I dug through some old threads here!

[betazed]

Science is about predicting observable phenomena and hopefully understanding the accuracy and precision associated with the prediction. Faith and truth (or Truth) are not an issue.

While this is almost always true, IMHO it is a mite restrictive in the current level of scientific research. Coming back to the theoritical physics example (by now a hackneyed one ) at one level we are more interested in consistency and a vague sort of "beauty" than observable phenomenon, because unfortunately there is not much observable phenomenon left for our theories to explain. To concoct a phenomenon that actually requires explanation we would have to go to such extremes that we are better off just working with consistency. isn't that also a scientific endevour?

Granted at some point all the effort better provide some observational bearings to make sure we are on the path of Truth and truth but observation has taken a lesser spot now.

I believe in another few hundred years or so even sciences like biology may be where today physics is. assume we know and can explain all biological phenomenon. When that happens we may start to find unified bilogical laws which provides a cleaner framework for our understanding (for example that unifies biological development on Earth and another planet). This particular endevour may have no further observational requirement but it would still be a scientific endevour wouldn't it?

So, it seems to me that as a field of science matures progress may come even without observation (and prediction) from requirements of consistency and unfication.

 

[FredLC]

Finally, nice post Fred. When you're around I don't feel like my long posts are such an embarrassment.

Thanks... I guess...

Regards .

 

[Gothmog]

@Betazed - I would argue that most of what you describe is metaphysics and math, with a touch of engineering thrown in for good measure.

This is work that supports science, specifically the computational tools and framework necessary for producing predictions from hypotheses.

For example, a good deal of the work I currently do is designing programs that will allow me to make predictions from well known physical relationships. Just because you know a few things about electrodynamics and electron cross sections does not allow you to predict the properties of an electron beam. You need to construct a model that you can run given current computational constraints. This is part of the scientific endeavor as it helps define the accuracy and precision of a given prediction, but the development of these tools is really engineering and math not science. I've learned a lot about numerics since taking this position. The science happens when you use the tool to test a hypothesis, or predict/explain a phenomina.

I know a good number of physicists who argue that string theory is not science but a mix of philosophy and math, and indeed is hampering scientific progress by diverting resources that could be used for science.

@FredLC - joking, joking. You are one the only posters in OT who consistently has longer posts than I do, and as you may or may not know - not everyone here reads long posts.

 

[FredLC]

I know, kidding too... but anyway, I tend to think that the ones who do read are the ones who matter.

Hard to have a real debate with one-liners, regardless how witty they may be.

Regards .

 

[Akka]

That's better, I guess, and that's what I'll use, though it still doesn't feel quite right. I shall trust your native judgement in this matter, however. Many thanks!

No problem, I always love talking about french ^^

(BTW : it's "les tréfonds" and not "le tréfonds" )

 

[Taliesin]

No problem, I always love talking about french ^^

(BTW : it's "les tréfonds" and not "le tréfonds" )

Damn again! I had "les" in the paper I submitted, since I was sure that was how it should be, but my instructor corrected it to "le". Luckily class has finished, if she is as unreliable as this.

If you'd like to correspond in French by PM, I'd love the opportunity for practice, correction, and idiomatic instruction. I asked Thunderfall for a French-language thread, but unfortunately he did not respond. It doesn't have to be frequent or anything-- I'm not looking to take up your time teaching a Canadian better French, but if you're up for an exchange once a week or something, I'm game.

 

[Birdjaguar]

At a macro level religions have "parts" and unless your belief system has all the parts it probably doesn't qualify as a religion

Creation story to explain the origin of the universe
Eschatology to explain if/how/when the universe will end
Source of knowledge so adherents can learn more
Cosmology to describe humankind's place in the universe
Ritual so the faithful can participate in ongoing practices
Myth or stories that ralte to the early days or founding of the religion
Dogma as the foundation of the faith

If you can find agreed upon answers to these for science, then I would say it is a religion..

 

[Ethics]

Goodness!

That old religion/science thread brings back old memories of battles long over!

So many legendary posters who have faded into the mists of history!

Oh yes Curt, I do miss the old days... the posters just seemed so much more eloquent and fiesty (there seemed to be a much more even divide in political leanings back then... but I do remember the "mob"). I guess I'm the quintessential observer on this forum though I remember admiring AoA back in highschool.

