Is science inherently atheistic?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do not believe that the valid conclusion, "you have no evidence", is always an insult. I observe that some people challenged to articulate what they cannot, revert to perceiving the challenge as an insult. It allows a rationalization for an unsupportable belief.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Your interpretations are yours, but they do not accurately reflect my words or meanings, for whatever that is worth.

It only exists if you can "negotiate" from opposite positions to come to a certain understanding. It's called a contract. The "(dare) you to do this" or "to do that" so common here boils to that epistemological advances.

Anyway the thread's topic is not being discussed at all (a certain atheism that is intrinsic to science and gets it going the way it is, or its lack thereof). It's just a rehash of the same arguments about theism and its social implications, this time held against you, me and a couple more that being essentially non-theists dare to avoid scolding those who passively held a few indemostrable beliefs they trust.

It had to have some degree of mentions to witch hunting, homosexuality disapproval and similar ideas, even Big Brother, just to restate not that religion is based in beliefs that are inherently false -where science has something to do, should have it been the topic of this thread- but to confirm religion is inherently a bad truculent thing. But all of it without philosophy, or values intended. Curious chaps!

When such religious-like passions are triggered, you can't held a position that is 8 degrees East of them, and not 180. You can't address the thread's topic neither, as they may consider it a loophole. To some, science, fulfilling one of its intrinsic goals, must have definitively proved religion is fallacious, bad and dangerous. And don't insist to say otherwise or, what are you doing? trolling?

It was in this site that I learnt that there's plenty of self-called atheist that can't get religion right out of their minds. Tragic. They are similar to those religious people who find sin to be the most interesting topic.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

More straw I see.

Because I see the Universe as best described using the scientific process that is "a ho-hum" view? That's ludicrous. The Universe is fascinating and needs no magical explanations to be that way.

We apparently have different senses of the word "magical."

Were you not the one who stated:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

...But contemplating is just thinking. There is not anything magical or 'special' about contemplating behavior, motives, and values that differs from thinking about a physics problem.

?

If you did not mean to imply a "ho hum" attitude, then what exactly did you mean to convey with those words?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

....When ever I say "Science can't explain X", your saying "Neither can philosophy, and by the way, what is the process of philosophy?" does not refute the statement that science can't explain X.

Allow me to correct your misstatement of my philosophical position.

The things you claim science cannot explain are of several categories. One is the category of meaningless sentences. "Science cannot explain my dinner." Another is the category of false conclusions, like that 'morality cannot be understood purely on a biological basis'. Yes, it can. Then there is the category, science cannot yet explain [X].

I don't recall anything else that you've proposed as "science can't explain".

But even if all that weren't true, I haven't said philosophy doesn't exist. I said it offers nothing while science offers a successful way to describe/discover the Universe. You've tried to draw attention away from your inability to articulate any actual process that philosophy offers with this red herring that science doesn't yet have an answer or an incomplete answer for something.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

You could, but you would be incorrect.



No, you don't. You only have deliberately misstated form of my argument (which you have been repeatedly corrected upon) and some ignorant and bald assertions about philosophy.



You cannot admit that "process of philosophy" is irrelevant to the limitations of science. When ever I say "Science can't explain X", your saying "Neither can philosophy, and by the way, what is the process of philosophy?" does not refute the statement that science can't explain X.

You;d have to say what X is.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by tsig

You;d have to say what X is.

And I have suggested such in this thread. Read the explanation to the Hausdorff paradox I linked to.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

It only exists if you can "negotiate" from opposite positions to come to a certain understanding. It's called a contract. The "(dare) you to do this" or "to do that" so common here boils to that epistemological advances.

Anyway the thread's topic is not being discussed at all (a certain atheism that is intrinsic to science and gets it going the way it is, or its lack thereof). It's just a rehash of the same arguments about theism and its social implications, this time held against you, me and a couple more that being essentially non-theists dare to avoid scolding those who passively held a few indemostrable beliefs they trust.

