JAK:
I'm sorry, It appears we might be misunderstanding each other (I think my answer to Silentkid might be applicable here as well).
When I say that science has no evidence and that it is all just speculation, I am talking about when science is discussing metaphysics or how nature fundamentally calculates its motions. When discussing these topics, science has absolutely no guarantee that anything it speculates about is correct. In fact, I would be surprised if anything science says about these topics is correct because there is so much uncertainty that multiple theories could be constructed to explain any evidence. Of course, when discussing theories that predict outcomes of experiments, science is somewhat more reliable.
This is the fundamental point that I believe you were lacking in your original argument. If we agree here, then I think we are agreeing about a lot more than it appears. If we disagree here, then we can discuss this more.
Just to give an example or two when science can give proper predictions of experiments, but be incorrect (or at least extremely uncertain) about speculation on how nature works:
In physics, Classical mechanics is used extensively by the majority of physicists. It gives fine predictions of experiments in most cases. It is technically incorrect. When things are very small or moving very fast it fails. Newton gave his three laws and claimed that nature worked that way. It doesn't. It is still used extensively (I use it) because it gives good predictions in the majority of cases.
Classical mechanics is now replaced by general relativity which also speculates very much on how nature fundamentally calculates the motion of objects. It does very well in the case of fast moving objects which classical mechanics lacked, but does not do well for very small objects. I suspect it is incorrect about how nature fundamentally works because it is incorrect still in some cases, but there certainly does appear to be some "truth" to it or it wouldn't predict so well at high speeds.
I don't think anyone could claim that science understands how nature calculates its motions until we have discovered the theory of everything. I may not even claim it at that point, because we only have direct experience with a very small portion of the universe. I can't even think of a case when science discusses metaphysics, because that certainly appears to be way outside science's boundary.
The whole point is that there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God that science would claim. In my opinion you would at least have to concede to the fact that any scientific evidence put forth against the existence of God is highly suspect, and just as good as any evidence (feel good type of experiences) put forth by the theists. Both types of evidence are outside scientific boundaries.
Was there a First God?
-
_silentkid
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1606
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm
Re: Path of Science
PhysicsGuy wrote:Correct. There is no better way that I know of. I'm not trying to say science is not capable to explain natural phenomena, I'm just trying to say that there is a boundary in which science must work. When science is outside that boundary, we must acknowledge that it is speculating. That boundary is within experiments and predictions. Science is outside its boundary when it discusses how nature fundamentally works or anything to do with metaphysics. It still should discuss this, but at that point science has to speculate, because there is no guarantee that science is discovering the "formula" which nature uses.
I agree with your post. I'm coming at this from a biology perspective, not a physics perspective...hence the initial confusion. I understand that there are phenomena that the scientific method cannot currently test (refer to Gould's NOMA argument). Maybe science will be able to test those phonemena in the future based on better technology. Some things may never come under the realm of scientific speculation. I'm okay with that too. I'm just not willing to fill those gaps with a traditional god belief or a supernatural explanation.
-
_Gorman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:05 pm
Re: Path of Science
silentkid wrote:PhysicsGuy wrote:Correct. There is no better way that I know of. I'm not trying to say science is not capable to explain natural phenomena, I'm just trying to say that there is a boundary in which science must work. When science is outside that boundary, we must acknowledge that it is speculating. That boundary is within experiments and predictions. Science is outside its boundary when it discusses how nature fundamentally works or anything to do with metaphysics. It still should discuss this, but at that point science has to speculate, because there is no guarantee that science is discovering the "formula" which nature uses.
I agree with your post. I'm coming at this from a biology perspective, not a physics perspective...hence the initial confusion. I understand that there are phenomena that the scientific method cannot currently test (refer to Gould's NOMA argument). Maybe science will be able to test those phonemena in the future based on better technology. Some things may never come under the realm of scientific speculation. I'm okay with that too. I'm just not willing to fill those gaps with a traditional god belief or a supernatural explanation.
