I dug through some old threads here!

[pboily]

Maths isnt science.

I prefer to say Science isn't Math. Equality is not symmetric in the Real World.

 

[punkbass2000]

punkbass wrote Theoretically something could be undpredictable and not have a random component, but I don't know how I would describe such a thing. Any ideas?

betazed says it better than I can in the post following yours.

Again with the biblical teachings, an omnipotent God certainly has many ways of making things appear one way while the Truth lies elsewhere. Satan could be involved too. I do not claim to know the Truth.

But again, anything could be compatible then.

Carbon dating does rely on the consistency of radioactive decay through time, this is an assumption. Though it can be corroborated by other types of decay, they could have shifted proportionally. All other forms of corroboration (of which I am aware) rely on various other theoretical constructs whose truth or falsification would not affect the operation of science. We do know that radioactive decay is affected by time dilation.

It would not directly affect Science, necessarily, of course, but if you're going to start throwing out various Scientifically valid bits of information it isn't really compatible any more.

Unless one follows it with a sentence saying that the experience of the shared external world need not be real. I could have linked the two phrases with a semicolon but I thought it was clear.

Yes, I know, but whether or not it is real is immaterial. Call it real or an illusion, as you say, but that does not prevent it from being a metaphysical conclusion.

 

[Gothmog]

But again, anything could be compatible then.

I think that's the point I've been trying to make. That science doesn't depend on any specific metaphysics, real or illusion, God or not, any choice will do. It seems you are saying that being human, and not totally crazy, requires some metaphysical conclusions. I'd agree to that.

What scientifically valid bits of information am I throwing out?

 

[punkbass2000]

It's not so much that Science is compatible with anything that I'm saying, it's that if you're going to allow for deity trickery (both good and evil) then I can't see how you can possibly discount anything.

You're throwing out carbon dating if you're accepting YEC, unless you're allowing the above, in which case, again, anything goes.

 

[Gothmog]

Yes, anything goes. I don't know what the Truth is, I will never know.

I prefer to believe that if there is a God it is not petty, or vain, or arbitrary - but I can't say for sure.

This gets back to the concept of usefulness. I don't see any use in assuming an untestable God for me personally. I do see some use in assuming that radioactive decay has been constant through time, especially on a geological time scale.

As I said before, if I am philosophising about reality or even trying to generate some new hypotheses worth testing - then I do resort to metaphysical assumptions. Particularly the three I've mentioned before. But heck, I can't prove the existence of reality so these are assumptions and not intrinsically necessary to the operation of science.

Heh, you're throwing out a lot more than carbon dating if you accept YEC - but your car will still start in the morning. If the Christian God wants me to percieve the earth as old, when the Truth is that it is young, how can I fight that?

 

[punkbass2000]

Yes, anything goes. I don't know what the Truth is, I will never know.

OK, but I don't garner the impression from most Scientists that this is really true from their perspective.

I prefer to believe that if there is a God it is not petty, or vain, or arbitrary - but I can't say for sure.

Me too But then, in my world, the forces of good are things like gravity and so forth and it doesn't seem to be too arbitrary, at least not until you get outside the typical realm of human experience.

This gets back to the concept of usefulness. I don't see any use in assuming an untestable God for me personally. I do see some use in assuming that radioactive decay has been constant through time, especially on a geological time scale.

As I said before, if I am philosophising about reality or even trying to generate some new hypotheses worth testing - then I do resort to metaphysical assumptions. Particularly the three I've mentioned before. But heck, I can't prove the existence of reality so these are assumptions and not intrinsically necessary to the operation of science.

I guess I just don't see how they aren't. If you accept that reality may not exist, you must accept to the same degree that Science itself is also not working. The two go hand in hand.

Heh, you're throwing out a lot more than carbon dating if you accept YEC - but your car will still start in the morning. If the Christian God wants me to percieve the earth as old, when the Truth is that it is young, how can I fight that?

I'm not saying you can, just that doesn't really sound "compatible" to me. If it is, then, as I say, anything is.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Birdjaguar wrote: Thanks, actually I live in Santa Fe.

That was unexpected. Hello neighbor.

 

[punkbass2000]

Hey, maybe you two can get a group rate to come visit Southern Ontario

 

[Gothmog]

OK, but I don't garner the impression from most Scientists that this is really true from their perspective

But again, scientists have thier own metaphysics quite separate from science. Many are religious, some agnostic, etc.

If you accept that reality may not exist, you must accept to the same degree that Science itself is also not working. The two go hand in hand.

science not working. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it, this is the human condition. The illusion of experience gives rise to the illusions of a time stream and sensory perception. Within the context of this illusion the atom bomb did go off, and we did land people on the moon. No amount of metaphysical uncertainty will change those past tense elements of my experience of the collective illusion. And yes I have personal experience of empirical data/objects from both these phenomena.

If there is no perceptable difference between the past existence of dinosaurs, and evidence for the past existence of dinosaurs then I cannot decide between them.

Now indeed if reality does not exist then science only 'works' within the context of my illusion, so what? That’s my only connection with the (apparently) external world and I'm happy to work with what I've been given. If it turns out that Satan has pulled the wool over my eyes what can I say? I've been punked.

 

[punkbass2000]

But again, scientists have thier own metaphysics quite separate from science. Many are religious, some agnostic, etc.