It had to have some degree of mentions to witch hunting, homosexuality disapproval and similar ideas, even Big Brother, just to restate not that religion is based in beliefs that are inherently false -where science has something to do, should have it been the topic of this thread- but to confirm religion is inherently a bad truculent thing. But all of it without philosophy, or values intended. Curious chaps!

When such religious-like passions are triggered, you can't held a position that is 8 degrees East of them, and not 180. You can't address the thread's topic neither, as they may consider it a loophole. To some, science, fulfilling one of its intrinsic goals, must have definitively proved religion is fallacious, bad and dangerous. And don't insist to say otherwise or, what are you doing? trolling?

It was in this site that I learnt that there's plenty of self-called atheist that can't get religion right out of their minds. Tragic. They are similar to those religious people who find sin to be the most interesting topic.

I have learnt that you, of course, have found a way to look down on all of them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trakar

We apparently have different senses of the word "magical."

Were you not the one who stated: ?

If you did not mean to imply a "ho hum" attitude, then what exactly did you mean to convey with those words?

Magical = something beyond the natural world. Gods, pixie dust, whoosh it just appears, it's beyond anything humans could ever possibly understand, we have a 'purpose' for existing and so on are all in the realm beyond the natural world. There is no reason to think they exist.

The possibility of multiple dimensions beyond 3D and space-time, quantum phenomena, black holes, the mystery of time, gravity... all of these fantastic things are within the natural world and are certainly not 'ho-hum'.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You've tried to draw attention away from your inability to articulate any actual process that philosophy offers with this red herring that science doesn't yet have an answer or an incomplete answer for something.

The process of philosophy is not and never has been the topic of any thread the you and I have participated. You have tried to distract from argument that science cannot be used to construct a system of ethics by insisting that philosophy can't do the same, but that in itself was a red herring.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

It only exists if you can "negotiate" from opposite positions to come to a certain understanding. It's called a contract. The "(dare) you to do this" or "to do that" so common here boils to that epistemological advances.

Anyway the thread's topic is not being discussed at all (a certain atheism that is intrinsic to science and gets it going the way it is, or its lack thereof). It's just a rehash of the same arguments about theism and its social implications, this time held against you, me and a couple more that being essentially non-theists dare to avoid scolding those who passively held a few indemostrable beliefs they trust.

It had to have some degree of mentions to witch hunting, homosexuality disapproval and similar ideas, even Big Brother, just to restate not that religion is based in beliefs that are inherently false -where science has something to do, should have it been the topic of this thread- but to confirm religion is inherently a bad truculent thing. But all of it without philosophy, or values intended. Curious chaps!

When such religious-like passions are triggered, you can't held a position that is 8 degrees East of them, and not 180. You can't address the thread's topic neither, as they may consider it a loophole. To some, science, fulfilling one of its intrinsic goals, must have definitively proved religion is fallacious, bad and dangerous. And don't insist to say otherwise or, what are you doing? trolling?

It was in this site that I learnt that there's plenty of self-called atheist that can't get religion right out of their minds. Tragic. They are similar to those religious people who find sin to be the most interesting topic.

LOL!
you got me!
A scientific theist toll-troll looking for billy-goat
gruffs to make my stew chewy.

Most of the actual atheists that I've ever met and known, I discovered their atheism only after we had known each other for years and even then it was as the result of some unrelated coincidence. Like most theists, most atheists do not wear their beliefs on their sleeves and it rarely ever enters normal conversations and discussions, even among good friends. Most of my atheist friends were more surprised to find out about my theistic beliefs than I think I was to find out about their true lack of beliefs.

I pop into this forum every month or two, and that is probably the most I talk about my beliefs and understandings anywhere, ever. It just isn't a normal conversation topic issue.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Magical = something beyond the natural world. Gods, pixie dust, whoosh it just appears, it's beyond anything humans could ever possibly understand, we have a 'purpose' for existing and so on are all in the realm beyond the natural world. There is no reason to think they exist...

Then we most certainly are using the term differently.

Magical -

Beautiful or delightful in such a way as to seem removed from everyday life.