Correct. The gaps can either be filled in with extrapolating scientific theories into the realm of pure speculation, or with traditional god belief and the like. It is just a matter of which is more comfortable to the individual. Many are perfectly comfortable just leaving the gaps as they are and never really worrying about metaphysical questions.
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
No Evidence for God Speculations
PhysicsGuy stated:
When I say that science has no evidence and that it is all just speculation, I am talking about when science is discussing metaphysics or how nature fundamentally calculates its motions.
Can you give me an example of science is discussing metaphysics?
I’m skeptical.
Philosophies start with “metaphysics.” Science does not. Science (today) begins with observations.
PhysicsGuy stated:
When discussing these topics, science has absolutely no guarantee that anything it speculates about is correct.
Again, be specific. What comment has science made in this regard?
PhysicsGuy stated:
In fact, I would be surprised if anything science says about these topics is correct because there is so much uncertainty that multiple theories could be constructed to explain any evidence.
Give an example. What’s your evidence that science addresses philosophical speculation?
Thus far, you have a straw-man construction absent specifics.
PhysicsGuy stated:
Of course, when discussing theories that predict outcomes of experiments, science is somewhat more reliable.
Absolutely! You were not talking about “experiments” just above. Philosophical speculation is not science.
You are mixing references with such vague implications as to make meaningless commentary.
PhysicsGuy stated:
This is the fundamental point that I believe you were lacking in your original argument. If we agree here, then I think we are agreeing about a lot more than it appears. If we disagree here, then we can discuss this more.
You have made no point here as my analysis has shown. Absent examples for your assertions, they should be disregarded.
PhysicsGuy stated:
Just to give an example or two when science can give proper predictions of experiments, but be incorrect (or at least extremely uncertain) about speculation on how nature works:
In physics, Classical mechanics is used extensively by the majority of physicists. It gives fine predictions of experiments in most cases. It is technically incorrect. When things are very small or moving very fast it fails. Newton gave his three laws and claimed that nature worked that way. It doesn't. It is still used extensively (I use it) because it gives good predictions in the majority of cases.
The assertion (again) lacks evidence as you present here. Keep in mind that Isaac Newton lived from 1643 to 1727 CE. We have had major additions to science since 1727. To imply that no additions to Newton have been made in science is flawed.
To the extent possible, science today avoids speculation absent evidence. Modern science has advanced beyond the science of 1727 CE. Why do you cite Newton?
PhysicsGuy stated:
Classical mechanics is now replaced by general relativity which also speculates very much on how nature fundamentally calculates the motion of objects. It does very well in the case of fast moving objects which classical mechanics lacked, but does not do well for very small objects. I suspect it is incorrect about how nature fundamentally works because it is incorrect still in some cases, but there certainly does appear to be some "truth" to it or it wouldn't predict so well at high speeds.
General relativity (GR) (known as general theory of relativity (GTR)) is the geometrical theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915/16.
Like the English Language, science never was. It has developed to what we understand/accept today. Science is not today what it was hundreds of years ago (nor is language). However, the search for information continues and information continues to grow.
You “suspect it is incorrect about how nature fundamentally works...” Well, absent evidence for your claim that science is incorrect, your suspicion should not be assumed to be reliable. Again you attempt to minimize the discoveries to date by the phrase some “truth”. Some? Why not a great deal of information/knowledge? Why such grudging credit to science to date?
PhysicsGuy stated:
I don't think anyone could claim that science understands how nature calculates its motions until we have discovered the theory of everything. I may not even claim it at that point, because we only have direct experience with a very small portion of the universe. I can't even think of a case when science discusses metaphysics, because that certainly appears to be way outside science's boundary.
Discoveries continue. Why your hold out? What’s your agenda? Exactly, science does not discuss “metaphysics.”
