Lost marbles (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 21:58 (5511 days ago)
The old grey lady has "lost her marbles" (the N.Y. Times), or those folks who believe in multiple side-by-side universes have lost theirs, or quantum theory has just gone daffy. A story by Dennis Overbye is as weird as they come: the Higgs boson is trying to destroy the LHC. Read on:- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=3
Lost marbles
David: The old grey lady has "lost her marbles" (The NY Times), or those folks who believe in multiple side-by-side universes have lost theirs, or quantum theory has just gone daffy.-It gets harder and harder to place one's faith in science when there are so many widely differing theories, so many disagreements, and so many weird and wonderful speculations. Prior to this one, David alerted us to an abiogenetic theory that life might have evolved in alkaline hydrothermal vents. As always with such theories, it sounds impressively plausible until one reaches expressions like "evolution got underway with sets of molecules capable of producing more of themselves"..."fatty molecules spontaneously formed cell-like bubbles"..."the evolution of an enzyme called pyrophosphatase"...It's as if the very mention of the word "evolution" explains everything. You might as well say "life just happened". Maybe it did, but as with all the other unproven theories, you need faith to fill the gaps.-Here is another headline story, from today's Guardian: "Just another lemur? Scientists claim fossil hailed as missing link was really a dead end". This concerns a pre-Ardi sensation: a 47m-year-old primate named Ida, "whose exquisite fossil was touted as the remains of our earliest ancestor. She was, they said, the "link" between us and the rest of the animal kingdom." But now a team of New York palaeontologists say: "Ida is not related to humans and may represent more of an evolutionary dead end. Instead, they conclude, the $1m fossil looks more like a small lemur or possibly a loris." (I have just seen that David deals with the same topic in his "Dendrology" post, but I think our posts complement each other.)-The original researchers are defending their findings, and it's reassuring that at least scientists are challenging scientists, but what are we non-scientists supposed to make of the claims and counter-claims? Sometimes I get the impression that there are scientists, just as there are theists, who simply believe what they want to believe. One might argue that truth will out in the end, but does the end ever come? I wonder which of our scientific "truths" will still be valid a thousand years from now.
Lost marbles
by David Turell , Thursday, October 22, 2009, 23:13 (5510 days ago) @ dhw
One might argue that truth will out in the end, but does the end ever come? I wonder which of our scientific "truths" will still be valid a thousand years from now.-Well, we still can't fit General Relativity with quantum mechanics; we don't really know what force is expanding the universe; we still have no idea how life originated. There is much to be discovered and many current 'truths' to be overturned.
Lost marbles
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, October 23, 2009, 19:40 (5509 days ago) @ David Turell
One might argue that truth will out in the end, but does the end ever come? I wonder which of our scientific "truths" will still be valid a thousand years from now. > > Well, we still can't fit General Relativity with quantum mechanics; we don't really know what force is expanding the universe; we still have no idea how life originated. There is much to be discovered and many current 'truths' to be overturned.-I equally appreciate you saying "truths" in quotes. -I think you make a similar mistake to dhw in that somehow science is about finding some kind of ultimate or "vedantic" knowledge... Science is about building a model by teasing out relationships in nature and then building the model to explain the relationships. By its very nature all of science is inferential and not conclusive, with exclusion to mathematics. -While it is true that many scientists fall victim to scientism, lets also note that the machine of science itself moves forward on its own self-directed path. It corrects itself, sometimes less rapidly than we would wish. You brought up plate tectonics, the guy who discovered that was challenged mainly due to his training in astronomy. But let it be known, that other scientists took the claims seriously enough to investigate it and conclude that indeed, tectonics is a real phenomenon. Science invariably leads us to better explanations because it corrects itself. -When you take an argument that says "Life is so complex, it must have been designed," you make a series of assumptions to unanswered philosophical questions. -First and foremost, you have to assume that a designer exists. You HAVE to assume it because there is no way to independently verify the existence of a designer. To me, this is unacceptable, and the primary reason that design is purely a metaphysical concept that lacks empirical merit. It is irrational to accept a claim based soley upon assumption.-Secondly, you make an assumption that life is complex. Most things, when understood--turn out to be pretty easy to understand. You make an assumption that we'll never be able to understand life, and by extension use this as a reason to imply design. In these terms, such an implication is unwarranted. -Thirdly, you make an assumption that the creator is natural. This is probably the most vacuous assumption because if a creator exists, there is two choices: natural or supernatural; and it cannot be both. -If there is no difference between God and Nature, than there is no reason to posit a deity because nature & God are one and the same; they are not separate entities. This means that there is concurrently no way to infer a design. If you're living in a box you don't know unless you can leave it; it's a re-visitation of the "brain in a vat" thought experiment. Therefore a creator, if it exists, is an entity that must be discernible from nature; the third assumption can be thrown out.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Lost marbles
by David Turell , Saturday, October 24, 2009, 02:13 (5508 days ago) @ xeno6696
> When you take an argument that says "Life is so complex, it must have been designed," you make a series of assumptions to unanswered philosophical questions.-I don't know what the 'unanswered questions'are. What are they? > > First and foremost, you have to assume that a designer exists. You HAVE to assume it because there is no way to independently verify the existence of a designer.-I still stick to my simplistic belief I have stated before. If we find that initial true life is so complex,then the odds against its appearance will become so enormous that chance is negated, and we will have a default form of proof. Absolulte proof is impossible. -> > Secondly, you make an assumption that life is complex. Most things, when understood--turn out to be pretty easy to understand. You make an assumption that we'll never be able to understand life, and by extension use this as a reason to imply design. In these terms, such an implication is unwarranted.-If you are referring to origin of life as true living one-celled organisms it will be extremely complex. If you are referring to a non-living energy producing feed-back loop that is an antecedent to true life, then you may be correct. It may be surprisingly simple, but that isn't life as we see it in the simplest forms. Again, getting from a simple system for energy to true life will be an extremely complex process. > > Thirdly, you make an assumption that the creator is natural. -No I think he is supernatural. And finally, as I read George and you, Matt, I think you both have an element of philosophic truth.