Well, then I guess the question is what makes you think you have more authority on what constitutes Science than they do?

science not working. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it, this is the human condition. The illusion of experience gives rise to the illusions of a time stream and sensory perception. Within the context of this illusion the atom bomb did go off, and we did land people on the moon. No amount of metaphysical uncertainty will change those past tense elements of my experience of the collective illusion. And yes I have personal experience of empirical data/objects from both these phenomena.

Yes, within the context of the illusion. Now, I understand that there is no need no for absolute truth, and the recognition that the fiath may be misplaced, but nonetheless I simply can't see how you operate without some fundamental beliefs, at least some of which are rooted in Science. You may accept that the Scientific conclusions are not the be all and end all of experience and may totally point you in the wrong direction, but even if you don't believe in gravity per se, I find it difficult ot believe that you would be genuinely surprised every time you drop something when it falls to the ground, as we know it. That you even bother to continue this conversation suggests an ultimate faith in something.

If there is no perceptable difference between the past existence of dinosaurs, and evidence for the past existence of dinosaurs then I cannot decide between them.

Now indeed if reality does not exist then science only 'works' within the context of my illusion, so what? That’s my only connection with the (apparently) external world and I'm happy to work with what I've been given. If it turns out that Satan has pulled the wool over my eyes what can I say? I've been punked.

I resent the implication

 

[Gothmog]

I have no more authority, indeed I'm sure most of us would agree even with different metaphysical assumptions, it just emphasises that science is happy with any metaphysical assumptions.

It seems though that we have come full circle with you now arguing that empirical evidence is important. I've said a number of times that I have metaphysical assumptions, and that all humans have them. My argument is that they are irrelevant to the operation of science. I was attempting to distinguish between science and religion in that way.

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, while I was out, I thought for a bit, and decided to concede the point. And it looks as though you've tired of this as well. It seems to me, generally, that you're more intelligent and knowledgeable than I am, and your posts are generally better. I also feel that, especially for the last few posts, you've been writing solid paragraphs whilst I've been barely hanging on with semantic nitpicks. I suspect I may have mostly been just trying to keep you talking to me I'm not entirely convinced you're right, but you certainly present a stronger case than I do. Enjoy the sunsets

 

[FredLC]

Well, I'm not trying to argue that you should abandon Science. In fact, it occurs to me now that I should clarify that I'm not trying insult or otherwise deride Science and "bring it down" to religion's "level", if one should make such distinction and evaluation. I would say what concerns me more id FredLC's attitude that religion encroaches upon him and he would rather do away with it. Though that concept doesn't bother me directly, I think he implies that he would rather see Science as the doctrine to replace it, and I simply think that it would be no better.

No, no no no no! You missed the point altogether.

(a little clearing up here; as obvious, I was unable to follow this thread for quite a while. Perhaps I’ll add a few more things after I finish reading the additions. But this little thing here I wanted to reply pronto)

I do not want to “do away” with religion. People want to believe in their little subjectivisms, please, they can be my guests. I have no issue with it at all. I am not an enemy of religion.

I was replying to the suggestion you made – and that I consider quite absurd – that religion and science are “the same” (at least to any extent more relevant than being humane disciplines). They are not the same at all, and you point about axioms is pretty fragile in that matter because it turns *everything* into religion, disqualifying the word as commonly understood.

Anyway, I do dislike that the “subjective knowledge” of religion…

(and here admitting that all knowledge is subjective, we can restrict this comment to the uncontrollable nature of religionist subjectivism, which don’t pursuit factual objectism as a goal, unlike scientific subjectivism)

… is used so oftenly as a guide to our social and political decisions. Because I find it to a greater extent less trustworthy than scientific knowledge, and because this aspect affects also those who don’t want to touch it with a ten-foot-pole.

That said, I don’t want science to replace anything. I just want people to praise the Lord in temples, not in the Congress or in commissions that distributes funding to labs. I just desire laicism, that one stops bothering the other. When we get to that point, I’ll not concern myself with the religion of the western civilization one tiny bit ever again.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

My definition is too broad for what? And again, this isn't a popularity contest Science may be practical in nature, but it still assumes some things, that's all. Again, I do not suggest that you abandon it. Accomplish what you will, and enjoy what you do, there's nothing wrong about it. But, at least as far as it can be argued that Science is "superior" to religion (as FredLC, at the least, says), I disagree.

One more thing here.

As a tool of social order, religion is superior to science, which is amoral by essence (I don't know if I'd say it if I considered undisputable that philosophy and sociology are "sciences", but that is beyond the point). Now, as for describing reality, or as close to reality as possible ("Truth" with a capital T, as you put it), science is far superior.

Why? Because each other tries to accomplish their things as well as possible, while again each does not bother with the other's goal. It's down, than, to what you are evaluating as purpose of the discipline.

Anyway, I still think that science is a form of knowledge superior to religion in several aspects. The rate of sucess it achieves being the prime aspect, there are also others - such as the fact that philosophy and sociology can cover religious goals satisfactorily, but there is no known discipline that can cover the role of science. The latter is a unique tool, the previous is not. The value of rarity is than attached.

Anyway, since you have again clarified that you are not charging against science, let me again clarify that I'm not charging against religion. Or, in your own words:

"But, at least as far as it can be argued that Science is "the same" as religion (as punkbass2000, at the least, says), I disagree."

Regards .