|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Greater simplicity of theism? Really?
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.
So, how is it that the postulation of the existence of something supernatural (with all its attendant paradoxes, and non-resolvable nightmares such as theodicy) is simpler and less mysterious than the postulation of the non-existence of that supernatural thing?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I already addressed that on the thread.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I watched a TV programme about the CERN hadron collider. Research physicists and engineers from all over Europe are probing the fundamental structure of the universe.
I was astounded how many people are working on it and how much brain power and money has gone into it.
I know that science advances will be emmense due to the research. It's a good thing, amazing. But there seemed more to it than that to me, it appeared to be an almost spiritual quest.
This 'need to know' about our origins and purpose goes deep imo. Whether you couch it in religious/spiritual terms or not.
None of it is simple or straightforward. Fascinating, yes.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think Yorick is right, if one follows the Blessed Occam, that is, don't multiply terms unnecessarily.
But it depends how you construe atheism - as a lack of belief, it satisfies Occam; as a definite claim that there is no God, probably not.
And some people construe atheism as materialism, (which involves a ton of ideas), which is incorrect. I mean saying that atheism must involve materialism is incorrect, not that materialism is incorrect - how the hell would I know that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Atheism that doesn't involve materialism; physicalism, needs a shave.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
I already addressed that on the thread.
Me too, but here goes again - I have a quiet 5 minutes ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Yorick (on the free will theodicy thread) has claimed his morality comes from 'natural sources'. That, to me, is deeply, deeply mysterious. Indeed, even now I can hear the haunting sounds of distant pipes flutering over the sacred groves. Lock up your virgins.
A bit later he implies evil doesn't exist. My guess is that 1700 years of Christian cultural baggage means your virgins aren't in as much peril as it might otherwise seem...I hope I'm not wrong...
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Of course evil actions exist. But does evil exist outside of the will of human beings?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
[QUOTE]Yorick (on the free will theodicy thread) has claimed his morality comes from 'natural sources'. That, to me, is deeply, deeply mysterious.
A bit later he implies evil doesn't exist...
Okay, let's talk about Him in the third person. Is it okay if we capitalise His H too? It seems fitting somehow.
I'm not sure how He implied evil doesn't exist since He doesn't actually think that. At least, He thinks that people do things most of us would view as 'evil', even though He may not believe in the existence of evil as a supernatural force or whatever, and would agree that the viewpoint is of course subjective.
AHUI, the natural source model of the evolution of morality is very widely described, and is not in any way reliant on any sort of mysticism. Perhaps you could show Him how it does.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.
So, how is it that the postulation of the existence of something supernatural (with all its attendant paradoxes, and non-resolvable nightmares such as theodicy) is simpler and less mysterious than the postulation of the non-existence of that supernatural thing?
Because it explains why we exist at all.
Atheism can't do that.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nope. Nothing explains existence.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It depends on what you call an explanation. I'm not sure the supernatural can be called an explanation really; more like guesswork. Can a guess be an explanation?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on what you call an explanation. I'm not sure the supernatural can be called an explanation really; more like guesswork. Can a guess be an explanation?
Yes, it's called a hypothesis. Scientific theories are only anything else within their own hermeneutic, and then only according to their more fundamentalist supporters. Fundamentally, we're all guessing.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Myeah, but scientific hypotheses can be tested in doubt by experiment which produces data based on interpersonal experience, as opposed to religious faith which is based on wishful thinking and non-interpersonal experience. These two positions are categorically different, and to make claims that they are the same is actually rather sad. Have courage in your beliefs!
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Myeah, but scientific hypotheses can be tested in doubt by experiment which produces data based on interpersonal experience, as opposed to religious faith which is based on wishful thinking and non-interpersonal experience. These two positions are categorically different, and to make claims that they are the same is actually rather sad. Have courage in your beliefs!
Experiment and experience are the same word, or at least separated a very short time ago, and as for the rest, that's ideology, which is indistinguishable from faith. Please also examine the question of the repeatability of most of the key experiments.
Have some courage in your own, or accept that all belief systems, including the scientific, require courage.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.
Theological explanations are inherently simple.
Why does it rain? That's just when Zeus pisses through a sieve (h/t Aristophanes).
Why did the sun vanish at mid-day? Apollo hit a pothole and had to take a few minutes to re-seat the axle on his chariot.
Why does my son look more like the milkman than me? Obviously Zeus assumed the shape of the milkman to seduce my wife, and my son bears the outward imprint of this.
