Science, a religion?

[Hegel]

Is science a religion? If a rational one, is it not based on a series of unprovable assumtions? For example, anyone who would attempt to enact a scientific experement automatically jumps to the conclusion that:

a) All rules that work here; work everywhere else (The Law of Metiocracy). This hasn't been proven, and can't be proven, without being everywhere and everywhen at once of course.

b) That there are rules that govern the universe, and more importantly every action in the universe. I believe it was Spinoza (please just tell me if I'm wrong) who said that you could pick up a rock, and let go and see it continuously go down, however that isn't absolute proof that the next time you let go of a rock it will go down (the odds just keep increasing in your favor though).

c) Science assumes the universe exists, and that we all percieve and share this existance.

Possibly other. Can you think of any more? What do you think about the ones already posted?

[c4ts]

Religions are based on ideals and beliefs, whereas science is based on theory and observation.

[Hegel]

Well you see c4ts, that science is fundementaly based on faith too. It may be a bit more reasonable, but ANYONE who claims to KNOW anything about the world, is basing their knowledge on assumtions.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hegal,

Is science a religion?

Define "religion". I know definitions of the term for which watching football is a religion. I also know definitions of the term for which Buddhism is not one. Which specific definition did you have in mind?

If a rational one, is it not based on a series of unprovable assumtions?

All logical frameworks are based on unprovable assumptions. They are called axioms. Is mathematics a religion? If so, then so is science.

For example, anyone who would attempt to enact a scientific experement automatically jumps to the conclusion that:

a) All rules that work here; work everywhere else (The Law of Metiocracy). This hasn't been proven, and can't be proven, without being everywhere and everywhen at once of course.

Yes, that is (more or less) an assumption of science.

b) That there are rules that govern the universe, and more importantly every action in the universe. I believe it was Spinoza (please just tell me if I'm wrong) who said that you could pick up a rock, and let go and see it continuously go down, however that isn't absolute proof that the next time you let go of a rock it will go down (the odds just keep increasing in your favor though).

Yes, that too is essentially an assumption of science.

c) Science assumes the universe exists, and that we all percieve and share this existance.

Well, the first part is not really an assumption at all. It is a definition. The second is an assumption of science.

Possibly other. Can you think of any more? What do you think about the ones already posted?

They are not very precisely or formally expressed, but that isn't really important.

Well you see c4ts, that science is fundementaly based on faith too.

Faith is belief without evidence, not belief without proof. Defining faith to be belief without proof is completely pointless, because only abstract logical statements can be proven true. And even they require axioms (unprovable assumptions) in order to do so. Such a definition of faith renders the term completely empty. Saying "belief X is faith" would convey exactly zero information.

It may be a bit more reasonable,

A bit more reasonable than what?

but ANYONE who claims to KNOW anything about the world, is basing their knowledge on assumtions.

Obviously. That doesn't mean that the belief is not supported by reliable, verifiable evidence.


Dr. Stupid

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Hegel
Well you see c4ts, that science is fundementaly based on faith too. It may be a bit more reasonable, but ANYONE who claims to KNOW anything about the world, is basing their knowledge on assumtions.

Science does not claim the sort of absolute knowledge you speak of. Not all who claim to have knowledge base it on assumptions, and to do so would be considered unscientific. Instead, science is a kind of knowledge garnered from observation. Whether or not the universe is assumed to exist or not, whether other people can share this existence, are irrelevant, because the observation is still made.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Note also that those assumptions are falsifiable, at least in the sense that constant use of the assumptions should allow us to notice if they ever turn out to be unwarranted.

No fair mentioning a few people who don't seem to share the same existence as the rest of us.

~~ Paul

[Dancing David]

Hi Hegel,

good question, I don't know how many thread have discussed this. But it is good for another. There are assumptions that underlie science.

Isotropy: that the laws of nature are universal and apply equaly in space and time.
There is some reason to believe in isotropy across space, because we see the same frequencies of photons in stellar reactions. But there is a scifi book, by Weiss and ZHickman where there are area where physics prevails and those where spiritual laws apply.

Isotropy through time is harder to demostrate: but if we take the firther assupmtion that the farther something is in space the farther back in time we percieve it, then there does appear to be isotropy in time.

On the existance of the material world, science does not involve ontology because as of yet it can't be tested, so really it doesn't matter if the material world exist or not. If you can make and test predictions then it is science.

Great question!

[Franko]

c4ts:
Religions are based on ideals and beliefs, whereas science is based on theory and observation.

Where:

Theory = Ideals , and
Observation = Beliefs

…or …

Beliefs = Observations
Theory = Ideals

… and …

Science = Religion

[Upchurch]

:tr: :rolleyes:

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


Where:

Theory = Ideals , and
Observation = Beliefs

...or...

Beliefs = Observations
Theory = Ideals

...and...

Science = Religion

This is true. Of course, the problem is that Beliefs /= Observation.

Beliefs are presupposed, before an event. [B /= X]

Observations are expressed after an event, and relate to said event. [O < X]

Because something that is < X has the potential to be accurate whereas something that is /= X has only the potential to be approximate, Observation is more reliable (where accuracy = reliability).

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


This is true. Of course, the problem is that Beliefs /= Observation.

Beliefs are presupposed, before an event. [B /= X]

Observations are expressed after an event, and relate to said event. [O < X]

Because something that is < X has the potential to be accurate whereas something that is /= X has only the potential to be approximate, Observation is more reliable (where accuracy = reliability).

Also scientific theories aren't equal to ideals.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by c4ts


Also scientific theories aren't equal to ideals.

Break it down for Franko; he seems to like to think that explaining an idea as a mathematical expression makes it more logical or credible.

[Franko]

So what are you saying Josh? … that religion isn't based on observation and theory?

What is it based on according to you?

You really think that religion is based on ideas and theories that directly conflict with observed reality? If that is truly the case then how on Earth do you account for the prevalence and persistence of religion throughout human history?

Explain why any Catholics would ever switch and become Lutherans? Are you saying that switching beliefs has nothing to do with the perception of a more realistic and more consistent worldview?

[Franko]

c4ts:
Science does not claim the sort of absolute knowledge you speak of.

Sure it does!

Ask a materialist if there is any chance that his precious “matter” doesn’t exist and see how absolute he gets.

Not all who claim to have knowledge base it on assumptions …

You seem to be assuming that the universe is real and not a figment of your imagination. How did you come to this conclusion without simply assuming it?

… and to do so would be considered unscientific.

You said it, not me …

Instead, science is a kind of knowledge garnered from observation.

What observation have you made which conclusively demonstrates that you are not the only thing which actually exists?

Whether or not the universe is assumed to exist or not, whether other people can share this existence, are irrelevant, because the observation is still made.

Observation of what … Your own beliefs? The fact that you have beliefs doesn’t make those beliefs facts.