This is contrary to your previous claim which I challenged above. You shift position. You assume that speculations of metaphysics have reliability. It’s a flawed assumption for which you provide no evidence. Consider that it may be tooth fairy talk. Absent evidence for metaphysical anything, such speculations should be viewed with great suspicion or disregarded.
PhysicsGuy stated:
The whole point is that there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God that science would claim. In my opinion you would at least have to concede to the fact that any scientific evidence put forth against the existence of God is highly suspect, and just as good as any evidence (feel good type of experiences) put forth by the theists. Both types of evidence are outside scientific boundaries.
Those who claim God have the burden of proof for their claims. Science has no direct comment on God speculations. In absence of evidence for the affirmative claim God, the skeptic needs to make no response.
I would not “concede” as you advise. Science does not “put forth” “evidence” as you claim here. On the contrary, science puts forth evidence based on accumulated information/knowledge. You are making an additional straw man attack. You’re attacking an assumed position of science, a position which science never took.
“Feel good ... experiences” are quite irrelevant to science. There is no evidence as you claim with universal, skeptically reviewed analysis among theists. Again, you make the straw man attack.
Further, you have provided no evidence for any God claims fractured as such claims are today.
JAK
When I say that science has no evidence and that it is all just speculation, I am talking about when science is discussing metaphysics or how nature fundamentally calculates its motions.
Can you give me an example of science is discussing metaphysics?
I’m skeptical.
Philosophies start with “metaphysics.” Science does not. Science (today) begins with observations.
PhysicsGuy stated:
When discussing these topics, science has absolutely no guarantee that anything it speculates about is correct.
Again, be specific. What comment has science made in this regard?
PhysicsGuy stated:
In fact, I would be surprised if anything science says about these topics is correct because there is so much uncertainty that multiple theories could be constructed to explain any evidence.
Give an example. What’s your evidence that science addresses philosophical speculation?
Thus far, you have a straw-man construction absent specifics.
PhysicsGuy stated:
Of course, when discussing theories that predict outcomes of experiments, science is somewhat more reliable.
Absolutely! You were not talking about “experiments” just above. Philosophical speculation is not science.
You are mixing references with such vague implications as to make meaningless commentary.
PhysicsGuy stated:
This is the fundamental point that I believe you were lacking in your original argument. If we agree here, then I think we are agreeing about a lot more than it appears. If we disagree here, then we can discuss this more.
You have made no point here as my analysis has shown. Absent examples for your assertions, they should be disregarded.
PhysicsGuy stated:
Just to give an example or two when science can give proper predictions of experiments, but be incorrect (or at least extremely uncertain) about speculation on how nature works:
In physics, Classical mechanics is used extensively by the majority of physicists. It gives fine predictions of experiments in most cases. It is technically incorrect. When things are very small or moving very fast it fails. Newton gave his three laws and claimed that nature worked that way. It doesn't. It is still used extensively (I use it) because it gives good predictions in the majority of cases.
The assertion (again) lacks evidence as you present here. Keep in mind that Isaac Newton lived from 1643 to 1727 CE. We have had major additions to science since 1727. To imply that no additions to Newton have been made in science is flawed.
To the extent possible, science today avoids speculation absent evidence. Modern science has advanced beyond the science of 1727 CE. Why do you cite Newton?
PhysicsGuy stated:
Classical mechanics is now replaced by general relativity which also speculates very much on how nature fundamentally calculates the motion of objects. It does very well in the case of fast moving objects which classical mechanics lacked, but does not do well for very small objects. I suspect it is incorrect about how nature fundamentally works because it is incorrect still in some cases, but there certainly does appear to be some "truth" to it or it wouldn't predict so well at high speeds.
General relativity (GR) (known as general theory of relativity (GTR)) is the geometrical theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915/16.
Like the English Language, science never was. It has developed to what we understand/accept today. Science is not today what it was hundreds of years ago (nor is language). However, the search for information continues and information continues to grow.
