured and rational in all his opinions.)

By George, I think she's got it!

Sternwallow · 06-27-2007, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote

the traditional understanding that knowledge is "justified true belief"?

That is a nicely stacked bit of wordplay. It begs about a half-dozen separate questions while attempting to lead to a certain conclusion.
It is inappropriate to assume the truth of the belief as part of the definintion.
Justification fails to be an adequate substitute for evidence because it is subjectively evaluated. One might, for example say that material appearing in the Bible is justification for a belief because it feels so right.
Belief is not a necessary component of knowledge, but merely an emotional/subjective reaction to it that is often correct but not always.

Let's use the scientific definition of knowledge as rational explanation of verifiable natural observations.

06-27-2007, 12:56 AM

Your definition is ok as far as it goes but it is hopelessly inadequate. You might, for the fun of it, google "justified true beliefs" (or, head straight for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Theories of what constitutes knowledge and how we know anything are interesting and can be quite complex. There have been plenty of critiques of "justified true beliefs" offered but it seems like a starting place to me, in that most of us can understand and assent to the terms and start there reasonably happily.

a different tim · 06-27-2007, 01:02 AM

I can go with JTB as the traditional philosophical definition. The usual grounds for conflict are arguments over what "justification" and "truth" mean.

So, to state my position:

I would argue for a narrow view of justification to include testable predictions and not a vast amount else, and a view of knowledge that is essentially if/then propositional knowledge. I think other forms of knowledge, such as knowledge by acquaintance, can be reduced to propositional knowledge, or else they are something we would not properly call "knowledge". "Knowing" a person, for example, essentially means we are able to broadly predict their behaviour in various circumstances, and "knowing" a piece of music means that given one part of it we can predict what will happen next. The better we know them the more accurate our predictions are likely to be.

There are insights to be gained from other forms of justification, but I would not call the results of such insights "knowledge".

I would however argue for a fairly broad view of testability - for example, a lot of historical knowledge is testable in that we can cross check documents with archaeological finds, for example. Although this kind of thing counts, I do not believe it is as secure as a rigorous mathematical prediction. I know you (Lily) are a historian, and if you like I can give a very concrete example of the kind of thing I mean here.

As for "truth" we can argue about the status of truth if you like, but it's a separate issue. However I regard the business of science as producing accurate models, and accuracy is subtly different to "truth" which may be unattainable. This is why I regard knowledge as propositional - accurate models produce statements of the order "if x, then y" which are not dependent on some transcendental notion of truth.