[_ Old Earth _] The big questions!

[rainbows]

Is that which is observable explained by that which is observable.

Is empiricism a valid approach to understanding what the Universe is?

Does an empirical approach supply an explanation for the existence
of mankind?

 

[felix]

Is that which is observable explained by that which is observable.

No. E.g, illusions.

Is empiricism a valid approach to understanding what the Universe is?

No. What you can experiment and observe limits to what you can experiment and can observe. E.g, undiscovered elements in periodic table still exists, quantum physics is still not understood and works on the basis of probability.

Does an empirical approach supply an explanation for the existence
of mankind?

No. E.g, moral values does not exist within science.

 

[rainbows]

Hello felix.

If the answer to the three questions is no then
why do atheist and agnostics appeal so strongly
to Science?

Is Science a faith system after all?

 

[felix]

If the answer to the three questions is no then
why do atheist and agnostics appeal so strongly to Science?

Because they want an explanation other than God. They are simply defending their belief system because, if they happen to believe in God then they become theist not atheist or agnostic anymore.

Is Science a faith system after all?

No. Science means knowledge in Latin. To a Christian, it is the study of God's creation and His awesome power. There are some who take the clothing of science to speak lies (pseudo-science). e.g, astrology, evolution.

 

[rainbows]

Thanks for the answers felix much appreciated.

I would like you to read the following and give me your
opinion, since you believe that science is not a faith based.

Science is a faith system, a religion, a construction
of human thought.

Let me explain why Science relies on faith.

Below are the assuptions of science, please read.

Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7)

1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure.
Laws of nature describe order.

2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature.
Individuals and social exhibit order;
may be studied same as nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes.
Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious,
spiritualistic, and magical explanations.

4. Nothing is self evident.
Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

Now what specifically is an assumption?

Definition of an assumption: something taken for granted
or accepted as true without proof

So from assumption (3), all phenomema have natural causes,
which is accepted without proof. This is a necessity since it is
impossible in the first place to know whether any event has in fact
a natural cause. Thus it may only be assumed.

Hence, science may only believe that a system that
is studied is understood on the basis of the assumptions.

Science, a belief system which is accepted as true without proof.

If I was to ask you to prove that a finding of science was true,
you could only ever reply. "I believe it is true",
the emphasis is on "believe".

Is it possible to prove anything in science, probably not, it is
only a construction of faith in the end. Absolute knowledge
would be necessary to ultimately know whether something
was objectively true.

Lets revisit assumption three, you will notice that science is
opposed to religion. One faith against another faith?

Christianity is the super natural revelation of Jesus Christ.

Christianity does not defer to assumptions.

I must emphasis that the spiritual is beyond the natural.

Science cannot measure or detect God, His creation is
under written by the work of the spirit of God.

Science cannot know God.

 

[Barbarian]

1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure.
Laws of nature describe order.

So far, that's what we've found.

2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature.
Individuals and social exhibit order;
may be studied same as nature.

At least the observable parts. Science can't say anything about the unobservable parts.

3. All phenomena have natural causes.

No. It's "All natural phenomena have natural causes." Science can't say anything about supernatural things, or even say if they exist or not. Scientists can, however.

Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious,
spiritualistic, and magical explanations.

No. Science is unable to evaluate such things.

4. Nothing is self evident.

I have no idea where you got that.

Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

That's how science works. But it doesn't deny the possibility of other ways of knowing.

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

In science they are. But remember, science is limited to the physical universe.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

"Know the truth and the truth will set you free." Yep. Knowledge is a value in itself for science.

Of course, none of this is faith. It always demands verification. Science is inductive, so it has no faiths, no absolute truths. Everything depends on what further evidence shows.

 

[felix]

I think the assumptions from Nachmias and Nachmias's book are his views. But science simply means knowledge in latin.

You can assume the world is flat or spherical based on observation. Both are in fact knowledge or study about world. It is not a requirement that knowledge must be true. Knowledge or science is simply what we know not the truth.

 

[Barbarian]

Maybe it's time to do a little reading about epistemology. It would be worth your time to do it.

 

[rainbows]

Science is based on assumptions.

An assumption is a belief.

Science is a belief.

All natural phenomena have a natural cause, not according to the Bible.

God creates and destroys, never any natural cause for any event.

 

[felix]

Science is based on assumptions.