You “suspect it is incorrect about how nature fundamentally works...” Well, absent evidence for your claim that science is incorrect, your suspicion should not be assumed to be reliable. Again you attempt to minimize the discoveries to date by the phrase some “truth”. Some? Why not a great deal of information/knowledge? Why such grudging credit to science to date?
PhysicsGuy stated:
I don't think anyone could claim that science understands how nature calculates its motions until we have discovered the theory of everything. I may not even claim it at that point, because we only have direct experience with a very small portion of the universe. I can't even think of a case when science discusses metaphysics, because that certainly appears to be way outside science's boundary.
Discoveries continue. Why your hold out? What’s your agenda? Exactly, science does not discuss “metaphysics.”
This is contrary to your previous claim which I challenged above. You shift position. You assume that speculations of metaphysics have reliability. It’s a flawed assumption for which you provide no evidence. Consider that it may be tooth fairy talk. Absent evidence for metaphysical anything, such speculations should be viewed with great suspicion or disregarded.
PhysicsGuy stated:
The whole point is that there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God that science would claim. In my opinion you would at least have to concede to the fact that any scientific evidence put forth against the existence of God is highly suspect, and just as good as any evidence (feel good type of experiences) put forth by the theists. Both types of evidence are outside scientific boundaries.
Those who claim God have the burden of proof for their claims. Science has no direct comment on God speculations. In absence of evidence for the affirmative claim God, the skeptic needs to make no response.
I would not “concede” as you advise. Science does not “put forth” “evidence” as you claim here. On the contrary, science puts forth evidence based on accumulated information/knowledge. You are making an additional straw man attack. You’re attacking an assumed position of science, a position which science never took.
“Feel good ... experiences” are quite irrelevant to science. There is no evidence as you claim with universal, skeptically reviewed analysis among theists. Again, you make the straw man attack.
Further, you have provided no evidence for any God claims fractured as such claims are today.
JAK
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: Path of Science
PhysicsGuy stated:
The gaps can either be filled in with extrapolating scientific theories into the realm of pure speculation, or with traditional god belief and the like. It is just a matter of which is more comfortable to the individual. Many are perfectly comfortable just leaving the gaps as they are and never really worrying about metaphysical questions.
A false either/or choice. Science continues to explore, to investigate, to scrutinize, and to inquire. This, as opposed to god claims which declare truth by assertion. Religious doctrines don’t test, challenge, scrutinize, and investigate.
What’s “more comfortable to the individual” is irrelevant to discovery based on the skeptical review/research which is inherent in the scientific method. Telling an 80 year-old dying person (or any other fatally ill person) that he/she is going to heaven may be comfortable. It’s not science. And the choice you characterize is a false choice.
JAK
The gaps can either be filled in with extrapolating scientific theories into the realm of pure speculation, or with traditional god belief and the like. It is just a matter of which is more comfortable to the individual. Many are perfectly comfortable just leaving the gaps as they are and never really worrying about metaphysical questions.
A false either/or choice. Science continues to explore, to investigate, to scrutinize, and to inquire. This, as opposed to god claims which declare truth by assertion. Religious doctrines don’t test, challenge, scrutinize, and investigate.
What’s “more comfortable to the individual” is irrelevant to discovery based on the skeptical review/research which is inherent in the scientific method. Telling an 80 year-old dying person (or any other fatally ill person) that he/she is going to heaven may be comfortable. It’s not science. And the choice you characterize is a false choice.
JAK
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Address Inconsistence
PhysicsGuy wrote:JAK:
I'll have to answer you tomorrow, I've run out of time today. At first, I thought I just wasn't getting my point across, but I think you may really disagree with me, so I would like to discuss this further.
PhysicsGuy stated:
I'll have to answer you tomorrow, I've run out of time today. At first, I thought I just wasn't getting my point across, but I think you may really disagree with me, so I would like to discuss this further.
The first priority might be to address the inconsistency in your single post which I detailed line by line.