Being able to say "Goddidit" or "because God said so" is a remarkably simple explanation. If simplicity is your benchmark, it's hard to do better than a one size fits all answer to everything. If you're interested in accuracy, however, that can get complicated.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.
So, how is it that the postulation of the existence of something supernatural (with all its attendant paradoxes, and non-resolvable nightmares such as theodicy) is simpler and less mysterious than the postulation of the non-existence of that supernatural thing?
Because it explains why we exist at all.
Atheism can't do that.
Nor can philately. So?
Religion can explain why we exist, but so can the spittled ramblings of the shaman. The fact that explanations can be given for the metaphysical whys does not speak to the truth value of those explanations.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Croesos, the problem of goddidit is that it raises all sorts of difficult questions that are not at all simple- like theodicy.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on what you call an explanation. I'm not sure the supernatural can be called an explanation really; more like guesswork. Can a guess be an explanation?
Yes, it's called a hypothesis. Scientific theories are only anything else within their own hermeneutic, and then only according to their more fundamentalist supporters. Fundamentally, we're all guessing.
Well, I don't see science as describing or explaining reality. That was kicked into touch by people like Bacon, who said, enough with Aristotle, use your senses to observe phenomena. But we have no way of knowing if phenomena are reality or not; let's call them appearances.
I know that some people do see science as explanatory of reality; I just think that is making it too powerful. Science works, but this is a pragmatic thing, and need not involve 'truth' or 'reality'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
It all depends on what we mean by simple, really.
It seems to me that the problems raised by belief in God (specifically belief in God's providence) are the sort that force themselves on your emotions. But the problems raised by, say, materialism are of emotional interest largely to philosophers. That doesn't mean they're not intellectual problems. Just that the average punter on the internet is more likely to be able to ignore them.
As an analogy:
What makes mathematical truths true? Why do the results of people playing games with a paper and pencil model the physical world predictably?
In one sense, you could say positing Platonic mathematical objects is less simple - in that you're adding extra entities to the material universe. And it's less simple to talk about what they are, in that the best we can say is that they're not material objects, their effects on the universe aren't causal effects in the way material events have causal effects, etc. On the other hand, solutions to the problem that don't refer to Platonic entities are also hand-wavy in a far less well-defined way.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
AHUI, the natural source model of the evolution of morality is very widely described
To your satisfaction? Can you summarise briefly?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
Scientific knowledge does not begin to cover all knowledge. The question of God's existence involves areas that are not scientifically testable (e.g.'s History, which is the study of the unrepeatable; Theology, which is the study of the unknowable; Humanity, the study of the unreasonable).
Science is a very useful tool, just not the only one in the box.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.
So, how is it that the postulation of the existence of something supernatural (with all its attendant paradoxes, and non-resolvable nightmares such as theodicy) is simpler and less mysterious than the postulation of the non-existence of that supernatural thing?
There have been several threads here recently, plus posts here and there, which have set me thinking on somewhatsimilar lines, and I have been trying - and failing! - to formulate a question on the theme of, why believe.
so I gave a cheer when I saw your interesting, neat OP.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I know that science advances will be emmense due to the research. It's a good thing, amazing. But there seemed more to it than that to me, it appeared to be an almost spiritual quest.
In this case I should think such a spiritual aspect of the work is the intellectual satisfaction and deeply fulfilling knowledge that it is evolved humans who are doing the work. quote:
This 'need to know' about our origins and purpose goes deep imo. Whether you couch it in religious/spiritual terms or not.
Adding the religious aspect to the spiritual consideration, adds an unnecessary complexity., quote:
None of it is simple or straightforward. Fascinating, yes.
Well, there is certainly no doubt about that!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Scientific knowledge does not begin to cover all knowledge.
However all that is known, i.e. Nnot entirely subjective, can come under the heading of science, and all such knowledge and Theories can be updated and improved as more reliable information becomes available. quote:
The question of God's existence involves areas that are not scientifically testable...
Since these 'areas' are of the mind only, and for which no hypotheses can be formed because of a lack of any possible observations via the senses, then I agree they are not testable. quote:
.. (e.g.'s History, which is the study of the unrepeatable;
Yes, but much verification can be done with reference to multiple, supportive, written and physical evidence and resources. quote:
... Theology, which is the study of the unknowable;
I would go a little further and say it is the study of something entirely of the human imagination.
quote:
Science is a very useful tool, just not the only one in the box.