[Fun2BFree]

Science is not religion--it does not offer answers...it is a methodology for asking questions....there are no assumptions--only observations of available information catalogued and compared in a consistent manner for inspection---it does not even require the assumption that the world is logical---evidence so far suggests that the world does act consistently--it does not even asssume that evidence is the way to prove things...but so far that is what the evidence suggests---

science is so far from religion that anyone who says it is religion is misguided and/or willfully ignorant. There is simply no evidence to support the hypothesis that it is..

...to even offer any evidence to argue this point is to concede that the scientific method is pre-eminent. Offering evidence to support a hypothesis is science....the only way to argue without resorting to a scientific approach is thru faith...that something is true because you believe it to be so...an alternative to scientific inquiry to be sure but pretty useless for Internet bulletin boards.

[Franko]

Hinduism is not religion--it does not offer answers...it is a methodology for asking questions....there are no assumptions--only observations of available information catalogued and compared in a consistent manner for inspection---it does not even require the assumption that the world is logical---evidence so far suggests that the world does act consistently--it does not even assume that evidence is the way to prove things...but so far that is what the evidence suggests---

Hinduism is so far from religion that anyone who says it is religion is misguided and/or willfully ignorant. There is simply no evidence to support the hypothesis that it is..

...to even offer any evidence to argue this point is to concede that the Hinduistic method is pre-eminent. Offering evidence to support a hypothesis is Hinduism ....the only way to argue without resorting to a Hinduistic approach is thru Atheism ...that something is true because you believe it to be so...an alternative to Hinduistic inquiry to be sure but pretty useless for Internet bulletin boards.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Hegel
Well you see c4ts, that science is fundementaly based on faith too. It may be a bit more reasonable, but ANYONE who claims to KNOW anything about the world, is basing their knowledge on assumtions.
Well you see, Hegel, saying "you see" is not the same as providing evidence or making a coherent argument.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko
So what are you saying Josh? … that religion isn't based on observation and theory?

What is it based on according to you?

You really think that religion is based on ideas and theories that directly conflict with observed reality? If that is truly the case then how on Earth do you account for the prevalence and persistence of religion throughout human history?

Explain why any Catholics would ever switch and become Lutherans? Are you saying that switching beliefs has nothing to do with the perception of a more realistic and more consistent worldview?

Well Mr. franko,
i have to say that more people could benefit from applying the methods of science to thier religion, but most haven't so far. They seem to remember all the times that thier prayers are answered without remembering the ones that aren't.(Garth Brooks as an exception). Sop while I feel that more people could benefit from putting religion to the test, most will not do so.

And no unfortunately the prevalence and persistance has little to do with scientific observation.

IMO

Peace

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko
Hinduism is not religion--
-snip-
...to even offer any evidence to argue this point is to concede that the Hinduistic method is pre-eminent. Offering evidence to support a hypothesis is Hinduism ....the only way to argue without resorting to a Hinduistic approach is thru Atheism ...that something is true because you believe it to be so...an alternative to Hinduistic inquiry to be sure but pretty useless for Internet bulletin boards.

Very funny, however Hinduism does not involve subjecting faith to the test of science.

I refer you to the buddha for multiple discourses on why Hindu-ism(Hinduva?) is somewhat irrational, especialy for it's belief in the transmigration of the soul.

Very funny none the less.

[Dub]

Originally posted by Franko
Hinduism is not religion--it does not offer answers...it is a methodology for asking questions....there are no assumptions--only observations of available information catalogued and compared in a consistent manner for inspection---it does not even require the assumption that the world is logical---evidence so far suggests that the world does act consistently--it does not even assume that evidence is the way to prove things...but so far that is what the evidence suggests---

Hinduism is so far from religion that anyone who says it is religion is misguided and/or willfully ignorant. There is simply no evidence to support the hypothesis that it is..

...to even offer any evidence to argue this point is to concede that the Hinduistic method is pre-eminent. Offering evidence to support a hypothesis is Hinduism ....the only way to argue without resorting to a Hinduistic approach is thru Atheism ...that something is true because you believe it to be so...an alternative to Hinduistic inquiry to be sure but pretty useless for Internet bulletin boards.

Care to explain just what the Hindu Method is?

[Franko]

Dancing David:
Well Mr. franko,
i have to say that more people could benefit from applying the methods of science to their religion, but most haven't so far.

I agree with you on that point, my friend. Blind devotion to dogma is a danger to us all.

They seem to remember all the times that their prayers are answered without remembering the ones that aren't.(Garth Brooks as an exception).

hehe.

I think that is because by in large Theists are Optimist. That’s what draws them to theism. But optimism is a good thing. There are logical reasons to be optimistic.


So while I feel that more people could benefit from putting religion to the test, most will not do so.

I wonder if perhaps you are underestimating the reasoning capacity of your fellow man? By and large civilization has improved over time despite the problems and setbacks along the way.

And no unfortunately the prevalence and persistance has little to do with scientific observation.

Well, on this point we are a little farther apart. I don’t see Atheists or Materialists as being fundamentally any less dogmatic or any more open minded than the average Theist. Different experiences cause different individuals to have different worldviews, but the level of devotion and dedication to that view seems to have very little to do with the philosophy itself and far more to do with the individual who holds it.

[Furious]

Well, on this point we are a little farther apart. I don’t see Atheists or Materialists as being fundamentally any less dogmatic or any more open minded than the average Theist. Different experiences cause different individuals to have different worldviews, but the level of devotion and dedication to that view seems to have very little to do with the philosophy itself and far more to do with the individual who holds it.

Er, I agree with Franko. :eek:

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko
So what are you saying Josh? … that religion isn't based on observation and theory?

What is it based on according to you?

Assumption and superstition for some; others on philisophical concepts and relative societical values. We all choose a religious belief - or choose not to have one - based on what we think is most prudent.

Think of it this way: everyone has a little "religion" graph inside them; on one end is Comfort (based on fear), on the other end is Reality (based on knowledge). Everyone has their own "preferred balance" somewhere along the scale, and we choose our religion based on which philosophy comes closest to our preference. You can make the graph more complicated (but more accurate) by adding a y axis, but let's stick with this one for simplicity's sake.

Originally posted by Franko
You really think that religion is based on ideas and theories that directly conflict with observed reality? If that is truly the case then how on Earth do you account for the prevalence and persistence of religion throughout human history?

Because the need for Comfort still exists (albeit higher in some than in others), and most religions appeal to the Comfort need in some degree or other. It's an undeniable fact that the absolute perception of Reality is not necessary to sustain life; otherwise, comatose victims would expire, and we would all die in our sleep once we begin to dream.

Originally posted by Franko
Explain why any Catholics would ever switch and become Lutherans? Are you saying that switching beliefs has nothing to do with the perception of a more realistic and more consistent worldview?