I just gotta say though, even though some of the stuff you say drives me crazy, I can't help but liking ya.

 

[Gothmog]

@Birdjaguar,

Well using your 'parts' science is certainly close. It just isn't unified enough, and a particular strength of science is the disagreement about those parts. While there is disagreement within religion as a whole, these often lead to warfare or within a sect strong disagreement leads to splintering. In science the disagreement is a given.

I am wondering though, how your parts relates to the many people who find their religion through 'gurus'. Typically these are somewhat similar to Jainism, or to what you have said on this forum (that there is no division between "God" and "not-God"). I've known quite a few in my life and my experience has been that they lack many of the 'parts' you list. Often they are more concerned with day to day life, and how to live it. Does that mean they are not part of a religion, or not religious?

I know I come back to this a lot, but I consider the definitions I gave from the Oxford English Dictionary to be quite an authority, quite definitive for lack of a better term. Those certainly would accept this sort of group as a religion, and pretty much exclude science. Having been very close to both these groups myself I can't disagree.

 

[betazed]

I know a good number of physicists who argue that string theory is not science but a mix of philosophy and math, and indeed is hampering scientific progress by diverting resources that could be used for science.

yes, it can be said to be a mix of philosophy and math but it still fun and like no philosophy we have done before.

But if you consider that as diverting resources then a lot of physics and not just string theory falls in that case. Take black hole physics. There is 0 observational evidence. In fact it is worse than string theory. While at least there is an ongoing attempt in string theory to create some sort of low energy observations in black hole physics theoriticians do not even bother with any observations. They are happy to prove theorem after theorem about black holes. That is precisely what they have been doing merrily for the last 50 years. Is that not science? And the list does not end there. Loop quantum gravity and axiomatic qft comes to mind also. I am sure the list is longer than I know.

Maybe, we can be pedantic and say that these are not really science/physics but more like pure math. And that would not be too wrong I guess.

 

[Gothmog]

You enjoy high-energy physics, but high-energy physics is a very small part of science - and there are plenty of high-energy physicists who do practice science as I understand the term. Most of the group I know who made the above statements about string theory had worked at the SSC before that was closed down. As far as black holes there are observations, such as quasars and galactic centers, which allow some observational testing of theories. This is where the rubber hits the road IMO.

There is nothing wrong with numerics, and philosophical musings. As I said I do quite a bit of that myself. These are occupations that support science, but I wouldn't call them alone doing science and I don't think that's pedantic (but maybe it is).

Take numerics, it is very important to understand the many different ways to solve a set of ODE’s; today much of physics depends on that ability. However the science is not in the solving of the ODE's. This is where the blurring takes place, the computational tools and framework necessary to make predictions with the current level of understanding in much of physics can take a lifetime to learn on its own. Some people couldn't learn it in a lifetime. That's simply the way it is, just working up the observations that come out of places like SLAC is a similarly involved endeavor.

In the vast majority of science this is not the case. You just happen to be focused a specific area of science where the computational tools and framework are considered central and where lots of people like to work. Probably this is precisely because of their philosophical underpinnings.

Even in the area of physics you are referring to there are loads of observations that need explanation, or at least need their current explanation refined and fleshed out. The earth's ionosphere is poorly understood, same for the magnetosphere and Van Allen belts, then there’s solar physics, my current topic of lightning, etc. etc. For whatever reason people would rather develop the mathematical framework necessary for these other problems and their metaphysical/philosophical implications.

 

[cgannon64]

Why do you think I've been gone? Why do you think I'm leaving again after this post?

 

[Gothmog]

Heh, I never did address the actual topic of this thread but cg reminded me of it so...

OT is no different from any other range of human discussions, conclusions are not reached, god is not proved or disproved, first principles are not discovered.

The topics being discussed on this forum are the same ones humans have always discussed. That is a documented fact as far back as we have documents.

People do slowly absorb different points of view, or learn bits and pieces that they incorporate, we have in fact seen a pretty major shift in Curt's thinking over the years. Some people do not listen (or read), they are just waiting for their chance to speak (or write) - that's just the way humans are. Others do listen, and a few even learn something. One thing OT offers is a chance to disagree, a chance to hear the other side out. Too often people retreat to a group that offers nothing but agreement and are diminished by that choice.