Lost marbles
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 24, 2009, 03:45 (5508 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Saturday, October 24, 2009, 03:55
> > When you take an argument that says "Life is so complex, it must have been designed," you make a series of assumptions to unanswered philosophical questions. > > I don't know what the 'unanswered questions'are. What are they? > > > > First and foremost, you have to assume that a designer exists. You HAVE to assume it because there is no way to independently verify the existence of a designer. > > I still stick to my simplistic belief I have stated before. If we find that initial true life is so complex,then the odds against its appearance will become so enormous that chance is negated, and we will have a default form of proof. Absolulte proof is impossible. > -David, help me out here. This belief you talk of... Alright, from my perspective you're saying that chance can be negated. But chance can ONLY be negated if you find positive evidence for a creator; something more than an inference or an implication. Since nearly all scientific arguments are essentially normalized to exclude chance in the first place, this places you in difficult water. -> > > > > Thirdly, you make an assumption that the creator is natural. > > No I think he is supernatural. And finally, as I read George and you, Matt, I think you both have an element of philosophic truth.-Again, the supernatural assertion means that it is separated from nature. Otherwise, the word "supernatural" wouldn't exist. God is supernatural or he's not.-You mentioned recently (at least I think you did) that god and we ARE the universe? (Certainly sounds panentheistic.) If that is true, it recreates the philosophical dilemma I discussed before about the pointlessness of a god that is inseparable from everything else. -In the final part, you mention abiogenesis again. The problem I have with the assertion that "it must be complex," is that you are used to seeing the end product of all that biochemistry. You can't think simple because simple's never existed inside of the world you know and understand. At least in my case, I don't feel like hedging my bets when I know the bloodhounds are still on the trail.-[EDIT] As usual I didn't tie the two sections together. -Proving that we were designed means that you have to find positive proof that we were created. You say you're a panentheist, which to me means that the universe lies "within" God, crudely stated. However, for our purposes, the only way we could find positive proof of this is to... what?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Lost marbles
by David Turell , Sunday, October 25, 2009, 15:46 (5507 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > > When you take an argument that says "Life is so complex, it must have been designed," you make a series of assumptions to unanswered philosophical questions. > > > > I don't know what the 'unanswered questions'are. What are they?-You have not answered my question, asking for indentification of 'unanswered questions'. > > > > > > First and foremost, you have to assume that a designer exists. You HAVE to assume it because there is no way to independently verify the existence of a designer.-Look below. Absolute proof is impossible. We agree. I have assumed a 'designer' beyond a reasonable doubt, our old friend Adler. > > > > I still stick to my simplistic belief I have stated before. If we find that initial true life is so complex,then the odds against its appearance will become so enormous that chance is negated, and we will have a default form of proof. Absolulte proof is impossible. > > > > David, help me out here. This belief you talk of... > Alright, from my perspective you're saying that chance can be negated. But chance can ONLY be negated if you find positive evidence for a creator; something more than an inference or an implication. Since nearly all scientific arguments are essentially normalized to exclude chance in the first place, this places you in difficult water. -Do you mean there can never be probability limits? > > > > > > > > > Thirdly, you make an assumption that the creator is natural. > > > > No I think he is supernatural. And finally, as I read George and you, Matt, I think you both have an element of philosophic truth. > > Again, the supernatural assertion means that it is separated from nature. Otherwise, the word "supernatural" wouldn't exist. God is supernatural or he's not.-Does 'supernatural' only have YOUR meaning. I can easily imagine the supernatural operating in the natural world. After all, we have no idea what lies behind the quantum wall of uncertainty, but it is here in the world we perceive. > > You mentioned recently (at least I think you did) that god and we ARE the universe? (Certainly sounds panentheistic.) If that is true, it recreates the philosophical dilemma I discussed before about the pointlessness of a god that is inseparable from everything else. -I don't think that is pointless. Flew has gone all the way to Christianity, and certainly, in that case we have God's son running around on Earth. > > In the final part, you mention abiogenesis again. The problem I have with the assertion that "it must be complex," is that you are used to seeing the end product of all that biochemistry. You can't think simple because simple's never existed inside of the world you know and understand. At least in my case, I don't feel like hedging my bets when I know the bloodhounds are still on the trail.-Here you are confused about my thinking. I'll repeat what I have said before. Early origin of life is not life. It will probably be inorganic molecules, perhaps with some small carbon molecules, in an energy producing loop. This is as simple as it will ever be. Fully alive single celled organisms, that is energy producing, reproducing, DNA coded cells are extremely complex. The DNA in Archaia is different than the DNA in all other bacteria. The two lines are not related and that may mean that there are two lines of origin of life. But, even mycoplasma pathogenic bacteria, quite small in DNA, are extremely complex. > > [EDIT] > As usual I didn't tie the two sections together. > > Proving that we were designed means that you have to find positive proof that we were created. You say you're a panentheist, which to me means that the universe lies "within" God, crudely stated. However, for our purposes, the only way we could find positive proof of this is to... what? -As I said, it is to reach a probability limit that rules out chance.