Yes, to be simplistic. Switching beliefs instead has to do with the shifting of priorities - the rearrangement of the "preferred balance" point on the scale, based on life experience and situations. Someone can switch from having a moderate balance (like a Catholic) to a heavy emphasis on Comfort (like an ultra-Fundamentalist) if their "fear repository" is excited enough by a charismatic tongue painting scenes of fire and brimstone.

[Pyrian]

Franko:
Observation = BeliefsI think this is all we ever need to know about Franko. :cool: I'm not even taking this out of context when I point out that he's equating any whimsical belief with direct observation, i.e., "Franko believes he can float" is equivalent to "I saw Franko fall off a cliff!"Franko:
Hinduism is not religion--it does not offer answers...it is a methodology for asking questions....there are no assumptions--This line of reasoning has failed you repeatedly, Franko, and I recommend setting it aside. Every time you do it you just look like a fool.

It's fundamental purpose is the demonstration of circular reasoning, and as such it works far better against religious arguments rather than for them.

[Rayn]

Originally posted by Furious


Er, I agree with Franko. :eek:

Hrm. So do I. Why is he considered crazy again?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Franko said:Ask a materialist if there is any chance that his precious “matter” doesn’t exist and see how absolute he gets.
I do not claim that my precious matter exists. Of course, I may not be a materialist according to any given arbitrary definition of same.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Hmm, am I the only one, or does it seem to others that 18 months ago we had a number of "materialists" that now seem to have become "naturalists" who purport to have no ontological bias whatsoever?

[Dancing David]

Hmm, that does sound interesting! So no we go from material to nature, oh well nature camps are probably more fun than material camps.

[sorgoth]

Yes, I believe matter exists. Why? It goes well with what I experience. If you prove that laws of physics don't apply (You can float around without mechanical aid, for example), then I would stop believing. But for now, it's best to assume that a) I am not insane, and b) All objects in the universe exist in the same reality.

If you can show me that those assumptions are somehow flawed(And I don't mean by another, less likely assumption), then I'll reevaluate my position.

[Fun2BFree]

"the basis of Hinduism, asserts that Brahman, the 'impersonal' God and the universal soul, is the Absolute Truth. "

oops!

Sounds like an assumption completely incompatible with scientific reasoning...which assumes no such claim to absolutes...only a method by which truth is approached....

sorry-but scientific logic wins again...unless of course just saying stuff makes it so..which appears to be Franko's approach to approaching the truth..unfortunately the evidence demonstrates that Franko's methods fail and can be discarded as useful...Claims and attempts to paint rational atheists as just part of the large irrational crowd of theists just don't stand up to the evidence.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Dub


Care to explain just what the Hindu Method is?

No one has ever explained to me what the Methodist's Method is

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Where:

Theory = Ideals , and
Observation = Beliefs

…or …

Beliefs = Observations
Theory = Ideals

… and …

Science = Religion
Your definition of theory is incorrect, your defintion of observation is incorrect, your defintion of belief is incorrect. Are you familiar with something called an "Irrelevant Conclusion", an Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Hegel
Is science a religion?Famous scientists:

[xouper]

Kullervo: Famous scientists:I guess it was more convenient to copy my avatar than to go find your own einstein image on the net? :D You're welcome, and help yourself anytime, since I don't own the image.

[hammegk]

Xoup, I think you misunderstood. Kullervo probably worships you.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Rayn

Why is [Franko] considered crazy again? Keep watching. He'll show you why.

Or better yet, go check out Flame wars. Tricky has a good summary of his claims.

edited to add: Tenents of Logical Deism (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27173)
Originally posted by Kullervo

Famous scientists:
Don't forget Dr. Stupid, Feline scientist.


:roll: :D :roll: :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:Hmm, am I the only one, or does it seem to others that 18 months ago we had a number of "materialists" that now seem to have become "naturalists" who purport to have no ontological bias whatsoever?
Well, in my case, I didn't even know what ontology was 18 months ago. And I suppose that was a good thing, since it's silly. Ah, the days of innocence.

You have to make a distinction between someone's informal philosophy and their formal, logical philosophy. I think matter probably exists, but if you get all formal on me and ask if it's an ontological existant, I'll say I can't imagine how we could know (hence ontology is meaningless). Also, you have to admit that the definition of materialism is pretty squirrely. The traditional definition that most people think of really isn't anyone's position, I don't think. But certain people insist on attempting to pin these incorrect definitions on others.

Now over on philosophyforums, people are telling me that I've got the wrong definition of ontology. It's not what actually exists, whatever that means, but rather what fundamental logical entities we need to describe a metaphysic. I think. And at least one person has said that the answer is: everything.

So, I stand by my claim that ontology is meaningless, until further notice.

~~ Paul

[Upchurch]

I've more often had materialism ascribed to me than actually proclaiming it myself.

[whitefork]

Sorry, X - I'm known for taking the convenient shortcut. There's the punk-biker-jewish scientist too

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Famous scientists: The point being, and correct me if I'm wrong, Kullervo, that science can't be a religion, at least not in the traditional sense of the word, because scientists (who Franko refers to as the "priests" of the "religion"), themselves, are members of other religions.

It's like claiming that a Lutheran is actually a Catholic Priest.

[whitefork]

If you like, Sarge..... I didn't have a real point in mind.

It was more like a joke I've been toying with: Christian Science, Jewish Science.

I do think that Xouper should give Einstein a tongue stud, though.

[Darat]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


No one has ever explained to me what the Methodist's Method is

Easier to explain by a negative.

If it is enjoyable or fun (or the Catholics do it) then you aint following the Methodist Method.

(And no I have absolutely no issues to get over with the religion of my family ;) )

[jan]

Religion and science both may start with some theories about how the world functions. And both may replace those theories with newer and more complicated theories (the theory of trinity isn't that easy to grasp, just like QM). Religious theories may even change because they are criticised and refutated (sort of). For example, an ancient religious theory is that if you follow the rules of god, you will get a long, happy life. If somebody has a short or miserable life, then he must have committed a sin. But although some people still believe this theory to be true, it was long ago criticised (see, for example, the book Job, but the idea seems to be an older, babylonian). And it was changed: at least two newer theories have been born after that criticism: that god is not rewarding you at all, or that you have to wait to get your reward until you are dead.

As long as religion does follow the method of criticism, I can't see any substantial difference between science and religion. But perhaps you could define religion as "a former science that stopped using the critical method". Usually, if you deal with a religion, you have to accept at least some things on faith (you may be allowed to doubt the pope, but not the bible, for example).