Something spectacular or wonderful.

wonderful; marvellous; exciting

These are the senses of "magic" to which I was referencing.

I am sorry that you are unable to perceive the magic of the universe in your perceptions of it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trakar

....

I am sorry that you are unable to perceive the magic of the universe in your perceptions of it.

I am sorry that you believe reality exists within words rather than externally to the words which sometimes are inadequate to describe reality.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

The process of philosophy is not and never has been the topic of any thread the you and I have participated. You have tried to distract from argument that science cannot be used to construct a system of ethics by insisting that philosophy can't do the same, but that in itself was a red herring.

And yet I knew your position on this subject and your inability to articulate what the process of philosophy actually is and you knew you objected to my position that philosophy leaves out biology observations. Imagine that. Do you suppose I read your mind across the miles?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And yet I knew your position on this subject and your inability to articulate what the process of philosophy actually is and you knew you objected to my position that philosophy leaves out biology observations. Imagine that. Do you suppose I read your mind across the miles?

Do you suppose that you a refusal to derail thread as an inability to articulate an irrelevant position?

I might as well mention that you never articulated how to use science to derive an ethical system that doesn't commit the naturalistic fallacy or blur the fact-value. Does that mean that you are unable to articulate it?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Do you suppose that you a refusal to derail thread as an inability to articulate an irrelevant position?

I might as well mention that you never articulated how to use science to derive an ethical system that doesn't commit the naturalistic fallacy or blur the fact-value. Does that mean that you are unable to articulate it?

I did. I said look to the biology of the brain. You were unable to see that, another phenom explained by brain biology.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I did. I said look to the biology of the brain. You were unable to see that, another phenom explained by brain biology.

And I said, "How does the biology of the brain tell us what should be?"

You have yet to answer that. I understand that we can determine what we think is ethical using neuroscience, but you don't understand that you can't merely assert that what is is what should be, because it is what is.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

And I said, "How does the biology of the brain tell us what should be?"

You have yet to answer that. I understand that we can determine what we think is ethical using neuroscience, but you don't understand that you can't merely assert that what is is what should be, because it is what is.

There you go, you again post evidence that you ignore my answer.

'Should' is a concept that only exists because we humans evolved an emotion that thinks there is a 'should'. Given 'should' is a product of brain biology, the best way to understand it is through a scientific analysis of how the 'should' feeling evolved and how it differs in different individuals and cultures.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There you go, you again post evidence that you ignore my answer.

Ooooo!!! Ooooo!!! I can play this game too!!!!

There you go again, you again post evidence that you ignore my answer.

Has it ever occurred to you that, when people say that you haven't answered their question, it is, oh, I don't know, because you haven't actually answered their questions?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

'Should' is a concept that only exists because we humans evolved an emotion that thinks there is a 'should'. Given 'should' is a product of brain biology, the best way to understand it is through a scientific analysis of how the 'should' feeling evolved and how it differs in different individuals and cultures.

No, neuroscience tells us what is. Saying "should" is a mental construct simply doesn't cut it, because different people have different ideas about what "should" should be, which doesn't tell us which "should" should be.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

People keep saying "It's not meaningful in terms of science" as if there is some other kind of meaningful.

Science isn't just another way of thinking and making crap up is just as valid.

One of the great fantasies is the idea that people live their lives according to science. It's not the kind of mistake that anyone thinking scientifically would make.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And yet if I threw a rock at your head I bet you'd still duck.

Why would he do that in a value-free universe?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by corbin

I must not be explaining myself very well.

I'm having trouble getting a handle on what you think science is, what its limits are (are there meaningful questions that it can't answer?), and what kinds of knowledge it can give us, if any.

Science-worship doesn't admit of limits. Expect to be told about all the wonderful things science has achieved, as opposed to religion.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

I haven't heard anything yet that suggests anyone that pulls the "Science has limits!" card means anything other then a way to avoid intellectual standards.

"Stating an undeniable truth" is "playing a card" when said truth is uncomfortable.