Lost marbles
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 13:10 (5505 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > > When you take an argument that says "Life is so complex, it must have been designed," you make a series of assumptions to unanswered philosophical questions. > > > > > > I don't know what the 'unanswered questions'are. What are they? > > You have not answered my question, asking for indentification of 'unanswered questions'. -I... can't rephrase them any other way. But I'll try.-1. The question of design itself: How do you know that something is designed? I've brought up fractal mathematics before, but fractal mathematics both models complex structures we see in life AND can do so randomly. This is important because it makes it less clear that complex structures *must* be designed. If you say "Life is so complex, it must be designed," you take as an assumption that we can actually tell the difference between design and chance. If we could, we wouldn't be here. You would agree that all creatures to whatever degree they can operate on free will? (Operationally, I'm viewing instinctual drives as a form of free will.) Natural arches, as I brought up before, are complex structures that clearly weren't designed. Where is the bar for design here? This leads to the next philosophical issue...-2. That we can tell the difference between natural and supernatural. As dhw has caught me again and again, where is the bar? If God is supernatural, he isn't natural. If God is natural, then he isn't supernatural. But how do you tell the difference between the natural and the supernatural? By asserting "Life is so complex, it must be designed," you assert an answer to #1 and to #2--and one follows the other. You claim you can use the scientific method to prove this, which is its own philosophical problem...-3. The point of this is, that science only works because of the assumptions provided by naturalism, which must be agnostic to creator gods. You create a philosophical dilemma here of how to make science become non-agnostic to a creator, but still fundamentally answer all of the questions it has in the same manner. The assumption I'm talking about is "At best, we cannot discern the difference between the natural and the supernatural." If we can use science to make claims on God, than this assumption turns into "We CAN tell the difference between the natural and the supernatural."-4. An assertion that natural and supernatural are artificial distinctions. The only thing you've got left to possibly deal with questions 2 & 3 is to assert that the line between "natural" and "supernatural" is false. But at this point you actually take philosophy backwards about 700 years, because now, God can be the cause of anything that happens in our daily lives. It reopens questions of free will (esp. if there is no distinction between ourselves and God). It is the ultimate Vedantic nightmare... (I say this b/c I'm not a fan of Vedantism.) -5. Probability limits. Probability limits only work when you can experimentally demonstrate the action you're testing, in this case--that life was designed. The absurdity of this should be apparent! (Please, no offense intended!) You would need to be able to demonstrate that an invisible force of some kind is at hand that caused life to emerge from the muck.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Lost marbles
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 19:37 (5505 days ago) @ xeno6696
Matt: As I read over your responses to me, I seem to be seeing a set of rigid philosophic limits on your part that you imply I must accept,. I've read 3 books by John Leslie, 2 by Adler and one by Flew. They all have either become theists, or perhaps Leslie was one to start with, and at least Adler and Flew accept divinity on Earth among humans, represented by Joshua ben Joseph, proclaimed God's son by religion and given a new name that wasn't so Hebrew. THESE READING DO NOT SEEM TO IMPOSE UPON MY THINKING THE LIMTS YOU SAY I MUST HAVE. It appears, according to religions, God can be supernatural and natural at the same time. Where is the discrepancy in my thought patterns? I admit I have almost no background in one of your chosen fields, philosophy, but frankly, what you write does not make sense to me. Adler uses as his acceptable proof of God, 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Of course there is a leap of faith at that point, and I am willing to take, and I have taken that leap to faith and belief. Apparently you can't 'leap' and I view that as due to your limits that you place on yourself. Adler and Flew don't seem to think those 'Matt limits' are valid. I find many of my ideas quite close to Frank as he is revealing them.