PhysicsGuy stated previously:
I am talking about when science is discussing metaphysics or how nature fundamentally calculates its motions.
Then:
PhysicsGuy stated previously:
I can't even think of a case when science discusses metaphysics, because that certainly appears to be way outside science's boundary.
So, in the same post, you claim science “is discussing metaphysics” AND “I can't even think of a case when science discusses metaphysics...”
The latter is correct. The previous statement is a misunderstanding of science and scientific method.
You might begin there. Decide which position you wish to support. The fact is that science does not comment directly on religious doctrines.
Indirectly, evidence discredits ancient religious doctrines/dogmas as well as more recent reforms/reconstructions as followed the Protestant Reformation of 1517 CE.
JAK
-
_Gorman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:05 pm
Re: Address Inconsistence
JAK wrote:PhysicsGuy wrote:JAK:
I'll have to answer you tomorrow, I've run out of time today. At first, I thought I just wasn't getting my point across, but I think you may really disagree with me, so I would like to discuss this further.
PhysicsGuy stated:
I'll have to answer you tomorrow, I've run out of time today. At first, I thought I just wasn't getting my point across, but I think you may really disagree with me, so I would like to discuss this further.
The first priority might be to address the inconsistency in your single post which I detailed line by line.
PhysicsGuy stated previously:
I am talking about when science is discussing metaphysics or how nature fundamentally calculates its motions.
Then:
PhysicsGuy stated previously:
I can't even think of a case when science discusses metaphysics, because that certainly appears to be way outside science's boundary.
So, in the same post, you claim science “is discussing metaphysics” AND “I can't even think of a case when science discusses metaphysics...”
The latter is correct. The previous statement is a misunderstanding of science and scientific method.
You might begin there. Decide which position you wish to support. The fact is that science does not comment directly on religious doctrines.
Indirectly, evidence discredits ancient religious doctrines/dogmas as well as more recent reforms/reconstructions as followed the Protestant Reformation of 1517 CE.
JAK
True, I should have said, "I can't even think of a case when science discusses the religious aspect of metaphysics". That is what I was thinking, but I guess I didn't type it. I still can't think of a case when science directly discusses the religious aspect of metaphysics, although some other theories that discuss metaphysics could have large implications on religion (If you agree with the theory that is).
-
_Gorman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:05 pm
JAK:
I read over your post again, and I still think we may just have different definitions of metaphysics or science. I will first explain my understanding of each, and then I could give more detailed answers later if you would like.
Metaphysics: I don't claim to be a philosopher, but wikipedia gives the following definition, "Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of reality, being, and the world". That seems fair. It then goes on to list various questions in metaphysics, some of these are: Mind and matter, Objects and their properties, Space and time, Religion and spirituality, Cosmology and cosmogony, Abstract objects and mathematics. Those seem like fair topics included in metaphysics to me. It also goes on to list various notable metaphysicians, a quarter of which seem to be notable scientists as well.
Science: There are two parts to science. One is very grounded in reality as we perceive it. This is the experimental and applied sciences. These are probably the most common, and when most people think of science, this is what they think of (this might be where our misunderstanding is). I agree that very little if any metaphysics is discussed in this branch. I imagine some whole branches (Biology, Medicine) deal almost exclusively with this type of science. The other branch is the theoretical sciences. These heavily discuss metaphysical topics. Physics is heavily involved in these types. Some examples are: General relativity (discussing the nature of Space and Time), Big Bang (Discussing Cosmology), Quantum Mechanics (discussing the nature of matter), String theory (discussing nature of matter and cosmology). It is these theoretical sciences that are heavily involved in assumptions and speculation. It is here that a minor change in our understanding of evidence can cause major changes in the theory, or even a complete rejection of the theory (a small inconsistency found in Classical mechanics changed our entire view, and birthed Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, it is not unlikely that a similar thing could happen now with the inconsistencies today). It is this type of science I am distrustful of because this is the type that is constantly changing. These sciences are still good, because they help us find new experiments to try, but in my opinion, they are probably all wrong in some way because they don't explain all phenomena (e.g General Relativity can't explain small particle motion, Quantum mechanics cannot explain general relativity stuff).