The opposite of "science has limits" is the clearly absurd "science has no limits". Nobody will say that, but asserting limits to science is just one of those unpleasant things that shouldn't be said in public.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by corbin

I don't know what you're saying. That some philosophy leads to (in my opinion unfounded) nihilistic conclusions that therefore philosophy is nonsense?

And the fact that I duck when you decide, for some reason, to throw a rock at my head isn't really proof of anything.

All the most important fundamental questions are in the realm of philosophy. Wanting to know things like what is, how do we know things, what should we do, what is the relationship between mind and body, etc., doesn't seem to me to be pointless "naval-gazing." Apparently, it's not pointless to you or most of the other skeptics on this forum either since you all hold strong opinions on each of these issues. The unfortunate part is that you don't even realize these are philosophical positions (in the branch of philosophy called metaphysics for the first and last; epistemology and moral philosophy for the middle two).

That's the absurdity of this discussion. A bunch of people exchanging philosophical viewpoints, and half of them insisting that it's not philosophy. And this is the science forum - isn't it?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

I know what the Hausdorff paradox is. I was asking you if it is physically representable and if the empirical demonstration of it physical non-representability entails its non-existence.

Why are you asking anyone about any apparent paradox’s in abstract maths?

What has that got to do with science accepting that objects really exist on earth and in space, and that events really do happen in this universe?

Planes really do fly in the air. And you really can travel on a plane from the USA to India if you want to. Do you think that's just some sort of a fiction being mirrored from a parallel universe or something?

As Richard Dawkins said " if you don't believe that gravity exists, then you are invited to test your belief by jumping from the 20th floor of a tower building". "Planes and gravity are reality, they are not just some other version of an alternative reality".

There are plenty of apparent paradoxes and unsolved problems in maths, particularly in more abstract fields. But that really has no bearing at all on whether physicists, chemists and biologists, and indeed mathematicians, are dealing with real objects and real events when they study objects and events in this world.

What did you think a book on Density Matrix theory was about anyway?

Here is another good book that I once had to try to read -

Stochastic Methods in Quantum Mechanics, S.P. Gudder, Elsevier North Holland publ N.Y., 1979

Why don’t you try reading that instead of reading about Hausdorff and his paradox (rhetorical).

Or of you are particularly interested in discussions of “reality” then you could try reading Roger Penrose’s book which is supposed to be in “popular” form suitable for a general public readership -

The Road to Reality, Roger Penrose, Vintage Books London, 2005.

That was supposed to be on the UK Sunday Times top ten best seller’s list. Though I think most readers without a PhD in theoretical physics will probably find that to be rather a struggle. But then, Penrose does seem to be rather a strange sort of scientist .

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Originally Posted by jimbob

Originally Posted by Trakar

Originally Posted by tsig

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trakar
There is no harm in finding specific behaviors and actions inappropriate or inconsiderate. The harm is in attributing the actions and expressions to be the result of the external belief-systems rather than the internal interpretations and personal expressions of that individual's behavior. IOW, blame the specific theist/atheist for their individual actions, not the belief system that they claim to represent.

What if the belief system says kill all those who don't agree with the belief system?

What if cows had wings?

Are you concerned about the specific practices of a specific belief-system, or how some belief systems have been individually interpreted by some people?

Either way, my response would be to hold individuals responsible for their own interpretations and how they translate those interpretations into behavior, not disparagement for the belief system over how some choose to interpret and incarnate the principles of that belief system.

Hey, I can think of several off the top of my head.

How about the belief that certain people are witches, and should be killed as in the bible - it happened in London recently.

Or the belief that women should be stoned to death for adultery as that is what the Abrahamic bibles state. That is still being demanded in parts of the middle east.

Or that homosexuals should be denied certain rights or punished because it is an abomination.

Or that your child can't have a life-saving blood transfusion because the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses?

These are interpretations by individuals and groups of individuals, hold the individual responsible for their actions.

They are interpretations by groups of people, but in most of the cases there is an authority figure that is mandated by the religious group to pronounce on these subjects.

If these are not the result of "external" belief systems, then give me an example of such an "external" belief system.