Lost marbles
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 22:15 (5505 days ago) @ David Turell
Matt: As I read over your responses to me, I seem to be seeing a set of rigid philosophic limits on your part that you imply I must accept,. I've read 3 books by John Leslie, 2 by Adler and one by Flew. They all have either become theists, or perhaps Leslie was one to start with, and at least Adler and Flew accept divinity on Earth among humans, represented by Joshua ben Joseph, proclaimed God's son by religion and given a new name that wasn't so Hebrew. THESE READING DO NOT SEEM TO IMPOSE UPON MY THINKING THE LIMTS YOU SAY I MUST HAVE. It appears, according to religions, God can be supernatural and natural at the same time. Where is the discrepancy in my thought patterns? I admit I have almost no background in one of your chosen fields, philosophy, but frankly, what you write does not make sense to me. Adler uses as his acceptable proof of God, 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Of course there is a leap of faith at that point, and I am willing to take, and I have taken that leap to faith and belief. Apparently you can't 'leap' and I view that as due to your limits that you place on yourself. Adler and Flew don't seem to think those 'Matt limits' are valid. I find many of my ideas quite close to Frank as he is revealing them.-The only thing I can say in response is that you haven't thought through the full implications and impact of certain "moves" if you will within this philosophical playground. Adler was a pretty strict Thomist/Aristotelian, and I've already posted previously what I think about some of his implications. I have to admit that my current expertise in philosophy is without much of the 20th century with the exception of Heidegger and Rand, neither of which had too much to say about the nature of God or its relation to man. (At least, not in a way pertinent to this discussion.) Whether or not you choose to tackle the philosophical problems that you raise is up to you--that's what philosophers are for. But I do think that my job sometimes is at least to bring things like this to attention. -The limits I discuss are not self-imposed, but imposed by the systems of thought that you automatically accept by these various tools we use--naturalism, science, etc. Having not read these authors, I cannot presume that they didn't think all of these things through. However since you have and these questions I raise seem new to you, I would presume to say they haven't. -What I find more disappointing is that you'd rather dodge the questions than try to meet them in some way. You think they don't apply to you, but in my estimation, they do. At least, I don't see how they can't. Science doesn't work without the assumptions of naturalism, and at the minimum this challenge must be met. -I did a little more reading on Flew and it seems that he takes an extreme deism--quite similar to the "strawman" one that I was beaten with last summer between... you and dhw? Not sure who exactly.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Lost marbles
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 00:19 (5504 days ago) @ xeno6696
But I do think that my job sometimes is at least to bring things like this to attention. -Matt; I appreciate your patience with me. Since there are so many philosophers who contradict each other, at least that is my impression, it has always seemed to me that philosophy is really a study of possible truths, with nothing rigid or absolutely proven. > Having not read these authors, I cannot presume that they didn't think all of these things through. However since you have and these questions I raise seem new to you, I would presume to say they haven't. -John Leslie is the retired prof. of philosophy at Gelph U, Canada. Flew is the most famous atheist philosopher of the 20th Century. Surely they an Adler recognize all of these boundries you bring up. > > What I find more disappointing is that you'd rather dodge the questions than try to meet them in some way. You think they don't apply to you, but in my estimation, they do. At least, I don't see how they can't. Science doesn't work without the assumptions of naturalism, and at the minimum this challenge must be met. -Frankly, I don't think I am dodging questions. I don't know enough of what you know to fully understand some of your points and objections you raise, and since I didn't see discussion like yours in what I have read, I'm surprised by them. I absolutely believe, as you do, that science is naturalism and methodologic materialism, but not to the point of scientism. It cannot bring in the supernatural, as I have stated before. But it seems you are telling me that my acceptance of 'probability limits' is wrong. Is there no level of improbability that completely rules out chance, such as Dembski's 10^-150th? Or less, Borel's 10^-50th? I have based some of my thinking on that concept. -And finally, Leslie, Adler and Flew see no boundry between this universe and God. I think stating that natural can't be mixed with supernatural is semantics.Is Catholic philosophy so different from secular philosophy, in all aspects? I taught an hour of the philosophy prof's class at Tomball College for several years on the cosmologic argument for God. He never contradicted me.He and I are friends and belong to the same discussion group, mainly with faculty members. I was invited to join after my first book, "Government By Political Spin". > > I did a little more reading on Flew and it seems that he takes an extreme deism--quite similar to the "strawman" one that I was beaten with last summer between... you and dhw? Not sure who exactly.-I'm sure dhw. Thanks again for patience.