And I don't think the same is true with science. Besides the method of criticism, testability, falsifiabilty and the willingness to change theories, I don't think there are any fundamental axioms you have to take either on faith or leave it. For example, I don't think it is an undoubtable axiom of science that the laws of physics are independent of location and time. You may doubt it, but that will be fruitful only if you have some reason to doubt it, if you have some theory that states otherwise and is able to produce some evidence, that can explain things we can't explain with the old theory that location or time doesn't matter. Otherwise, it is just doubt, and you can doubt any theory. How about this: "As the universe once ago was much hotter, the fundamental forces behaved different." Doesn't sound that unscientific, does it? And wasn't determinism once considered to be a fundamental axiom of science? That axiom isn't very famous anymore.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Yes, I believe matter exists. Why? It goes well with what I experience. If you prove that laws of physics don't apply (You can float around without mechanical aid, for example), then I would stop believing. But for now, it's best to assume that a) I am not insane, and b) All objects in the universe exist in the same reality.

If you can show me that those assumptions are somehow flawed(And I don't mean by another, less likely assumption), then I'll reevaluate my position.

I completely agree that the assumptions are reasonable ones to make. However many scientists I know...C4ts...claim that they are not assumtions, but facts. This is what makes science a religion. When people start calling their assumtions facts, they close their minds to other possibilities, and thus an assumtion becomes a belief. When your philosophy is based on a belief, or series of beliefs it becomes a religion. Therefore when scientists move from being people who assume the universe exists, to people who claim to know that the universe exits, it moves from the range of a reasonable logical exercise to a religion.

[Pyrian]

Hegel:
I completely agree that the assumptions are reasonable ones to make. However many scientists I know...C4ts...claim that they are not assumtions, but facts. This is what makes science a religion. When people start calling their assumtions facts, they close their minds to other possibilities, and thus an assumtion becomes a belief. When your philosophy is based on a belief, or series of beliefs it becomes a religion. Therefore when scientists move from being people who assume the universe exists, to people who claim to know that the universe exits, it moves from the range of a reasonable logical exercise to a religion.Nonsense - we just don't want to throw out the words "fact" and "know", which would be required of an absolutist system. Empirical truth is not considered to be a literal absolute, merely the highest form of truth attainable, and therefore meriting the words fact and know in relation to its edicts.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by Pyrian
Nonsense - we just don't want to throw out the words "fact" and "know", which would be required of an absolutist system. Empirical truth is not considered to be a literal absolute, merely the highest form of truth attainable, and therefore meriting the words fact and know in relation to its edicts.

Of course not. However there are people who do raise it to a level beyond just being a good thought experiment. Perhaps it would be better to form it that science can be a religion?

[Dancing David]

Hegel,

Is the reason that you claim science is religion, the persistance of materialists have in believing in the material world. While the alternatives make for good speculation, there is no way to test them However, if you don't believe in the material world, what evidence is there for it's illusiory nature?

[Pyrian]

However, if you don't believe in the material world, what evidence is there for it's illusiory nature?If you reject empiricism - i.e. the acknowledgement of evidence - than it hardly matters, I suppose, which I think is the sum of Hegel's point.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Hegel

Therefore when scientists move from being people who assume the universe exists, to people who claim to know that the universe exits, it moves from the range of a reasonable logical exercise to a religion.
Option 1: The universe does exist. Then these people are absolutely right.

Option 2: The universe doesn't exist. That means you are a solipsist and those people are just voices in your head, so there's no one to blame but you.

And you're saying their position is not reasonable? Or perhaps you have some evidence to indicate that the universe doesn't exist, to counter their evidence of the senses?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Option 1: The universe does exist. Then these people are absolutely right.

Option 2: The universe doesn't exist. That means you are a solipsist and those people are just voices in your head, so there's no one to blame but you.



Why thanks, I guess that clears it all up, Your Holiness. No more posts required in R&P.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Option 1: The universe does exist. Then these people are absolutely right.

Option 2: The universe doesn't exist. That means you are a solipsist and those people are just voices in your head, so there's no one to blame but you.

And you're saying their position is not reasonable? Or perhaps you have some evidence to indicate that the universe doesn't exist, to counter their evidence of the senses?

I am neither claim that the universe does, or doesn't exits. Nor am I claiming that assuming that the universe exists is a bad assumtion for the purpose of thought experiments.

However I AM saying that there are many scientists who take these thought experiments and assumtions to the next level, i.e. to belief. They insist that the universe must exist, and that their existence is a fact, and not just a reasonable assumtion. That is what makes me claim that some (not all) scientists follow the religion of science, instead of simply following the scientific thought experiments as a way of getting things done.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no way you can Prove that science is true any more then you can religion. Since both, as a matter of fact everything, are based on a set of assumtions (axioms) which can not be proven, science is no more provable then religion. However, working under the assumtion that the axioms of science are true, while working on a scientific experiment is perfectly fine, however when you insist that you know that they are true, and that they apply everywhere, it has changed from an assumtion to a belief.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Hegel


What I'm trying to say is that there is no way you can Prove that science is true any more then you can religion. Since both, as a matter of fact everything, are based on a set of assumtions (axioms) which can not be proven, science is no more provable then religion. However, working under the assumtion that the axioms of science are true, while working on a scientific experiment is perfectly fine, however when you insist that you know that they are true, and that they apply everywhere, it has changed from an assumtion to a belief.

Could you possibly discuss what proof there is for angels?(One of the five pillars of Islam)
Could you possibly discuss what proof there is for any of the claims made by mainstream christian churches?
Could you provide proof of any of the claims made by the Judaic literature?
Could you provide proof for any of the claims in the Hindu literature?

The only reason I ask this is that you have misunderstood the scientific method, it does not make claims about :
does the world exist?
is it all illusion?

These are great speculative questions, but they are totaly a matter of belief, in other words, you can't put them to test and verification. The discussions of idealism and dualism are interesting, but from the view of the scientific method, not half as interesting as the discussion between the behaviorists and the cognitive psychologists.

But I am sorry most religions are so full of crap that a purge would benefit them greatly. have you used the scientific method to test the claims of religion. It is very instructive, especialy in lkearning the appropriate use of prayer. But to claim that religion is anywhere as coherent as science, can you show that?

I agree that you have a great scientific claim that somehow the physical world could be an illusion. And the unfortunate fact is that it is not a testable claim to say that the world is illusion.

However, if you ever find a way to demostrate the illusiory nature of the physical realm you will be very famous.

Are you heading in that direction? Can you really offer any demostration that the physical world is an illusion?

[Pyrian]

If the illusion is perfect, does it matter that it's an illusion? ;) Or is the definition of an illusion its imperfection?

[Dub]

Originally posted by Hegel
However I AM saying that there are many scientists who take these thought experiments and assumtions to the next level, i.e. to belief. They insist that the universe must exist, and that their existence is a fact, and not just a reasonable assumtion. That is what makes me claim that some (not all) scientists follow the religion of science, instead of simply following the scientific thought experiments as a way of getting things done.


From an anthropic point, if the universe (i.e. all matter and energy) did not exist, there would be no one around to see that it did not exist. Part of the definition of universe from dictionary.com is:


The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place


Thus, questioning the universe's existence, which is an action, proves that the universe must exist. Otherwise the action would not be able to happen in the first place.