Many parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses love their children, yet they would still prefer to let them die in situations where the alternative is a lifesaving blood transfusion.

The reason why they would do this is because of their religious belief, and that they don't want their loved ones to suffer the bad consequences of the sin of blood transfusion.

For many, this is the belief that they were brought up into; their parents and their preachers both have pronounced on this. How is that not an external belief system. In most religions there is an official interpretation. Developing one's counter interpretation is often considered apostasy or heresy, and discouraged with the threat of damnation at the least, if not by sanctions in the real world.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

"science has no limits".

If it helps you out....I will say it. Science has no limits.

Now what was your point?

Of course, the argument being made is not 'science has limits' but 'science has limits and God is one of them' which is a completely different point.

Now if someone can come up with a coherent and meaningful definition of God, show how that exists in such as way that a 'limit' of science is reached and provide evidence that this theory is one I should spend some time considering then I'm all ears.

If all we get is 'you don't know everything! What if reality isn't real?' then I'll give the God idea the same consideration as I give to the possibility I might be Angelina Jolie's mother.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by corbin

The question of what is true and what exists aren't scientific questions. They are philosophical questions. Ontology is a branch of philosophy.

Scientists think they are scientific questions. And scientists are not remotely interested in the garbage word-arguments and semantics of so-called "philosophy".

The justification for that (as if it was needed at all) is that science actually works, and we can "prove" it works (and also "prove" why it works), a billion times out of a billion, without any exceptions.

Whereas afaik so-called "philosophy" has never worked to discover or explain any real event at all. Not once.

So the present score is - Science One Billion vs. Philosophy/Theology precisely Zero.

As Hawking said " philosophy says X, Y, and Z, but philosophy is dead". And your only refuge for resurrecting the reputation of philosophy from that deadly redundancy, appears to be to claim that "reality" is not reality, and that only philosophy knows this. But the advance of science has left you talking to yourself, just barking at the moon, in that closed & dead world of defunct philosophy.

Originally Posted by corbin

I also don't think you know what metaphysics is - it's not making up religious stuff. The branch of philosophy that deals with fundamental questions about the nature of being and the world is actually the definition of metaphysics, or at least the one that applies to this discussion.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy? OK, fine, but to repeat Hawking again - the fact is that science has long since found philosophy to be dead, defunct, or otherwise of no use as a means of actually discovering and explaining the real universe. Which is why scientists don’t use academic philosophy of that kind ... because it doesn't work ... and the reason it doesn’t work is because it's not actually dealing with the "reality" that it thinks it is.

Originally Posted by corbin

Science has only answered that there is no evidence to support the existence of a literalistic, physical God. The proposition "God exists," is typically not asserting the existence of some man in the sky.

So you are saying the claim that God exists (it's not anything so grand as a "proposition" ... it's nothing more than an ancient superstitious belief held by ignorant middle eastern peasants living several thousand years ago) is not actually talking about any "physically existing God". That was your own description/admission, ie that you are apparently claiming that philosophy is not dealing with belief in a real God but instead with a God that " does not physically exist " (your own words, just very slightly rearranged) ... OK, fine, so you are agreeing that your philosophical claims are imaginary and only deal with a God who is a non-physical non-real figment of peoples imagination. Great, well done.

By the way, if you ever going to make claims about science not knowing what reality and truth are, then you need to provide evidence showing your claim is true … so where is that evidence? …

… where is your evidence showing that when scientists study stars and planets (say), those stars and planets do not actually exist?

… if you cannot provide the evidence, and a proper theory (ie a scientifically valid theory) to support your claim that stars, planets and all else do not in fact exist and that scientific explanations are not “truth”, then you have nothing worth wasting your breath on …

... which is precisely why scientists don’t waste their time on philosophical semantics like that … and incidentally also why people here should not waste time on it … as Christopher Hitchens said “ if you can make such claims without genuine evidence, then those claims can be equally dismissed without evidence ”

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

If you had it parted in smaller chunks you could have produced more foam, like beer dropped from a mile height.