Lost marbles
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 02:56 (5504 days ago) @ David Turell
But I do think that my job sometimes is at least to bring things like this to attention. > > Matt; I appreciate your patience with me. Since there are so many philosophers who contradict each other, at least that is my impression, it has always seemed to me that philosophy is really a study of possible truths, with nothing rigid or absolutely proven. -If you're used to the philosophy of the past 100 years, it certainly SEEMS much more hydralike, especially From Sartre on. (I'm not a huge fan of existentialism, it seems to remove a great deal of the conflict that I think is healthy for a society.) - > > > Having not read these authors, I cannot presume that they didn't think all of these things through. However since you have and these questions I raise seem new to you, I would presume to say they haven't. > > John Leslie is the retired prof. of philosophy at Gelph U, Canada. Flew is the most famous atheist philosopher of the 20th Century. Surely they an Adler recognize all of these boundries you bring up. > > -My hope is that they address them... I hadn't really considered the issue philosophically for some time (Design, that is.) I also recently reread portions of "Denying Evolution" and was reminded of the unsolved "induction" problem in logic. However, especially in the the Philosophy of Science, there is a great deal of work that is based on logic that is essentially irrefutable, such as certain assumptions, as well as the questions they raise. -One of the unanswered questions does rely on the nature of God and I think dhw might agree with me on this. If you can't grasp the nature of God in a *real* term, in some kind of *real* sense, than you cannot really assert that we were designed by a "supernatural being." (Sorry, i cannot blur the line of natural and supernatural, they are logically separated in my head--my own "slowness," perhaps.) -Specifically, in the entire history of western civilization, no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of God, and naturalism was really the answer to that specific problem. -I haven't read Adler (I'm assuming the "pagan guide" book?) but assuming his reasoning is similar to his method in the "Difference of Man," it probably asserts that since the cosmos is "fine-tuned" (challenge-able, could be a fallacy) and assorted other means, that the burden of evidence lies on us to having been designed. -> > What I find more disappointing is that you'd rather dodge the questions than try to meet them in some way. You think they don't apply to you, but in my estimation, they do. At least, I don't see how they can't. Science doesn't work without the assumptions of naturalism, and at the minimum this challenge must be met. > > Frankly, I don't think I am dodging questions. I don't know enough of what you know to fully understand some of your points and objections you raise, and since I didn't see discussion like yours in what I have read, I'm surprised by them. I absolutely believe, as you do, that science is naturalism and methodologic materialism, but not to the point of scientism. It cannot bring in the supernatural, as I have stated before. But it seems you are telling me that my acceptance of 'probability limits' is wrong. Is there no level of improbability that completely rules out chance, such as Dembski's 10^-150th? Or less, Borel's 10^-50th? I have based some of my thinking on that concept. > -That's fair. If you don't feel prepared to answer them, I won't fault you for that. I hate that you are treating a Dembski claim with any validity, but both him and Borel are assigning probabilities to unknown systems. Probability arguments like that can be made to show that a random rock in your backyard had to have been put there "by design." Hocus-pocus magicry is what you have there. -I've railed against this time and again--you can't place a "probability limit" on us having been designed, because before you could you would have to have complete knowledge of the system--that's the ONLY time you can place a real probability down for a systems analysis. In organic chemistry, you have probability limits because the model predicts position, temperature, assorted other variables--all things in the system must be known for you to give an accurate probability. I'm going to have to make Shapiro a little higher on my "to read list." -In short, until abiogenesis is proven to be the philosopher's stone, there is no probabilistic case to be made. It is an open question, and open questions by nature have NO resolution. -Giving a little more thought on the "probablity limit," I'm assuming you mean the statistical hypothesis test? How exactly could you set that up if you define god as being inseparable from nature? If chance is the alternative to God, and god and nature are inseparable, then you can't test one against the other.-[EDIT]-In retrospect this final paragraph is really the most important set of lines here... if you cannot make a distinction between God and nature... there IS nothing to test against... this is as damnable as you can get in my book...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Lost marbles
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, October 23, 2009, 15:37 (5509 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Friday, October 23, 2009, 15:59
dhw, > The original researchers are defending their findings, and it's reassuring that at least scientists are challenging scientists, but what are we non-scientists supposed to make of the claims and counter-claims? Sometimes I get the impression that there are scientists, just as there are theists, who simply believe what they want to believe. One might argue that truth will out in the end, but does the end ever come? I wonder which of our scientific "truths" will still be valid a thousand years from now.-Your problem is that you have what appears to be a very common misunderstanding about science: You seem to think that science is about finding truth. No.-Science is about building a model that creates a 1:1 correspondence with the world. All models are contingent and temporary. That's why findings are much more like building court cases, than the old Platonic/Aristotelian view of a conclusive truth. Conclusive truths do not exist in science, only in mathematics--and there is philosophical debate that is valid that calls into question whether or not mathematical objects truly exist; this is why I would say the number of truths uncovered by math and science is limited to a few relationships. -Accepting that science isn't about truth resolves most of your issues you raised in this post. Will it ever end? No. Because the only way you can know your model doesn't need improvement is to possess all knowledge.-EDIT:-Something I wanted to add here: The process of truth and how it relates to science is another question of relativism. Since the goal is to fit the model to the world, the question of truth only relates to "How well does my model fit?"