Could you say what other tools you are thinking of, and howand for what they could be used?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Scientific knowledge does not begin to cover all knowledge. The question of God's existence involves areas that are not scientifically testable (e.g.'s History, which is the study of the unrepeatable; Theology, which is the study of the unknowable; Humanity, the study of the unreasonable).
Science is a very useful tool, just not the only one in the box.
History is the study of documents. Knowledge. Science, scio, I know. So what epistemological tool is there for knowing that isn't science?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
It is easier not to believe in God than to believe, imv. It is simpler to close our minds to possibilities about inter-personal spiritual experiences we can't explain by putting them down to imagination, than to accept the conclusion that a relational God exists and struggle with all that it entails.
In the area of morality, it is simpler to put all human action down to nature and nurture and 'can do no other' than to consider the existence of good and evil and free will choices and accountability, leading us back to theodicy in areas we (or maybe only I) find difficult to grasp, let alone work out.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, I am that weak Raptor Eye. Yet I can't not believe [in] Him. I have no choice, no will in the matter at all. And I'm glad of it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Science is to be militantly defended in the areas where it is applicable, whether it is against New Agers, young earth creationists, postmodernists, cultural relativists or anyone else who tries to claim that it is "just one way" of interpreting evidence from the natural world.
The trouble is that science has nothing to say about those areas of life which are of most importance to most people, whether they are atheists or religious believers, such as aesthetics, ethics and relationships.
Science can give us information that feeds into our ideas about beauty, goodness and love, but in the end cannot give us definitive answers as to what is beautiful or good or right or just, or what is the loving thing to do in any given relational situation, which are challenging and confusing for everyone.
(And incidentally, re the title of the OP, I did not say that theism is simpler than atheism, but that both are equally problematical).
[ 14. August 2016, 21:45: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye, I am that weak Raptor Eye. Yet I can't not believe [in] Him. I have no choice, no will in the matter at all. And I'm glad of it.
He he. As I typed 'Can do no other' I thought 'but this is true once we believe too' - and yet it is a choice to accept God into our lives, and to concede to God's will.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I can't say that's not so ... bugger.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.
So, how is it that the postulation of the existence of something supernatural (with all its attendant paradoxes, and non-resolvable nightmares such as theodicy) is simpler and less mysterious than the postulation of the non-existence of that supernatural thing?
Because it explains why we exist at all.
Atheism can't do that.
Nor can philately. So?
So it lacks explanatory power. Hence it is more complicated.
Logic 101.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
(e.g.'s History, which is the study of the unrepeatable; Theology, which is the study of the unknowable; Humanity, the study of the unreasonable).
Ooooh I like that. Totally stealing it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
( tho I'd add the caveat that Theology is study of the ultimately unknowable. Christian theology certainly teaches that we can know God in Christ).
[ 15. August 2016, 03:48: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What makes mathematical truths true?
Engineering, electronics, technology etc. The practical application of mathematical truths. Planes fly, rockets reach the space station, my iPad speaks to you.
That's why I mentioned the hadron collider. The data they collect describes the totally un-seeable it's loaded with mathematical 'stuff'. But, their discoveries will lead to amazing new technologies, not just knowledge about the beginning of the universe and particle physics, I'm sure.
Simple? I couldn't keep up with the simplest explanations.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Quantum physics can't prove the existence of God, but it can prove that the universe isn't really as we see it. For example gravity distorts light, but it also produces time. Einstein believed that time was an illusion of the gravitational universe. Time is very real to us, as we start out as babies and eventually die, but a mystical practice in all the world'd religions is to live in the present moment where time intersects with eternity. In fact I would say that practising eternity is the most valuable thread in human religion.
For more than a hundred years they've asked if extra dimensions exist. Some scientists say there are 10, some say 11. But think, a two dimensional being ie a drawing, can be imprisoned by drawing a circle around it. We, as three dimensional beings can miraculously lift it out of its circle and place it elsewhere. There would be no explanation for this in two dimensional awareness. If our three dimensional awareness, or four if we include time, is completely an illusionary result of our level of perception, then things may happen which appear miraculous to us.
None of this serves to prove God's existence, but the fact that some form of eternity can be postulated from science at least proves that the world is more than we know, and may leave room for what we call the supernatural.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism can't do that.
Nor can philately. So?
So it lacks explanatory power. Hence it is more complicated.
Logic 101.