What I'm trying to say is that there is no way you can Prove that science is true any more then you can religion.


I think you need to define what you mean by 'prove' as it appears to be different to most definitions of prove. Again jumping to dictionary.com for 'prove':


To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.


Using the scientifc method, it is possible to present evidence to establish something. e.g. solar eclipses.

Since both, as a matter of fact everything, are based on a set of assumtions (axioms) which can not be proven, science is no more provable then religion.

As a matter of what??!!? Where does this fact come from? You are making an assumption about science and religion. Hypothetically, if one religion were definitively true, it would be fact. However, that’s a very big IF :)

[Fun2BFree]

Such confusion between science (as in the scientific method) and scientists (people who try to use the scientific method and like the posters on this board screw it up with their own personal ideas--which are the OPPOSITE of science---which strives for the IMPERSONAL--the NON-subjective)---

Science cannot be a belief--it is a method of inquiry...not a belief--as a method it assumes absolutely nothing....assumptions can be used within a scientific inquiry but scientific method actually discounts assumptions---the method asks for any and all evidence whenever possible...assumptions are a tool to fill the gaps when evidence is missing--so some ideas one can "believe" in are supported more by evidence, others have more assumption...and the more the evidence, the greater the confidence in the belief....assumptions are a weakness in any scientific inquiry--they are not a necessary part of the method.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Famous scientists:
Cool :cool:.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by Dub


From an anthropic point, if the universe (i.e. all matter and energy) did not exist, there would be no one around to see that it did not exist. Part of the definition of universe from dictionary.com is:

[/i]

Thus, questioning the universe's existence, which is an action, proves that the universe must exist. Otherwise the action would not be able to happen in the first place.



I think you need to define what you mean by 'prove' as it appears to be different to most definitions of prove. Again jumping to dictionary.com for 'prove':

[/i]

Using the scientifc method, it is possible to present evidence to establish something. e.g. solar eclipses.



As a matter of what??!!? Where does this fact come from? You are making an assumption about science and religion. Hypothetically, if one religion were definitively true, it would be fact. However, that’s a very big IF :)



I'm sorry about not defining what kind of proof I was refering to. What I meant was logical proof.
What I was getting at is that all systems of thought, from religion to science are all based on a series of axioms (this could possibly be seen as an axiom of information theory:D). These axioms are assumtions which are defined as something you take up without proof. Prove is defined as to evidence, establihs, or ascertain as truth, reality, or fact, by testimony or other evidence. Assuming that you are sticking with only these axioms for the purpose of thought experiments then they stay assumtions. However if you start to state them as facts (which we all inevitably do) it becomes belief. Belief is defined as mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. My argument is that since both science and Christianity are based on axioms (this is my axiom) and that many people in both science and Christianity believe in these axioms that both science and Christianity are religions (which I am defining as any system of thought that has become based on beliefs instead of assumtions). Thus not all scientists follow the religion of science, and not all Christians follow the religion of Christianity, however there is the possibility in both systems of thought for religion to emerge.

In an Aristolian logical diagram, my theory would look thus:

Axiom 1: All systems of thought are based on a set of unprovable axioms.

Sub-axiom 1.1: System of thought is defined as any way of looking at, defining, or solving problems in the world.

Sub-axiom 1.2: An axiom is a principle that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

Axiom 2: A system of thought becomes a religion, when the axioms become beliefs.

Sub-axiom 2.1: Belief is the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

Conclusion: Any system of thought (including science) can become a religion, when people come to pelieve in the axioms, instead of treating them as postulates.

This is a simple run down of my theory. If anyone can find any flaws in the logic, please inform me.

[Pyrian]

I don't have a problem with your logic, I have a problem with your definition of religion, which equates systems built on a single axiom (empiricism) with systems that are essentially composed entirely of axioms (christianity).

The process of science strives to eliminate axioms whereever possible. The following of religion strives to PRESERVE its axioms whereever possible.

Logical proof requires axioms, since logical proof consists entirely of working out consequences of a set of axioms. I would not consider the fact that nothing can be logically proven without axioms to be particularly profound - it's inherent in the definitions.

I do have a problem with equating empiricism with faith - they are DEFINED as opposites (literally believing something due to evidence versus believing something despite evidence).

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Hegel
If a rational one, is it not based on a series of unprovable assumtions?
These assumptions of science are unprovable, yes: but they are different than the religious assumption for two reasons.

1. They are undoubtable. You can pretend to doubt them, but in fact merely thinking, perceiving, or reacting assumes their truth. Our brains are wired in such a way that only a malfunctioning human brain could doubt them. Religious assumptions do not fall into that category.

2. They are minimal. All religions assume the same assumptions, but add an additional one.

No, science is not a religion. It is, however, a world-view, and religion is also a world-view. Thus they do share certain charactersitics. However, all religions share an additional characteristic that science does not have. Thus it is proper to qualify science and religion as different.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos


Now over on philosophyforums, people are telling me that I've got the wrong definition of ontology. It's not what actually exists, whatever that means, but rather what fundamental logical entities we need to describe a metaphysic. I think. And at least one person has said that the answer is: everything.

So, I stand by my claim that ontology is meaningless, until further notice.

~~ Paul [/B]

You think it's meaningless because you don't understand what it means? LOL

BTW what philosophy forums are you on about? The one that me and UCE and Q-Source and Titus and Sou are on?

[jj]

Originally posted by Hegel
Well you see c4ts, that science is fundementaly based on faith too. It may be a bit more reasonable, but ANYONE who claims to KNOW anything about the world, is basing their knowledge on assumtions.

It's interesting of you to make that absolute statement, and make it in such absolute, overweening error...

The results of science have been tested, and can be tested.

The statements of religion can not be falsified.

Ergo, science and religion are not the same.

It's really that simple. You can go back to trolling now.
:tr:

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
Hmm, am I the only one, or does it seem to others that 18 months ago we had a number of "materialists" that now seem to have become "naturalists" who purport to have no ontological bias whatsoever?

It seems to you, eh?
But your observation is
Self-serving. Insult.

[RichardR]

Religions are belief systems. Science is a method. So science is not a religion.

Simple, really.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by jj
The results of science have been tested, and can be tested.
I definitely agree.

All the Laws of Physics, Chemistry, and all that other neato science-y stuff are demonstratably true. Faith has no place in science.

The statements of religion can not be falsified.
*coughYoungEarthCreationismcough*

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You think it's meaningless because you don't understand what it means? LOL :id:

Ian, how many times have you told us that you didn't understand what something meant and then proclaimed it to be meaningless?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
:id:

Ian, how many times have you told us that you didn't understand what something meant and then proclaimed it to be meaningless?

Me saying I don't understand something is normally my polite way of saying that I highly suspect it's meaningless.