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Lost marbles
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Friday, October 23, 2009, 21:54 (5509 days ago) @ xeno6696
Xeno wrote: "Your problem is that you have what appears to be a very common misunderstanding about science: You seem to think that science is about finding truth. No. Science is about building a model that creates a 1:1 correspondence with the world." -I find this a rather curious logic. I thought "having a 1:1 correspondence with the world" was a synonym for "true".-Xeno: "All models are contingent and temporary."-Yes but some are more contingent and temporary than others. This is where you need to have a basic knowledge of science, to be able to tell the latest speculative fancies of eccentrics from genuine breakthroughs.-Xeno: "Accepting that science isn't about truth resolves most of your issues you raised in this post." -Accepting that science isn't about truth undermines science, because that is exactly what science is about. The honest pursuit of truth.-The trouble with the "Ida" business, as I and many others noted at the time, is that the people who were publicising it were not concerned with the truth, but with hyping it up to sell their books and make money.-Xeno: "Will it ever end? No. Because the only way you can know your model doesn't need improvement is to possess all knowledge."-I agree science will never end, but it will and does come closer and closer to the truth. You yourself have used the idea of an asymptote. There is a distinct possibility that physics will be able to come to an end, in an ultimate "theory of everything", i.e. reconciling quantum theory and relativity. Once that is done the core of the subject will likely stay as it then becomes for millennia. Xeno: "The process of truth and how it relates to science is another question of relativism. Since the goal is to fit the model to the world, the question of truth only relates to "How well does my model fit?""-But you can't know how well the model fits reality until it breaks down. The test is how well your theory fits in with the rest of established scientific knowledge.
--
GPJ
Lost marbles
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, October 23, 2009, 23:37 (5509 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Xeno wrote: "Your problem is that you have what appears to be a very common misunderstanding about science: You seem to think that science is about finding truth. No. Science is about building a model that creates a 1:1 correspondence with the world." > > I find this a rather curious logic. I thought "having a 1:1 correspondence with the world" was a synonym for "true". > -I'm being quite technical with my usage here: We observe phenomenon and assign a model to explain it. We hope its a 1:1 correspondence, but only by subsequent empirical testing can we verify it. However, no model will ever perfectly fit reality; this simply doesn't happen. We can have a high degree of precision, but a model is just what it says it is: an approximation of something else. Remember, you're the one who challenged me that mathematical objects don't exist--I'm only carrying that same analogy forward. Science is about building models--philosophy is about finding "truth." -Take Newton's laws. They work: the equations are still used today to send rockets into space. However, his theory was not a 1:1 correspondence, and was subsequently proven to have missed the mark. -Let me be a bit more direct on the concept of 1:1 correspondences: they are not truth statements. We assign a part of our model to the outer world, say "a" in an equation for acceleration. "a" isn't true any more than acceleration is true: they are not concepts that have truth-assignments, they are simply a "container" within the model that hopefully achieves some scientific aim. - > Xeno: "All models are contingent and temporary." > > Yes but some are more contingent and temporary than others. This is where you need to have a basic knowledge of science, to be able to tell the latest speculative fancies of eccentrics from genuine breakthroughs. > -What I'm driving at is that the total number of scientific laws are small. Most of our models we have are built from inferences using laws and their various implication. An implication however, does not guarantee the validity of its claim. - > Xeno: "Accepting that science isn't about truth resolves most of your issues you raised in this post." > > Accepting that science isn't about truth undermines science, because that is exactly what science is about. The honest pursuit of truth. > No. Science is about model building. If you think I'm wrong, then ask yourself under what contexts do Newton's Laws hold true? Isn't it true that the subsequent models we've produced are better than what he came up with? -Science is involved with bringing explanations and utility into the world, and yes--empiricism works to help sort the wheat from the chaff, but it always remains that a given explanation will be further refined in the future. Some things are more contingent than others, but all things are contingent. --> Xeno: "Will it ever end? No. Because the only way you can know your model doesn't need improvement is to possess all knowledge." > > I agree science will never end, but it will and does come closer and closer to the truth. You yourself have used the idea of an asymptote. There is a distinct possibility that physics will be able to come to an end, in an ultimate "theory of everything", i.e. reconciling quantum theory and relativity. Once that is done the core of the subject will likely stay as it then becomes for millennia. > -I agree we have done a great job of learning what we can about the material world, but remember that the "search for truth" isn't a scientific goal. It's about producing useful explanations. I'd suggest you read chapter 4 of Massimo Pigliucci's "Denying Evolution" for words from an evolutionary biologist on his perspective of what the "true" nature of science is about. -I quote: "In fact, a brilliant young physicist may set herself the goal of producing an even better theory than that of general relativity, and she may succeed. Her new theory will then be provisionally regarded as the best available, and so forth. Science, if you will, is always about "very likely maybes," never about absolute truth."-In all my travels, I've found no more sage scientific advice than that. -Science--is a method--and NOT a body of knowledge. It is the best method available in order to throw out bad explanations, but we shouldn't fool ourselves that we always have a *real* truth after it has done its job on an phenomenon. General relativity is still a provisional explanation.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Lost marbles