I think you're skipping a few logical steps there, like how no explanations are complicated, or everything simple has explanatory power.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What makes mathematical truths true?
Engineering, electronics, technology etc. The practical application of mathematical truths. Planes fly, rockets reach the space station, my iPad speaks to you.
Not in the relevant sense. In fact, those are part of the phenomena to be explained.
The sense you bring up is the same as saying that engineering and electronics make Maxwell's equations true. That is, they supply the evidence for or the reasons for thinking the equations are true.
But that's not the metaphysically interesting sense. The equations would still be true had nobody ever built an electrical circuit - the circuits have to be designed to fit the physical laws and the mathematics, rather than the other way around. In that sense, the mathematical truths make the electronics work.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
With my engineer hat on, that's usually a dodgy way to think about things, practically. That is - when a math model becomes so appealing (and they do - they provide nice ways of thinking about stuff which otherwise is so multi-dimensional and obscure that it defies analysis) that one starts to regard it as 'true', one normally screws up by violating some initial assumption or other which means the maths and reality, diverge.
So the maths is normally 'true' within some pretty limited range of physical conditions. That's not to denigrate the amazing achievement of folks managing to get a fit at all...but theory and practice are always tenuously related. I suppose engineering lives inside that tenuous-ness, including an cost assessment for each application of how tenuous can one afford to be, or not.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
With my engineer hat on, that's usually a dodgy way to think about things, practically. That is - when a math model becomes so appealing (and they do - they provide nice ways of thinking about stuff which otherwise is so multi-dimensional and obscure that it defies analysis) that one starts to regard it as 'true', one normally screws up by violating some initial assumption or other which means the maths and reality, diverge.
I think to some extent this is a matter of choosing the right mathematical model for your case rather than mathematics not describing reality.
Usually as I understand it, what happens is that the maths to describe what actually happens is too complicated to be easily workable, so you simplify to get something that you can calculate more easily. Which is ok, until something chaotic happens where the bits that were simplified out start to have an effect on the overall result.
That's a bit circular, I suppose, in that the criteria for saying that you've oversimplified is that the maths you're using doesn't model what's happens. I don't think it's viciously circular, in that in any case where the model doesn't work you should in principle be able to point to the parts of the model where you've oversimplified reality.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
However all that is known, i.e. Nnot entirely subjective, can come under the heading of science, and all such knowledge and Theories can be updated and improved as more reliable information becomes available.
That would involve a redefinition of Science some way beyond it's usual meaning. We know that Julius Caesar led an army across the Rubicon, but one wouldn't normally call it a scientific statement.
If we are to define something by “not entirely subjective”, it could perhaps be 'knowledge', of which scientific knowledge is merely one form.
quote:
<History> Yes, but much verification can be done with reference to multiple, supportive, written and physical evidence and resources.
Again, that's not really Science. You might get some support for broadening the meaning of 'Science' from AQA although the general reaction suggests a wider disagreement with that process.
quote:
<Theology>I would go a little further and say it is the study of something entirely of the human imagination.
Mileages vary, especially here on the Ship, (where perhaps we should say “Nautical mileages vary”). Whether God exists or not, it is necessary to do Theology to have a full debate (contra Dawkins).
quote:
Could you say what other tools you are thinking of, and howand for what they could be used?
Besides the ones already mentioned, one could throw in literary knowledge (what genre are the Gospels?), Linguistics (what are the implications of the term soma pneumatikon?), Philosophy (what do we mean by 'God'?)...etc!
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism can't do that.
Nor can philately. So?
So it lacks explanatory power. Hence it is more complicated.
Logic 101.
I think you're skipping a few logical steps there, like how no explanations are complicated, or everything simple has explanatory power.
The logic flows from the context of Yorick's question as to why belief in God might be simpler than Atheism.
[ 16. August 2016, 10:52: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What makes mathematical truths true?
Engineering, electronics, technology etc. The practical application of mathematical truths. Planes fly, rockets reach the space station, my iPad speaks to you.
Science can not prove anything (thank you Karl Popper). For any set of observations there will always be alternative explanations. One of the reasons for Occam and his razor is to provide a means of choosing between competing explanations for a set of observations - the observations themselves can't demonstrate one explanation false and the other true, otherwise there wouldn't be competing explanations (though, if both explanations predict differences between currently non-existant data then the new data can be used to support one explanation against the other - but, still not prove either to be true).