Says the guy who posted the whole foam about imagining posters with beards. But by all means, go on.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Arguments without an specific addressee that stroke a nerve, and somebody speaks of "psychiatrists"

"Striking a nerve" and disrupting a conversation is something even a 3 year old can mention. I never understood why a certain kind takes that as some kind of "I win" condition. It's not like being disruptive or annoying is some achievement or even hard.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Back on track ...

Have you something to say about science and its inherent/non inherent atheism -and not about using scientific method to debunk religious beliefs-? I mean, about atheism as one structured core of science without what science can't continue to exist as it is -that is the real meaning of "inherent"-.

I think I already did, for example in #99.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Have you something to comment about my post #167 and two last paragraphs in #182?

Sure:

#167 is the same strawman based on reading just the topic title. Your being unable to read or comprehend doesn't mean you have a point. Yes, the OP and the linked blog never claimed that science has a belief, but merely that what is called an atheistic world view in the rest of American society is really just what kind of hypotheses are normal in science.

Plus a silly appeal to motives and/or consequences in, for example, asserting that anti-theism "tries to install a hole where a belief is, just for the sake of watching people suffer".

Basically yes, if you wanted my opinion, that's what it is: a fully irrelevant mix of a blatant strawman, plus a couple of assorted fallacies.

#182 is pretty much just the standard irrelevant handwaving that comes up when someone tries to rationalize their beliefs. Most of that is really irrelevant, and quite trivially so.

E.g., telling a joke or having a weird dream at night have absolutely nothing to do with beliefs. Just because I dreamed a dragon last night, doesn't mean I believe in dragons, it just means I played Skyrim. That I dreamed that I'm the emperor of the world at some point after playing City Of Villains, doesn't mean I believe I should take over the world. Or about jokes, telling for example the Radio Yerevan joke I use as an example for a certain kind of fallacy around here, doesn't mean I believe anything about criminality in the former Soviet Union. I.e., they're not even remotely analogous to the problem of conflicting beliefs, and as such it's irrelevant.

Besides, even "but I keep it compartmentalized" is ultimately missing the point. The only reason it's compartmentalized nowadays is exactly in response to the fact that all we know about universe and morals is conflicting with religion. That's why people resort to building those unnatural mental walls. It's only "human" nature as a mechanism to deal with cognitive dissonance. As long as there wasn't a pressure against applying the religious dogma as scientific truth, people went and actually did what was a natural consequence of that belief. Like burning heretics.

You can't complain about how those meanie anti-theists are missing the point by criticizing something you keep compartmentalized, if that's the reason why it's compartmentalized in the first place. It's like proposing to fire the whole police department, because, hey, I haven't been mugged or robbed in decades. You can't argue that X is pointless because Y, if X is the only reason for Y in the first place.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Comments that relate to the subject at hand, i.e., "is science inherently atheistic?" and not about Tordesillas or the Magna Carta, nor general struggle with science ruling out Santa or not and people having troubles accepting it.

Err, sorry to burst your bubble, but the world doesn't revolve around you. Those were not in response to you, and I don't feel particularly bound by what you'd like to exclude from the conversation either. You're not that important.

Besides, after posting that content-free trolling, you don't get to also play the card of complaining that someone else doesn't stick to what you want discussed on the topic. One or the other, you know?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by IanS

Why are you asking anyone about any apparent paradox’s in abstract maths?

It's not an apparent paradox. If you can partition a subset of n-dimensional Euclidean space in such away that, when you try to assign a measure to each subset two congruent sets have different volumes, you have a paradox. Of course, like Zeno's paradox and Russell's paradox, you can resolve it by assuming that one of your original premises was false.

Originally Posted by IanS

What has that got to do with science accepting that objects really exist on earth and in space, and that events really do happen in this universe?

I'm soory, but did Hausdorff live is some other universe?

Originally Posted by IanS

Planes really do fly in the air.

Yes, but that's irrelevant to the Hausdorff paradox.

Originally Posted by IanS

And you really can travel on a plane from the USA to India if you want to.

Again, completely beside the point with respect to the Hausdorff paradox.