There are two separate discussions going on here: the first is about scientific "truth", and the second about design. I would like to comment on the first.-Matt: You seem to think that science is about finding truth. No. Science is about building a model that creates a 1:1 correspondence with the world. All models are contingent and temporary.-George: I thought "having a 1:1 correspondence with the world" was a synonym for "true".-It's not often that George and I are on the same side, but we are today. This is not an argument about science but about use of language. If the model does not have a 1:1 correspondence with the world, it will not represent an absolute truth. You wrote: "We hope it's a 1:1 correspondence, but only by subsequent empirical testing can we verify it." Verify = to prove that something is true, and if science is not concerned with the truthfulness of its findings, I don't see how it can be called science. It may not be about finding truth (though I hope it is when I step onto a plane, or go to hospital, or look at my friendly neighbourhood nuclear power station), but it's certainly about looking for truth.-All you've done is to take the word "truth" and identify it with Massimo Pigliucci's "absolute truth", but if we do that, we shall never be able to use the word. If my grandson asks me whether it's true that the Earth revolves round the sun, I'm sorry, but I shall reply, "Yes, it's true," and I will not even mentally put the word in inverted commas. I could, I suppose, add that this is the general consensus among scientists, and that we humans can never be sure that current scientific knowledge represents absolute truth, but I see no reason at all why I should not use the word "true" in relation to this piece of scientific information. If pressed, I would say that science "is about" gaining knowledge from study of the physical world, and I don't see how you can separate knowledge from truth, whether it's "useful" or not.-I agree with you, however, that all models, or current "truths" (in inverted commas), are contingent and temporary, and I agree with George that some are more contingent and temporary than others. For instance, I think the vast majority of us would be surprised if we were told that the sun revolved round the Earth. Maybe fewer people would be surprised if some aspects of Darwin's Theory of Evolution were found to be faulty. As you rightly said: "The process of truth and how it relates to science is another process of relativism." But you also wrote: "Accepting that science isn't about truth resolves most of your issues you raised in this post." I'm afraid it would resolve none of the issues. I wrote: "I wonder which of our scientific "truths" [in inverted commas] will still be valid a thousand years from now." Perhaps you would prefer it if I wondered which of our scientific models will still be regarded as "verified" (in inverted commas) a thousand years from now, but what's the difference?
Lost marbles
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, October 25, 2009, 00:48 (5508 days ago) @ dhw
I agree with you, however, that all models, or current "truths" (in inverted commas), are contingent and temporary, and I agree with George that some are more contingent and temporary than others. For instance, I think the vast majority of us would be surprised if we were told that the sun revolved round the Earth. Maybe fewer people would be surprised if some aspects of Darwin's Theory of Evolution were found to be faulty. As you rightly said: "The process of truth and how it relates to science is another process of relativism." But you also wrote: "Accepting that science isn't about truth resolves most of your issues you raised in this post." I'm afraid it would resolve none of the issues. I wrote: "I wonder which of our scientific "truths" [in inverted commas] will still be valid a thousand years from now." Perhaps you would prefer it if I wondered which of our scientific models will still be regarded as "verified" (in inverted commas) a thousand years from now, but what's the difference?-You essentially stated the answer in your own paragraph here. -I posit a model. It fits with the evidence. Is it true? We don't know. We know it fits. We know we can use it to make precise predictions. But the model itself carries no "truth." It is an abstraction of human language. Abstractions approximate, by nature, to general classes of things. The point-model of physics is a prime example: we know that electrons aren't points in space, yet the only model we can use to make sense of them for the (average, non-mathematical person) is the point-model. We take certain "truths" from science a little too out of hand. Using your own example, dhw, seven hundred years ago, you also would have gone outside and told your son, with complete conviction, that the sun traveled around the earth. There would be no question. -When we say something is true in science, it is true according to the model we're using. It is the best available explanation. Insomuch as we can be sure, it is true--but this again is the recreation of a "very likely maybe." To grab an old cliche--there's more than one way to skin a cat. -I'm not saying we should lord a paralyzing skepticism over our heads, only that we should be more skeptical. (Though dhw, you firmly take the cake in skepticism; you're probably the most skeptical person I've ever met!) -Part of where my problem comes in, is that induction has never been proven right. (Or wrong.) We know it works but can't explain why. It doesn't follow the same rules as deduction. This is similar to the creationist argument that says "because science can't prove itself, it must be rejected." However, the problem of induction is still a very open question in the study of logic. -It turns out that the practical benefits of science (it works without needing to know why) outweigh the negative arguments against induction. And yes, I DO realize that I'm playing the cantankerous mathematician... but hasn't that been a common hat for me since I came here?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Lost marbles
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, October 29, 2009, 20:35 (5503 days ago) @ xeno6696
xeno wrote: "Part of where my problem comes in, is that induction has never been proven right. (Or wrong.) We know it works but can't explain why. It doesn't follow the same rules as deduction. This is similar to the creationist argument that says "because science can't prove itself, it must be rejected." However, the problem of induction is still a very open question in the study of logic. It turns out that the practical benefits of science (it works without needing to know why) outweigh the negative arguments against induction." -I'd like to put in a good word for induction. It is essentially the way science works. We look at the facts, the data, and collect as many different cases as possible, and then try to fit a theory or formula to the data, and then work out the consequences of these, and go back to testing whether the predictions agree with nature. I don't see that there is any problem with the logic involved. It worked for people like Humphrey Davy, Michael Faraday and Louis Pasteur, and its still valid today.-The problem with the examples cited by DT in this thread is that they are not based on induction but are in the realms of pure speculation, if not fantasy. They are more akin to the speculations of the pre-Socratic philosophers. Perhaps it is due in part to the power of modern mathematics to generate unlimited models that will fit the data. -It is then necessary to apply other criteria, such as Ockham's razor, or aesthetic considerations, or plain common sense, to prevent us being carried away with imagination, until such time as we have more empirical data.