[jj]

Originally posted by Yahweh


*coughYoungEarthCreationismcough*

Well, no, it can't be falsified, all we have to posit is that she made it that way to fool us into thinking the earth is 5 bil years old. It's a test of faith.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Me saying I don't understand something is normally my polite way of saying that I highly suspect it's meaningless.

Meaningless, Ian,
Two words, so closely coupled.
Is this accident?

[jan]

Originally posted by Hegel


What I was getting at is that all systems of thought, from religion to science are all based on a series of axioms (this could possibly be seen as an axiom of information theory:D). These axioms are assumtions which are defined as something you take up without proof. Prove is defined as to evidence, establihs, or ascertain as truth, reality, or fact, by testimony or other evidence. Assuming that you are sticking with only these axioms for the purpose of thought experiments then they stay assumtions. However if you start to state them as facts (which we all inevitably do) it becomes belief. Belief is defined as mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. My argument is that since both science and Christianity are based on axioms (this is my axiom) and that many people in both science and Christianity believe in these axioms that both science and Christianity are religions (which I am defining as any system of thought that has become based on beliefs instead of assumtions). Thus not all scientists follow the religion of science, and not all Christians follow the religion of Christianity, however there is the possibility in both systems of thought for religion to emerge.

But this is a very weak statement. It just says that it is possible that some people might take science as a religion. That is a bit different from boldly saying that science is a religion.

I think it would be difficult to find an axiom of science that couldn't become the topic of further scientific investigations, if there is any reason to do so. You may of course doubt any axiom, but without reason why you think otherwise, it is just philosophy. I mentioned above determinism as once being considered an important axiom of science. Once ago perhaps few scientist could imagine to go without that axiom. Now they can. No axiom is safe. You could assume that science requires at least something like "there is something out there (a universe), and it obeys rules." But some years ago maybe it would have occured obvious to you that science needs at least something like "there is something out there (a universe), and it obeys determinist rules".

I would add that even the method of science is not a fixed, closed set of axiomatic rules. It is all about finding the truth without fooling yourself. If you discover that certain methodologic rules do not help you, they are not defended as unforsakable axioms. To give an example, once most philosophers would have agreed that science needs a principle called induction (although it was well known that induction can lead you to false conclusions). After Popper, Carnap or Neurath, it is at least no longer considered to be obvious that induction is an important methodological principle of science, and many doubt it. Bye-bye, indispensable principle.

So, there may be a few people for which science is a religion. But they simple got it wrong.

[jan]

Originally posted by jj


Meaningless, Ian,
Two words, so closely coupled.
Is this accident?

http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/spezial/Fool/appl.gif

And now as a sonnet, please!

[Pyrian]

jj's been doing Haiku all over the forum. Vaguely amusing, although I think he strays from the purist form, adhering mostly to the syllabic structure.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Hegel
Well you see c4ts, that science is fundementaly based on faith too. It may be a bit more reasonable, but ANYONE who claims to KNOW anything about the world, is basing their knowledge on assumtions. http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Read it. Learn something.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Me saying I don't understand something is normally my polite way of saying that I highly suspect it's meaningless. Interesting how you often follow that way of being polite with some variation of "idiot" or "moron"...

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Hegel


I am neither claim that the universe does, or doesn't exits. Nor am I claiming that assuming that the universe exists is a bad assumtion for the purpose of thought experiments.

However I AM saying that there are many scientists who take these thought experiments and assumtions to the next level, i.e. to belief. They insist that the universe must exist, and that their existence is a fact, and not just a reasonable assumtion. That is what makes me claim that some (not all) scientists follow the religion of science, instead of simply following the scientific thought experiments as a way of getting things done.

"there are many scientists" Naturally you are just assuming that, since to believe those scientists exist would be an act of faith. Like I said, no one to blame but yourself for those voices in your head.

[Hegel]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hegel


I am neither claim that the universe does, or doesn't exits. Nor am I claiming that assuming that the universe exists is a bad assumtion for the purpose of thought experiments.

However I AM saying that there are many scientists who take these thought experiments and assumtions to the next level, i.e. to belief. They insist that the universe must exist, and that their existence is a fact, and not just a reasonable assumtion. That is what makes me claim that some (not all) scientists follow the religion of science, instead of simply following the scientific thought experiments as a way of getting things done.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"there are many scientists" Naturally you are just assuming that, since to believe those scientists exist would be an act of faith. Like I said, no one to blame but yourself for those voices in your head.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course. What I meant to say is that, it appears that there are many scientists who take the thought experiments to the next level.

This isn't an axiom, this is the result of a series of axioms, namely that I can see things, that the things I see exist how I see them, and that they are the same things for other people. Using these axioms, and my own personal sight of scientists who take their axioms as acts of faith, I come to the conclusion that science can degrade into an act of faith.

I have claimed here that science can not be a religion, when people do not adhere to the axioms absolutely. I would be more than willing to take it a step farther, and state that Christianity does not have to be a religion. Just because someone goes around with a working axiom set of the axioms of Christianity, does not mean that they have to BELIEVE in the axioms of Christianity. It would be very difficult to go through life without a set of working assumptions. However the difference comes in when presented with a different set of axioms. A person who believes in their axioms will immediately reject the axioms as being false, because they are different from their own. On the other hand a non-believer, would be willing to consider the new axiom set, and possibly take some of the axioms into their own working set, and NEVER outrightly reject them, because they are just assumptions, and there is no way at all to Prove (philosophically and logically) that their axioms are any better or worse then your own. This is where I draw the crucial distinction between a believer and a non-believer, and I feel that many scientists fall into the trap of assuming a religion is wrong, simply because it disagrees with them.

[MRC_Hans]

Coming in a bit late here, so this may already have been said:

Science is not a belief system, it is a method. Science is a way to collect, classify, and correlate information. As such, it needs some basic assumptions, but they are not faiths, simply because they are subject to immidiate revision whenever new data becomes available.

Science is not a religion by any meaningful definition of the term.

This does not keep some people from treating it as if it were a religion, but then, you'll find people who turn anything into a religion.


(I have a strong sense of deja vu here: I feel I have written almost exactly the same post several times before :rolleyes: )

Hans

[jan]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Coming in a bit late here, so this may already have been said:

Science is not a belief system, it is a method.

[...]

(I have a strong sense of deja vu here: I feel I have written almost exactly the same post several times before :rolleyes: )


Yes, some posts alluded to the possibility that science is just a method. And some even claimed that it is not a closed, fixed set of methodological rules...

Originally posted by Hegel
Of course. What I meant to say is that, it appears that there are many scientists who take the thought experiments to the next level.

This isn't an axiom, this is the result of a series of axioms, namely that I can see things, that the things I see exist how I see them, and that they are the same things for other people. Using these axioms, and my own personal sight of scientists who take their axioms as acts of faith, I come to the conclusion that science can degrade into an act of faith.