Originally Posted by IanS

Do you think that's just some sort of a fiction being mirrored from a parallel universe or something?

Do you understand that that the Hausdorff paradox is true in this universe and that there are still many daily flights from Boston to Mumbai in the very same universe?

Originally Posted by IanS

As Richard Dawkins said " if you don't believe that gravity exists, then you are invited to test your belief by jumping from the 20th floor of a tower building". "Planes and gravity are reality, they are not just some other version of an alternative reality".

Dawkin is known for being a bit of a naive realist so I don't put much stock in his supposedly common-sense statements about the world.

Originally Posted by IanS

There are plenty of apparent paradoxes and unsolved problems in maths, particularly in more abstract fields.

Again, the Hausdorff paradox: not an apparent paradox.

Originally Posted by IanS

But that really has no bearing at all on whether physicists, chemists and biologists, and indeed mathematicians, are dealing with real objects and real events when they study objects and events in this world.

But it does demonstrate that such scientists can, and often do, hold naive metaphysical positions about the relationship between science and reality.

Originally Posted by IanS

What did you think a book on Density Matrix theory was about anyway?

I assumed that you were grossly misunderstaing the Hausdorff paradox.

Originally Posted by IanS

Here is another good book that I once had to try to read -

Stochastic Methods in Quantum Mechanics, S.P. Gudder, Elsevier North Holland publ N.Y., 1979

What does this have to with the topic at hand?

Originally Posted by IanS

Why don’t you try reading that instead of reading about Hausdorff and his paradox (rhetorical).

Why don't you try understanding the metaphysical consequences of the Hausdorff paradox instead of recommending irrelevant reading material?

Originally Posted by IanS

Or of you are particularly interested in discussions of “reality” then you could try reading Roger Penrose’s book which is supposed to be in “popular” form suitable for a general public readership -

The Road to Reality, Roger Penrose, Vintage Books London, 2005.

That was supposed to be on the UK Sunday Times top ten best seller’s list. Though I think most readers without a PhD in theoretical physics will probably find that to be rather a struggle. But then, Penrose does seem to be rather a strange sort of scientist .

Sounds interesting.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by westprog

One of the great fantasies is the idea that people live their lives according to science. It's not the kind of mistake that anyone thinking scientifically would make.

Yet here I am posting on the internet(science) in my air conditioned home(science) with a light on(science) I have a car(science) and a phone(science) and I'm wearing clothes(science).

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

It's not an apparent paradox. If you can partition a subset of n-dimensional Euclidean space in such away that, when you try to assign a measure to each subset two congruent sets have different volumes, you have a paradox. Of course, like Zeno's paradox and Russell's paradox, you can resolve it by assuming that one of your original premises was false.



I'm soory, but did Hausdorff live is some other universe?



Yes, but that's irrelevant to the Hausdorff paradox.



Again, completely beside the point with respect to the Hausdorff paradox.



Do you understand that that the Hausdorff paradox is true in this universe and that there are still many daily flights from Boston to Mumbai in the very same universe?



Dawkin is known for being a bit of a naive realist so I don't put much stock in his supposedly common-sense statements about the world.



Again, the Hausdorff paradox: not an apparent paradox.



But it does demonstrate that such scientists can, and often do, hold naive metaphysical positions about the relationship between science and reality.



I assumed that you were grossly misunderstaing the Hausdorff paradox.



What does this have to with the topic at hand?



Why don't you try understanding the metaphysical consequences of the Hausdorff paradox instead of recommending irrelevant reading material?



Sounds interesting.

You think that an obscure math paradox has real world consequences?

Metaphysics = woo

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by tsig

You think that an obscure math paradox has real world consequences?

Why does anything that questions naive physicalist realism automatically become "obscure"?

And the Hausdorff paradox is by no means "obscure". The existence of non-measurable sets, which allows for such paradoxical deompositions, is of central concern in measure theory and the theory of integration.

You know integrals? Those functions that calculate the area under arbitrary curves. Yeah, I know....soooooo obscure.