Science is knowledge based on reason. Let me know an assumption used in science which is not a theory or hypothesis.

An assumption is a belief. Science is a belief.

You believing in Christ is God, is very different from you assuming Christ is God.

All natural phenomena have a natural cause, not according to the Bible.

God creates and destroys, never any natural cause for any event.

A natural cause in His creations does not nullify the supernatural events done by Him. God gave a sign "rainbow". Rainbow is not supernatural but a natural event but not according to Noah for he had never seen one before.

 

[Barbarian]

Rainbow is not supernatural but a natural event but not according to Noah for he had never seen one before.

Very perceptive. All things look like miracles if you don't understand them. And in a sense,they all are miracles. St. Augustion once wrote how odd it is that we are amazed by the miracles Jesus did, but are not impressed by the everyday world, which is just a miraculous in its conception and operation.

 

[rainbows]

God set the rainbow in the sky to remind us of His covenant.

A rainbow results from the refraction of light through the rain drops.

In a rainbow, the arc shows red on the outer part, and violet on the inner side. This rainbow is caused by light being refracted while entering a droplet of water, then reflected inside on the back of the droplet and refracted again when leaving it. As far as we are aware this seems to be the case.

Visible light is a very, very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

What is not observable or measurable could also be responsible
for the rainbow. How do we ultimately know what is causing the
phenomenon? It is the inner deeper workings of matter and
the universe which we cannot understand or observe.

Is not science a self correcting mechanism, if so how would
one ever know when a theory is sound. A theory may and
will suffer from correction. How do we know whether
the assumptions of science are valid?

Does not the search of science pose more questions in the end.

If we extend the searching of science will we not in the end
find ourselves to be absolutely incapable of understanding
the visible or the invisible. Is reason in itself suffiicient
ground to assume at all?

 

[felix]

rainbows, how sure are you that what you post is available as a post in this forum? Is there any assumptions in this part science? Or, is it just a faith you have that if you type it may or may not appear as a post?

How about your car? if you turn left, are you assuming and having a faith that it is going left or is it a science of absolute certainty?

 

[rainbows]

Hello felix.

Thanks for the reply.

"The big questions".

Is science equipped to tackle the big questions,
or is science in fact something else?

Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.

Many recent thinkers, such as Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well. Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.

Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[95]

Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[95]

Feyerabend also criticized science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space. "We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist" says Feyerabend, "We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view...without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification".

Sociologist Stanley Aronowitz scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms. Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that Fundamentalist Christianity uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the Bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.
(wikipedia)

 

[Barbarian]

Is science equipped to tackle the big questions,
or is science in fact something else?

Science is just a method for finding out about the physical universe. It's not about absolute truth; any finding in science is provisional on future evidence. Remember, science is mostly inductive, inferring the rules by looking at evidence.

You can never get the "big questions" from science. That's not what it's for.

Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.

Science doesn't aspire to that, although a number of foolish people have tried to make it so. But they have always failed when they tried to do it.

Many recent thinkers, such as Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.

Manipulating people is a science, but we had people skilled in that science long before the 17th century. Machiavelli wrote about the things that skilled despots have always known.

Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.

That would be sad. I, a scientist, could give you plenty of objective information about the meteorological and physical factors that produced this:

But I think I can present a much more complete understanding of it, as an artist, without forgetting the basic principals that caused it to be. Does that give you some idea of the way science can interact with other ways of knowing?

Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[95]

Perhaps so. The "scientific method" is a simplification that does not describe all the things scientists do. I am pleased that they are explaining this to students at a much younger age, these days.

Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology

That would be an error, as science depends on inferences from evidence, and those other things depend on faith. Science is completely unable to function that way. It's not that faith is wrong, it's that science is too weak a method to consider the supernatural. Keep in mind, this is not the same thing as rejecting the supernatural.

and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified.

The irony is that science is the antithesis of authoritarianism. There are no deciders in science, although society often tries to appoint such people. Science is always the sum of the opinions of the people doing science. Nothing more. Nor do scientists think they should run society. They would be gratified if people didn't try to pass laws against nature, but they don't assume that society would be better if scientists ran it.

He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[95]

The objective grounds are quite simple. It has to work. If an idea does not make testable predictions that are verified, then it is discarded. Science is quite pragmatic.

Feyerabend also criticized science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space.