I think scientific theories are only abandoned if there is a new, rival theory to replace them. Take the axiom "things exist how I see them". This is some way to start, but of course this na&iuml;ve axiom is soon replaced with more sophisticated theories about perceptions. There may seem to be other axioms around in science being more persistent, but that is because nobody found a working way to replace them. Show me an axiom of science and an alternative, testable way to explain the phenomenoms explained by it.

Or show me any phenomenom that can't be explained without the axiom "god exists".

Originally posted by Hegel

I have claimed here that science can not be a religion, when people do not adhere to the axioms absolutely. I would be more than willing to take it a step farther, and state that Christianity does not have to be a religion.

I even provided an example how religion could be more like a science, if you allow theories to be refutated, like the theory "reward within lifetime" mentioned above. But as far as I know, every living religion has some core beliefs you shall not doubt.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jan

I think scientific theories are only abandoned if there is a new, rival theory to replace them. Take the axiom "things exist how I see them". This is some way to start, but of course this na&iuml;ve axiom is soon replaced with more sophisticated theories about perceptions.


I see absolutely nothing naive about this.

[Pyrian]

Interesting Ian:Jan:
I think scientific theories are only abandoned if there is a new, rival theory to replace them. Take the axiom "things exist how I see them". This is some way to start, but of course this naïve axiom is soon replaced with more sophisticated theories about perceptions.I see absolutely nothing naive about this.Axiom: "things exist how I see them". Disproof: hologram (visually appears 3d, but tactile evidence demonstrates otherwise).

[slimshady2357]

originally posted by Ian
I see absolutely nothing naive about this.originally posted by Pyrian
Axiom: "things exist how I see them". Disproof: hologram (visually appears 3d, but tactile evidence demonstrates otherwise).

Not to mention the famous 'stick appearing bent when under the water'.

Ian, how do you reconcile this with 'things exist how I see them'?
In fact, how do you reconcile two inconsistent sensations?

For example, you have a straight stick, you plunge half it under water. The stick now appears bent, but as you run your finger along it under the water, you tactile sensation is one of the stick being straight. How do you reconcile this with your 'there is only the qualia'?

Do you just accept that there is a contradiction in the world and that the stick is both bent and straight at once?

This is no problem for someone who believes in an objective, mind independant world. Perhaps it is no problem for you as well, please explain.

Adam

[gnome]

Originally posted by Pyrian
jj's been doing Haiku all over the forum. Vaguely amusing, although I think he strays from the purist form, adhering mostly to the syllabic structure.

What is the purist (purest?) form?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
originally posted by Pyrian
Axiom: "things exist how I see them". Disproof: hologram (visually appears 3d, but tactile evidence demonstrates otherwise).

Slimshady
Not to mention the famous 'stick appearing bent when under the water'.

Ian, how do you reconcile this with 'things exist how I see them'?
In fact, how do you reconcile two inconsistent sensations?



I reconcile them by asserting they're not inconsistent. It is only inconsistent when you think of an object in abstraction from our perceptions.



For example, you have a straight stick, you plunge half it under water. The stick now appears bent, but as you run your finger along it under the water, you tactile sensation is one of the stick being straight. How do you reconcile this with your 'there is only the qualia'?

Do you just accept that there is a contradiction in the world and that the stick is both bent and straight at once?

This is no problem for someone who believes in an objective, mind independant world. Perhaps it is no problem for you as well, please explain.

Adam [/B]

Remember that our visual and tactile sensations are heterogeneous. You implicitly suppose a reality in abstraction from our sensory perceptions. When we say a stick is bent we mean that our sensory perceptions cohere in such a manner that one receives both a visual perception of bentness and a tactile sensation of bentness.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Remember that our visual and tactile sensations are heterogeneous. You implicitly suppose a reality in abstraction from our sensory perceptions.

Yes, I believe you are correct, I was.

Adam

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


Yes, I believe you are correct, I was.

Adam

Hey! Don't try to take the wind out of my sails! :mad:

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by c4ts
Religions are based on ideals and beliefs, whereas science is based on theory and observation.

Well...that is your own personal belief about religion then. Take Christianity. The earliest Christians claimed they observed a resurrected Jesus.

You should restate this by saying that some religions are based on what you consider to be false/contrived/wrong observations.

One man's theory is another man's belief. If you would relegate ideal/belief to a personal pejorative that's fine I guess; those words are certainly not 100% congruent with theory, but science is full of null hypothetical theories.

-Elliot

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Hegel
Well you see c4ts, that science is fundementaly based on faith too. It may be a bit more reasonable, but ANYONE who claims to KNOW anything about the world, is basing their knowledge on assumtions.

Scientists do not claim to KNOW anything. They just claim to have EVIDENCE that SUPPORTS their THEORIES.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Remember that our visual and tactile sensations are heterogeneous.
How did you conclude this??

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by c4ts


Scientists do not claim to KNOW anything. They just claim to have EVIDENCE that SUPPORTS their THEORIES.

What about the scientists who do claim to know things? Are they not scientists? Would you like examples? I'd be happy to supply references.

Or, are you saying that scientists should NOT claim to know things, even though they often do?

This is very good though...the important word is THEIR. These theories are personally held, with great conviction, and for excellent reasons. But the theories are personal and not impersonal. Theories do not float around in the air impersonally. Scientific theories are the stuff of humanity and do not speak for themselves.

-Elliot

[Peskanov]

Jan said:


I would add that even the method of science is not a fixed, closed set of axiomatic rules. It is all about finding the truth without fooling yourself


I would like to add my support to this view. IMO the importance of the method has been overrated.
I don't think the scientific method was the factor that allowed Darwin to elaborate the theory of evolution, for example. I will accept that methodologies are good tools, but the elaboration of a complex theory does not come as the result of a method (still), they come from the efforts to explain something. Knowledge, imagination, vision, and the capacity to skip easy answers and prejudices are the key.

I think that "science" labels a cultural movement, which tries to extract knowledge from nature at all cost. The cost of it is usually our own biases.
I can't say the same about religion!

[c4ts]

Originally posted by elliotfc


What about the scientists who do claim to know things? Are they not scientists? Would you like examples? I'd be happy to supply references.

To make such a claim (that you KNOW things) is not a part of scientific reasoning, and therefore a scientist making the claim is not doing so as a scientist.

Or, are you saying that scientists should NOT claim to know things, even though they often do?
Your question is practically a false dilemma, because your interpretation that scientists claim to know things is misleading. The implication earlier seems to be that they claim know absolute truth, or knowledge of a divine nature, either of which they do not. Scientists do claim to know previous scientific theory, but they acknowledge it as theory, not absolute truth, and therefore formulate hypotheses and conduct experiments. A scientist can also claim to know something is false, but this is not a statement of actual knowledge so much as the reasoning required to reach that conclusion.