--
GPJ
Lost marbles
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, October 30, 2009, 01:17 (5502 days ago) @ George Jelliss
xeno wrote: "Part of where my problem comes in, is that induction has never been proven right. (Or wrong.) We know it works but can't explain why. It doesn't follow the same rules as deduction. This is similar to the creationist argument that says "because science can't prove itself, it must be rejected." However, the problem of induction is still a very open question in the study of logic. It turns out that the practical benefits of science (it works without needing to know why) outweigh the negative arguments against induction." > > I'd like to put in a good word for induction. It is essentially the way science works. We look at the facts, the data, and collect as many different cases as possible, and then try to fit a theory or formula to the data, and then work out the consequences of these, and go back to testing whether the predictions agree with nature. I don't see that there is any problem with the logic involved. It worked for people like Humphrey Davy, Michael Faraday and Louis Pasteur, and its still valid today. > -I think that YOU think I'm taking a more formal assault on induction... as Istated, its practical use outweighs the lack of a formal proof. However, to strict logicians, this is a thorny issue. (As would be expected, they are strict logicians!) Logically it is like saying "Induction is correct because it works..." which is a common fallacy. -I agree with you that David is engaging in speculation, and not induction, but I'm still trying to raise some deeper philosophical issues, such as the fact that the... "design hypothesis" isn't actually testable and therefore cannot be assigned a probability limit the same way we would for abiogenesis. You say as much here but I figured I'd make it more explicit. - > The problem with the examples cited by DT in this thread is that they are not based on induction but are in the realms of pure speculation, if not fantasy. They are more akin to the speculations of the pre-Socratic philosophers. Perhaps it is due in part to the power of modern mathematics to generate unlimited models that will fit the data. > -Well, that claim isn't really so surprising when mathematics is simply another form of human language; it is as expressive and creative as any other form of writing as I have knowledge of. But I think in these instances it is more of people bridging explanations to fit data than it is something powered by mathematics. -> It is then necessary to apply other criteria, such as Ockham's razor, or aesthetic considerations, or plain common sense, to prevent us being carried away with imagination, until such time as we have more empirical data.-The problem here is that the majority of people don't have the capacity to delay gratification for the amount of time it takes to resolve these matters.-In the future, George, feel free to Call me "Matt." I... just don't know why my name change never took. They tie it to my email address, apparently.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Lost marbles
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 03, 2009, 01:11 (5498 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> I'd like to put in a good word for induction. It is essentially the way science works. We look at the facts, the data, and collect as many different cases as possible, and then try to fit a theory or formula to the data, and then work out the consequences of these, and go back to testing whether the predictions agree with nature. > > The problem with the examples cited by DT in this thread is that they are not based on induction but are in the realms of pure speculation, if not fantasy. It is then necessary to apply other criteria, such as Ockham's razor, or aesthetic considerations, or plain common sense, to prevent us being carried away with imagination, until such time as we have more empirical data.-Finally got around to answering this. It seems that George is upset with my line of reasoning. Yet I suddenly discover Frank has arrived, and I have read everything he has written. Before that only Bella and I felt the same way. Because our conclusions do involve both thoughts and feelings. I have not had a mystical or meditative experience, as the two folks who agree with me, that panentheism is a reasonable position to take. None of us active on this website really 'know' the truth, neither the agnostics, the atheist, or we three panentheists. And we three each have some differing concepts.-As I have explained before, I left medical school as an agnostic, and after many years of reading particle physics and cosmology, starting about age 40, at about age 55 I reached the conclusion there was a greater power, and it was only after that, did I delve into Darwin, up to which time I had blindly accepted the theory without much thought. As you know I now think it is full of holes and inadequate to explain the layers of complex genetic controls shown in the article by Shapiro that I posted here about a week ago.-When I made my realization that there had to be a greater power to explain all I had learned, I had a very warm internal feeling in my chest, hair seemed to rise up on my back, and I felt like I did when I knew I was in love and marry (both times). I don't know if that is a mystical 'experience'. It sounds like what Frank has alluded to in his experience. All I know is it feels good.
Lost marbles
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, November 06, 2009, 04:47 (5495 days ago) @ David Turell
David, > When I made my realization that there had to be a greater power to explain all I had learned, I had a very warm internal feeling in my chest, hair seemed to rise up on my back, and I felt like I did when I knew I was in love and marry (both times). I don't know if that is a mystical 'experience'. It sounds like what Frank has alluded to in his experience. All I know is it feels good.-I have to be facetious... Sensualism?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"