Uniformitarianism is an assumption that is knowingly accepted. Science depends on the idea that the universe is consistent and knowable in the way it works, and the "rules" that govern it have done so since the beginning. So far, that's always been verified. As I said, science is quite pragmatic in these things.

"We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist" says Feyerabend, "We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics)

So far, it has. I detested physical chemistry, but I have to admit, it works.

phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view...without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification".

It is a critical skill in science, being able to hold in one's head, several incompatible concepts, in those cases (like the wave/particle duality) where we cannot resolve them. We can move forward, and have done so, even when we cannot be sure why light sometimes acts as a stream of particles, and sometimes as a wave. Feyerabend is quite naive if he imagines that scientists don't understand the issue.

Sociologist Stanley Aronowitz scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself.

Given that scientists have been rather receptive to Kuhn's ideas on the structure of scientific revolutions, I'd say that was an uniformed criticism. You know, until the last few decades, scientists were expected to be knowledgeable in philosophy. Then, philosophy fell off the table, and it's still finding it's way back to some sort of useful conception of reality. Not all philosophers, of course, but I'm sure you know what the issues are in that regard.

That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms.

Every profession thinks that it's members are the only ones qualified to understand the profession. I notice that Sokol's little hoax on the postmodernists was not very well received by philosophers generally.

Nevertheless, people like Kuhn and Popper have made important contributions to science, and have been well received by scientists, even though they were philosophers. Of course, they were competent scientists in their own right. But if they were not, how could they hope to make a meaningful contribution to science? It is a great advantage to know what one is talking about.

Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that Fundamentalist Christianity uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the Bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.

He misses the point. Christians are making claims of absolute truth. When I say "God", I am not making a hypothesis. I am making a statement of faith about something eternally true. When I say "stabilizing selection", I am making an inference about the way populations of living things respond to certain conditions, based on evidence I have. No claim of absolute truth. BTW, one is not better than the other; each way of knowing has it's own uses.

 

[rainbows]

Thanks Barbarian for your replies, most interesting.

 

[cupid dave]

Is that which is observable explained by that which is observable.

Is empiricism a valid approach to understanding what the Universe is?

Does an empirical approach supply an explanation for the existence
of mankind?

Empiricism merely defines the idea of seeing is believing, in the general sense.
Empiricism is the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
This is true.
We are mentally trapped inside the skull and have no other intermediator than the senses to bring us information from outside of ourselves.

That data is used to develop our own ideas in regard to what this entity outside of us is.
We all have invented our own theories about the external world and the certainty that others exist and are like ourselves.
But even that, our own self, physically, has been theorized by relying upon the senses.

We saw what we later concluded to be our own toes, wiggling as our hand felt them, for instance.


So, mad as we have been for millennium after millennium, the advent of the Scientific Method in the 17th century brought the sanity of independent confirmation of the data we collect in regard to that same data collected by others.

What I am saying is that empirical evidence subjected to strict laboratory conditions establish Facts for the first time which EVERYONE must agree upon.

Peers are asked to repeat experiments and verify that the same results always occur.
That establishes a Fact.


These facts then, are rationally and logically related to one another, even using the mathematics we are capable of, to deduce some meaningful description of what is external to us all.

 

[cupid dave]

I think the assumptions from Nachmias and Nachmias's book are his views. But science simply means knowledge in latin.

You can assume the world is flat or spherical based on observation. Both are in fact knowledge or study about world. It is not a requirement that knowledge must be true. Knowledge or science is simply what we know not the truth.

Yes, knowledge once had few facts to support the veracity of that assumed knowledge.

The Scientific Nethod changed that.
Facts are things which strictly controlled laboratory experiments will always be replicated for all observers.


It is this list of Facts which constitute modern knowledge.

Using these Facts to argue the probability that certain Theories created are founded upon the facts is called Science.

 

[hadron]

I scanned over this and might throw in some comments, though I realize this thread may be a little old.

I don't think the scientific method can be assumed to investigate the fullness of all that might exist or be true. For instance, the scientific method cannot validate itself and as was pointed out, there are presuppositions behind accepting the usefulness of the scientific method, such as the uniformity of nature.

I think the scientific method is used to explore everything which exists that is physical, so, everything that exists in time and space, and enters into causal relationships with other things- these are the proper objects of scientific study.

Other stuff should be explored through the proper philosophical channel.