This is very good though...the important word is THEIR. These theories are personally held, with great conviction, and for excellent reasons.


If a theory is personally held with great conviction, then there is no need to test it. By its very nature science prevents itself from being ruled by conviction. Scientific theory does not arise from conviction, but a slow and methodical process of observation, rationalization, and calculation. Any theory is put to the test as long as it is physically possible, and this is the way it has been since Bacon.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Hegel
Is science a religion? If a rational one, is it not based on a series of unprovable assumtions? For example, anyone who would attempt to enact a scientific experement automatically jumps to the conclusion that:

a) All rules that work here; work everywhere else (The Law of Metiocracy). This hasn't been proven, and can't be proven, without being everywhere and everywhen at once of course.

False. Go back a quarter of a century ago, and there was a lot of work on symmetries, culminating in Noether's work relating symmetries to the empirically observed conservation laws, which were later shown to be related to the very existence of some particles. Go back a half century or more, and there was a great deal of excitement when it was discovered that stars had the same elemental spectra as elements on Earth.
None of this work would have been done if this were an assumption of science.

b) That there are rules that govern the universe, and more importantly every action in the universe. I believe it was Spinoza (please just tell me if I'm wrong) who said that you could pick up a rock, and let go and see it continuously go down, however that isn't absolute proof that the next time you let go of a rock it will go down (the odds just keep increasing in your favor though).

This is more of a career choice than an assumption. Science consists of trying to find rules for things that happen. If we find them, we find them. If we don't, we don't.

[/b]c) Science assumes the universe exists, and that we all percieve and share this existance.[/B]

That's an assumption, albeit a pretty basic one. The only alternatives are nihilism, solipsism, and idealism. A "science" based on any of these could easily be written on a 3 by 5 card with nothing else left to do.

[Dorian Gray]

Everything is a religion, or nothing is a religion, or some things are and some things aren't, depending on which definition you use. So provide your definition, and we'll evaluate it.

Franko, you have to provide a definition too. No making stuff up. I know, it's much harder to do research, but it's only fair.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How did you conclude this??

Yes, please Ian, reason your philosophy with lifegazer. I may not agree, but you have very compelling arguments. Perhaps, just maybe, you can open his mind a little so that he realizes that "hey, there are other ideas out there, I could be wrong"

Edited to add: Hooray, the good old Ian avatar we all know and love it back (time for me to update my avatar...)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Hegel
Is science a religion? If a rational one, is it not based on a series of unprovable assumtions? For example, anyone who would attempt to enact a scientific experement automatically jumps to the conclusion that:

a) All rules that work here; work everywhere else (The Law of Metiocracy). This hasn't been proven, and can't be proven, without being everywhere and everywhen at once of course.

b) That there are rules that govern the universe, and more importantly every action in the universe. I believe it was Spinoza (please just tell me if I'm wrong) who said that you could pick up a rock, and let go and see it continuously go down, however that isn't absolute proof that the next time you let go of a rock it will go down (the odds just keep increasing in your favor though).

c) Science assumes the universe exists, and that we all percieve and share this existance.

Possibly other. Can you think of any more? What do you think about the ones already posted? "... merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!"

[elliotfc]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by c4ts
Your question is practically a false dilemma, because your interpretation that scientists claim to know things is misleading. The implication earlier seems to be that they claim know absolute truth, or knowledge of a divine nature, either of which they do not. Scientists do claim to know previous scientific theory, but they acknowledge it as theory, not absolute truth, and therefore formulate hypotheses and conduct experiments. A scientist can also claim to know something is false, but this is not a statement of actual knowledge so much as the reasoning required to reach that conclusion.[QUOTE]

Gotcha, that clarifies things just fine.

So when a scientists says that he/she knows something if false, that statement actually means that based on the *scientific* way of reasoning, such a statement can not be supported?

This is all very helpful and I wish the layman/woman would understand all of this. The popular conception is, in fact, that science *knows* things.

-Elliot

[hammegk]

Originally posted by epepke


That's an assumption, albeit a pretty basic one. The only alternatives are nihilism, solipsism, and idealism. A "science" based on any of these could easily be written on a 3 by 5 card with nothing else left to do.

Sorry, but at least some forms of idealism posit an objective reality, in which science works just fine. Materialism just adds the unneeded complication of objective physical reality.

In my worldview nihilism is a form of insanity that ignores (at least) one datapoint; i.e. thought exists.

Solipsism is the same problem for materialists as is for idealists (or dualists).

[epepke]

Originally posted by hammegk


Sorry, but at least some forms of idealism posit an objective reality, in which science works just fine. Materialism just adds the unneeded complication of objective physical reality.

Materialism, schmerialism. I deliberately avoided the word. And arguing about what is an objective reality versus an objective "physical" reality doesn't matter much with respect to science. My point is the paucity of what science has to "assume." Maybe having all these pigeonholes where you can stuff things is of overwhelming importance for philosophers, but all scientists need in this area is that two different people can sometimes, in some sense, work on the same problem. Whatever words you want to use to describe a universe (or whatever you want to call it) in which this is possible are, well, whatever.

[epepke]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Gotcha, that clarifies things just fine.

So when a scientists says that he/she knows something if false, that statement actually means that based on the *scientific* way of reasoning, such a statement can not be supported?

This is all very helpful and I wish the layman/woman would understand all of this. The popular conception is, in fact, that science *knows* things.

I think that when people go through serious university-level training in doing science, there's a shift in thinking that happens that is at once subtle and profound. I'm sure that some people who don't go through training get this shift, too, but a bright individual who reads Scientific American doesn't necessarily get it. And there are people who go through scientific training and don't get it. However, it's a fairly large majority of people who go through scientific training, and a fairly small minority of people who don't.

What happens is sort of that the ability to doubt drops down from being a peripheral quality to the center of one's mind, so to speak, and colors everything. When scientists talk to each other, the qualifying words are usually dropped, as one can reasonably assume that it will be understood.

So, if I talk to another scientist, I can safely say "I know this" or "This is a fact" and be pretty sure it will correctly be interpreted as "I am nearly certain of this, and it is so well supported by evidence that the likelihood of its being false is so small as effectively to be negligible in the context of the current discussion."

Talking to people who are not scientists and doing the translations entails a whole set of skills on top of the skills of doing science. It's kind of a difficult thing to do, and few scientists do it well. Richard Feynman did it well, and he lectured extensively on this; you should be able to find some of his books at your local book shop.

Fortunately, most non-scientists will try to meet the scientist halfway. (I won't use the term "layman," as that neglects the high probability that a non-scientist has some other level of expertise.) That is, a non-scientist will say, "OK, I'm used to using this particular word this way, but I can see how the scientific mindset puts a little kink in it, and I can get an approximation of what you're saying, and you can probably get an approximation of what I'm saying."