All that planes, rockets and iPads show is that our understanding of the physical universe is good enough to make planes, rockets and iPads that work. That science is good enough to address some technological requirements doesn't mean that it's good enough to address all technological requirements (eg: science currently is not good enough to enable inter-stellar travel), let alone non-technological requirements (eg: science can inform us about the relevant processes of genetic transmission, it may quantify the risks of genetic modification, but ultimately can science tell us whether we should introduce a particular gene into a food crop?).
Science, as a method to investigate the universe, is a particularly effective tool to delve ever further into the nature of the material universe. In the process science creates other tools that enable us to apply that understanding to create particular technologies.
The scientific method can be applied to other areas beyond the material universe. The question is, should it? I'm reminded of the scene in Dead Poets Society where one of the class reads out the introduction to a book of poetry while Robin Williams draws axes on the blackboard to quantify the quality of a poem by something akin to scientific methods ... and then tells the class to rip out that section of the book.
I am not sure how the question of whether the scientific method should be applied to a particular field of study (including the study of the material universe) can be answered using the scientific method.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Science can not prove anything (thank you Karl Popper). For any set of observations there will always be alternative explanations.
No good scientist will say that they have proved anything conclusively, will they? Challenges and improvements can always be made.
Can you cite one ‘alternative explanation’, i.e. not one following the scientific method, which has replaced the one using the scientific method, and which has stood the test of time? quote:
All that planes, rockets and iPads show is that our understanding of the physical universe is good enough to make planes, rockets and iPads that work. That science is good enough to address some technological requirements doesn't mean that it's good enough to address all technological requirements …
But whatever reliable technical progress is made in the future, it will be made using the scientific method, with no reliance on guessworkI think you will agree. quote:
it(eg: science currently is not good enough to enable inter-stellar travel), let alone non-technological requirements (eg: science can inform us about the relevant processes of genetic transmission, it may quantify the risks of genetic modification, but ultimately can science tell us whether we should introduce a particular gene into a food crop?).
It cannot make the decision to take an action like that, although it can provide as much information that they possibly can, so any decision made is 100% human, and any human claiming to have had help from answer to prayer or something would be making an unevidenced statement, wouldn’t they? quote:
The scientific method can be applied to other areas beyond the material universe. The question is, should it?
Which areas are you thinking of?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Science can not prove anything (thank you Karl Popper). For any set of observations there will always be alternative explanations.
No good scientist will say that they have proved anything conclusively, will they? Challenges and improvements can always be made.
Can you cite one ‘alternative explanation’, i.e. not one following the scientific method, which has replaced the one using the scientific method, and which has stood the test of time?
I'm talking about alternative scientific explanations. The scientific method essentially boils down to having a collection of observations, developing a model that explains those observations and predicts new ones, testing that model against those new observations, and repeat. You can liken it to fitting a curve through a set of data points. Imagine a set of data, which following convention I will say are values of y for different values of x.
x y
--------
0 0
1 5
5 25
10 50
Now we can look at those and say "it's a straight line, of gradient 5" and produce our model. But, there are various power functions, sinusoidal functions etc that will all fit those data points - an infinite number of such functions in fact. Adding more data points will illiminate many of those functions, but until you have an infinite number of data points there will always be an infinite number of functions that fit them, and fit all new data points as well.
So, given that there is never going to be an infinite amount of data, how do we proceed with selecting our prefered theory? The scientific method doesn't specify how we do that, just that we keep on looking for data that will eliminate more of the options. In practice, what we do is step outside the strict bounds of the scientific method and apply subjective criteria - elegance, simplicity, the reputation of the person proposing the theory, the number of scientists who support it, how well written the paper proposing the theory was ... and, I don't think there is anything wrong with these criteria, we just can't kid ourselves into saying that they are objective.
As for examples, I expect every field of science has examples of alternate theories, some even being in dispute for a long time, or theories that were held for a long time with considerable supporting evidence that have recently been ditched. An example out of my field of radiation protection would be the question of the health effects of low level radiation doses, a question where there have been competing theories for almost as long as the subject has existed, 50 years or more. We know that large doses of radiation cause medical harm - increased risks of cancers, for very large doses radiation sickness and death - and that over quite a wide range of doses the risk of cancer scales linearly with radiation dose. Does that linear relationship extend into the very lowest doses (what's called the Linear No Threshold, LNT, model)? The data is inconclusive, and supports both the LNT and also several models which predict a lower risk than the LNT or even a small health benefit. There are explanations of how the body responds that would provide a theoretical basis for each of these models. For radiation protection the LNT is prefered for pragmatic reasons - it predicts the greatest possible health impact from a small radiation dose, and so dose constraints* based on this model are going to be conservative whereas using another model may result in the constraints being too low, exposing people to what actually is an excessive dose. But, that's not the same as knowing which model is the better one in terms of understanding what is actually happening.