 

[betazed]

@Gothmog: As usual you have given me something to chew on. Specifically I will dwell on why the following holds true, because I do believe it to be true.

<snip> For whatever reason people would rather develop the mathematical framework necessary for these other problems and their metaphysical/philosophical implications.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

It pleases me that you did not dig any up from the days when I was far more ignorant and set in my ways.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Birdjaguar,
Well using your 'parts' science is certainly close. It just isn't unified enough, and a particular strength of science is the disagreement about those parts. While there is disagreement within religion as a whole, these often lead to warfare or within a sect strong disagreement leads to splintering. In science the disagreement is a given.

I am wondering though, how your parts relates to the many people who find their religion through 'gurus'. Typically these are somewhat similar to Jainism, or to what you have said on this forum (that there is no division between "God" and "not-God"). I've known quite a few in my life and my experience has been that they lack many of the 'parts' you list. Often they are more concerned with day to day life, and how to live it. Does that mean they are not part of a religion, or not religious?

I know I come back to this a lot, but I consider the definitions I gave from the Oxford English Dictionary to be quite an authority, quite definitive for lack of a better term. Those certainly would accept this sort of group as a religion, and pretty much exclude science. Having been very close to both these groups myself I can't disagree.

My "parts" approach is one that is best applied to organized religions or world views which could be considered religions. Science does fit and so does communism. "Disagreement" could be part of the ritual or dogma of a science religion. The point is to show that the structure of religions can be applied to other world views that usually aren't classified as religions, but function in the same way for adherents. Most people think that to be a religion, you have to have "god" or its equivalent. No god no religion. With that perameter, Science does not qualify, even lthough it does fulfill the same purpose as religion for many people. I do not have access to the OED on line, so I couldn't look up what it said about religion. But, if you start with a definition of religion that includes a diety, you will only have the traditional religions in your list. I am willing to accept a wider view based on how people use such constructs to answer the life's "big" questions.

As individuals we all have answer to the "parts" questions. Those views may be not coherent, consistent, or even fully recognized, but they are there and if asked, most people will fill in the blanks with something. Religions just organize those parts for people and try to present a consistent and logical collection of those parts. When people accept a guru they may be just accepting a "lifestyle" that fits with some world view they already believe in, or they could be accepting a change in their world view and beginning a transition to a new way of looking at the world. Certainly those people are religious. If god alone is and life is all about "discovering" the truth about reality, then there is no separation into "religious" and "non religious". We are all seekers and there is no single path (and in truth, no journey at all).

If you are a devotee of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (meditation), Ram Das or A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (Krishna chanting), you are certainly part of a religion that has answers to all the parts questions. As a follower you may or may not accept all those answers, like some catholics may not accept particular beliefs within catholicism, but still consider themselves catholics. The three I mentioned are basically Hinduism. If you were a catholic who embraced the meditation of MMY, then you would still be a catholic who adopted a "foreign" practice into your daily routine. If in the practice and study of other MMY teachings, you accepted reincarnation as a tenant, that would take you out of tradtional catholicism and into some kind of transition or hybrid of your own creation. In any case, if I asked you to tell me what you believed about those "parts" you would probably still have something to say.

 

[punkbass2000]

@punkbass2000: I think we agree in the broad sense and we are just dancing around each other, splitting hairs and arguing semantics. A good pasttime but perhaps done in another thread again.

It certainly is a great pastime. As far as I'm concerned, there really isn't anything else to do. To put it like BJ, god, alone, is. The rest is just meaningles categorization, which humans seem apt to do.

 

[punkbass2000]

the range of "things" which can be proven to a reasonable degree by science, by which i mean the actual things which can be technically done by science in the world we inhabit, have little comparison with the things religion can do ... that is where your comparison becomes irrelevant, imo...religion, although it structures the life of the individual in this world, ultimately lays claim to the spirit world

To say "actual" things presumes that things we perceive are real.

again, faith which has application in the world of the senses and must obey its laws as far as they be discerned.. we're talking about two different realms, right?