Again, any scientific evidence that people claim refutes the existence of God certainly seems to extrapolate beyond these theories that are already speculative in nature. This causes the "evidence" to be on no better playing field than the non-scientific "evidence" that theists claim prove the existence of God. At that point, it is merely a matter of individual choice.
I read over your post again, and I still think we may just have different definitions of metaphysics or science. I will first explain my understanding of each, and then I could give more detailed answers later if you would like.
Metaphysics: I don't claim to be a philosopher, but wikipedia gives the following definition, "Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of reality, being, and the world". That seems fair. It then goes on to list various questions in metaphysics, some of these are: Mind and matter, Objects and their properties, Space and time, Religion and spirituality, Cosmology and cosmogony, Abstract objects and mathematics. Those seem like fair topics included in metaphysics to me. It also goes on to list various notable metaphysicians, a quarter of which seem to be notable scientists as well.
Science: There are two parts to science. One is very grounded in reality as we perceive it. This is the experimental and applied sciences. These are probably the most common, and when most people think of science, this is what they think of (this might be where our misunderstanding is). I agree that very little if any metaphysics is discussed in this branch. I imagine some whole branches (Biology, Medicine) deal almost exclusively with this type of science. The other branch is the theoretical sciences. These heavily discuss metaphysical topics. Physics is heavily involved in these types. Some examples are: General relativity (discussing the nature of Space and Time), Big Bang (Discussing Cosmology), Quantum Mechanics (discussing the nature of matter), String theory (discussing nature of matter and cosmology). It is these theoretical sciences that are heavily involved in assumptions and speculation. It is here that a minor change in our understanding of evidence can cause major changes in the theory, or even a complete rejection of the theory (a small inconsistency found in Classical mechanics changed our entire view, and birthed Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, it is not unlikely that a similar thing could happen now with the inconsistencies today). It is this type of science I am distrustful of because this is the type that is constantly changing. These sciences are still good, because they help us find new experiments to try, but in my opinion, they are probably all wrong in some way because they don't explain all phenomena (e.g General Relativity can't explain small particle motion, Quantum mechanics cannot explain general relativity stuff).
Again, any scientific evidence that people claim refutes the existence of God certainly seems to extrapolate beyond these theories that are already speculative in nature. This causes the "evidence" to be on no better playing field than the non-scientific "evidence" that theists claim prove the existence of God. At that point, it is merely a matter of individual choice.
-
_Gorman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:05 pm
Re: Path of Science
JAK wrote:PhysicsGuy stated:
The gaps can either be filled in with extrapolating scientific theories into the realm of pure speculation, or with traditional god belief and the like. It is just a matter of which is more comfortable to the individual. Many are perfectly comfortable just leaving the gaps as they are and never really worrying about metaphysical questions.
A false either/or choice. Science continues to explore, to investigate, to scrutinize, and to inquire. This, as opposed to god claims which declare truth by assertion. Religious doctrines don’t test, challenge, scrutinize, and investigate.
What’s “more comfortable to the individual” is irrelevant to discovery based on the skeptical review/research which is inherent in the scientific method. Telling an 80 year-old dying person (or any other fatally ill person) that he/she is going to heaven may be comfortable. It’s not science. And the choice you characterize is a false choice.
JAK
I think it is fairly straight forward that extrapolating existing theories way outside their region of their margins of error is also "not science". There is no science when discussing God, or the lack thereof. There is no data when discussing God, or the lack thereof.
Instead of the phrase "more comfortable to the individual", you could read, "there is no data, so scientific 'discovery' cannot be made; therefore, chose what you will (or make no choice) because there is no way to 'check' your answer".