* dose constraints are also subjective, based on what is considered an "acceptable" additional risk - one extra cancer per 100,000 exposed people? one per million? one per ten million? There is no real objective, scientific basis to setting what is an acceptable risk - even if there is then a scientific basis for moving from that to a dose constraint.
quote:
quote:
All that planes, rockets and iPads show is that our understanding of the physical universe is good enough to make planes, rockets and iPads that work. That science is good enough to address some technological requirements doesn't mean that it's good enough to address all technological requirements …
But whatever reliable technical progress is made in the future, it will be made using the scientific method, with no reliance on guessworkI think you will agree.
Technological progress follows strange routes, and they are not all based on the scientific method. Progress is often made by modifying what is already done - the design of airplanes, for instance, still follows the basic plan of a cylindrical fuselage with narrow wings. An objective scientific approach would point out that a lifting body (a broad cabin section tapering to small wings) would be much more efficient - but it's not going to happen because a) aircraft manufacturers are very conservative, b) passengers want window seats and c) airports would need to be redesigned to accomodate a radically different aircraft shape. That's just one example of technological progress that doesn't follow purely scientific methods.
But, to an extent you're right. Technological progress is still constrained by physics. New aircraft designs, whether conservatively following the standard model because of the desires of passengers or using a radical new design, still need to be aerodynamic. Aircraft designed to utilise the principles of yogic flying won't take off.
quote:
quote:
The scientific method can be applied to other areas beyond the material universe. The question is, should it?
Which areas are you thinking of?
I've already mentioned the (fictional) application of the scientific method to the appreciation of poetry. Do you think dating websites which use "scientific compatibility indices" are onto something, or is it a mere gimmick? Can science say whether or not two people will fall in love? I'm redecorating my flat, is there a scientific approach to selecting the colour of paint I put on the walls? Is there some objective scientific criteria by which we can answer the question "was Bach a better composer than Mozart?", or "was Van Gogh a better painter than Jackson Pollock?"?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm redecorating my flat, is there a scientific approach to selecting the colour of paint I put on the walls?
Actually the answer to this one is a qualified yes. They have done studies on different colors and their effects on human emotions. You don't want red walls in the bedroom, for instance, because red tends to arouse the fight-or-flight reflex, which isn't conducive to sleep. Green is calming. And so on. Of course which shade of blue you use to induce whatever emotion blue is associated with is presumably up to you.
So maybe there is an argument to be made that science continues to capture territory formerly held by aesthetics or other non-scientific areas of human endeavor, and has its sights (not to anthropomorphize or anything) on capturing all.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Alan cresswell
Many thanks for your extensive and most interesting reply - much appreciated.
Although science does not try to prove all the details of aesthetic ideas or emotional behaviours, it does understand, doesn't it, the fact that they all stem from the brain.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Can science say whether or not two people will fall in love? I'm redecorating my flat, is there a scientific approach to selecting the colour of paint I put on the walls? Is there some objective scientific criteria by which we can answer the question "was Bach a better composer than Mozart?", or "was Van Gogh a better painter than Jackson Pollock?"?
This seems like a common trajectory for discussions like this. The supposed topic is the necessity of theism to resolve certain questions or provide certain answers, but the conversation almost always turns to bagging on science and reason. If the existence of God is supposed to provide answers inaccessible by other means, how does that help us with the above questions? (Apollo says you should paint your walls a nice, sunny yellow, but Heimdallr recommends a rainbow motif.)
[ 16. August 2016, 18:52: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems like a common trajectory for discussions like this. The supposed topic is the necessity of theism to resolve certain questions or provide certain answers, but the conversation almost always turns to bagging on science and reason.
There's a way to avoid that. Have science fans stop saying stupid things like "Science knows all, sees all, tells all." Then people won't try to come up with counterexamples.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.
But isn't that the whole premise of the thread? That belief by faith (or other theistic construct) is in the same general category (explanation generators) as science? That they're both tools in the same tool box of cognition?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Neither explain bugger all. Science fails simpler.
[ 16. August 2016, 21:50: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