You keep speaking as though there already is a distinction between Science and religion. As such, you will continue to find them as two separate entitites.

here i disagree with your response to Fred, and i also disagree with the way you're framing the example you make... Science is universal because it is entirely concerned with the physical world... Religion cannot make the same claim... the Tao is a difficult example because i have a hard time distinguishing whether it is a philosophy or a religion, and it certainly seems to be extremely flexible as a mode of thought, but regardless Tao is not Science... in fact, Religion is not Science...

Well, I don't make much of a distinction between religion and philosophy, either. And no, religion is not Science. Science is a religion. Just because Science is concerned with what typically refer to as the "physical" world (and that's not really completely true) doesn't mean it isn't religious. Again, you presume that to be a religion, it must be concerned with things outside the physical world. As far as I'm concerned, there's no more reality to my house than there is to heaven.

and i dislike the example you give of someone refusing medicine because of their religion... the fact here that someone's belief cannot be objectively proven true or false is not a comprehensive enough precept to deal with religious or social groups which openly conflict with society's standards at large.. it is not simply a matter of it being a philosophical question to be decided by the individual...

Whether or not it is ethical is immaterial. And you, again, are presuming Science is "objective".

let me give you an example.... let's assume person X comes from a country which has some laws contrary to that of "secular society".. in fact, where X comes from, female children are to be given in pre-arranged marriages at the age of 13 to other members of their religion, and in fact females are supposed to be completely submissive to their husbands and not study in school beyond that age.. in the country where X comes from, this is in fact law... well, what happens when X comes to a secular country? because in his particular case, he has a daughter who will turn 13 soon, and he has always wanted her to be married at the age of 13 to a fellow believer/member of his culture.. in fact this is what he sincerely believes must happen, otherwise she will go straight to hell ! what will happen if he tries to bring his daughter up like this in a secular state, and makes her marry someone she has never known, who is older, and takes her out of school etc ? is it his right because this is what he believes? well, i would imagine there is a good chance there the state could intervene, especially if there are many X's within the state, all trying to practice a belief system which conflicts with society at large...

I'm really not arguing ethics here.

my point is, opposing/comparing science versus religion as if they have equal power, or are equal, is insufficient.... if someone has a belief system which conflicts with secular society or its fundamental scientific, medical, technical or educational precepts at large, this conflict cannot be simply understood as a philosophical question of the individual's beliefs, because individuals do not exist in a vacuum... they have families and minors, under their care, who don't have their own ideas fully formed yet... in a secular state, would it be X's right to give his daughter, who is a minor, in a pre-arranged marriage to a fellow believer and take her out of school, because this is what he believes? whose rights are being violated if he is allowed or not allowed? does it matter to secular society that perhaps X's beliefs about hell cannot be proven wrong, if his social practices conflict with society's at many levels?

Societal standards are whole other thing. IT really has nothing to do with whether or not Science is a religion. From my PoV, some societies are based on Christianity, some on ISlam, some on other traditional religions, and some on Science. Well, they're all mixed, but usually one of these predominates.

but i get the impression that somehow you are opposing science to religion, by equating them, at least on the level that science is a religion

Well, I may be opposing them because I'm comparing them, but that doesn't make them diametrically opposed.

 

[punkbass2000]

Perhaps because scientific axioms are based on empirical experience, while religious axioms does not bother to have any constriction whatsoever.

Why should empirical evidence be the be all and end all of Truth?

Of course, this leaves room for the argument that experience is something relative and we cannot be sure about the conclusions derived from it. The good, old, and extremely valid problem of induction from Hume becomes the issue.

But than again, didn't Popper dealt with it very well, applying dialetics to empiricism in his critique of the method? Yes, empirical experience (hence science) is fallible, but still, it's the best tool for analysis we have. The fact that it is not perfect does not threaten our prerrogative of dismissing even more fallible methods (and far more at that).

Regards .

OK, but now you're really arguing something different altogether. Sure, we can use Science and it is arguably more useful, depending on what you think is useful, but it still has a base element of faith, as you seem to admit.

 

[punkbass2000]

It doesnt matter whether I believe in gravity or not, I'll still fall. Science is indeed rooted in empricial observation not a priori axioms.

OK, but there are still a priori axioms in place. Otherwise conclusions drawn are meaningless.