Originally Posted by tsig

Metaphysics = woo

Ah....your favorite blind assertion.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by westprog

One of the great fantasies is the idea that people live their lives according to science. It's not the kind of mistake that anyone thinking scientifically would make.

The funny thing is, no one HAS made this claim. The only times I see this claim are when people like westprog are trying to find an excuse for their unsupported beliefs.

No one says you have to live according to science. The phrase doesn't even make sense--science is a process, not a philosophy of life.

What IS said is that people should be consistent when drawing conclusions. You shouldn't allow yourself to have one set of standards of evidence for evidence supporting one conclusion, and another set for evidence supporting another conclusion.

The term "straw man" implies too much strength in this argument.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Sounds interesting.

Especially since Penrose is a physicist who has quite dramatic effects on many posters here - to the extent that some of them feel driven to deny that he's a physicist.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

The funny thing is, no one HAS made this claim.

Except that someone just insisted that "science has no limits". It's rather implicit in the claim, wouldn't you say? If science is not able to tell us how to live our lives, that would be a limitation on science.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

I think the point I tried to make was lost and/or misinterpreted. What I'm looking at are all the times the god-botherers make testable predictions. Testable predictions say 'we're part of science, please test us'. How about the wealth gospel? That's a testable prediction that praying in a certain way will result in higher net worth within a certain timeframe. How about christian science? They claim that praying in a certain way will cure diseases. I can think of some really easy studies that could be done. How about scientology? They say practicing in a certain way will give power over all matter, energy, space and time, allowing time travel, levitation, and other such easily verifiable things. If so, then all they'd have to do is show off a bit. Things like that put religion squarely within the bounds of science, except that when such predictions are actually tested they fail. The only defense is to say that religion is outside the boundries of science, so that such things are somehow NOT testable, even when logic and common sense says they should be.

Yes, when someone makes a testable prediction, that's within science, and can be confirmed or refuted.

What seems not to be grasped is that when someone makes a statement which is not a testable prediction, that is not part of science, and cannot be confirmed or refuted. This should be a fairly obvious corollary, but it's mostly just ignored.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, I'm not sure it would be such a bad idea. I'll return to that quote from Vince Ebert, who incidentally IS a physicist:

"The Scientific Method is, simply put, just a way to test suppositions. If I supposed for example 'there might be beer in the fridge' and go look in the fridge, I'm already doing science. Big difference from Theology. There they don't usually test suppositions. If I just assume 'There is beer in the fridge' then I'm a theologian. If I go look, I'm a scientist. And if I go look, find nothing inside, and still insist that there's beer in the fridge, that's esoteric."

I really fail to see what would be the catastrophe if people lived their lives based more on what can be supported, than on what would be nice to be true. In fact, I dare say that most people do for almost anything except their pet woo and/or stuff that doesn't really matter.

I mean, seriously, imagine if your spouse insisted that you don't need to check if there's enough beer (or wine or whatever you prefer) for the guests, and it doesn't matter that you don't remember buying any, nor that you don't see any in the fridge. You just need to have faith that the beer is there for you. Wouldn't you think the guy or gal just went insane? In fact, I dare say everyone would. I don't think many people would praise the faith or spirituality in refusing to put the beer hypothesis to the test, nor that many would condemn that cold scientific approach of actually looking in the damned fridge.

But at any rate, I keep hearing about how bad it would be if we lived our lives like that, but nobody manages to explain how and why. I generally only get

A) some handwaving about why you NEED some "spirituality" or "faith" or whatever fancy word for woowoo. But nobody seems to be able to even explain what it is, what it does that is so good for you, nor what negative effects would one expect for not having their daily recommended dose of woowoo. So in effect it just moved the claim that you need more unsupported woowoo, to a claim that itself has to be taken as unsupported woowoo. And/or

B) a lot of irrelevant truisms.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes, when someone makes a testable prediction, that's within science, and can be confirmed or refuted.

What seems not to be grasped is that when someone makes a statement which is not a testable prediction, that is not part of science, and cannot be confirmed or refuted. This should be a fairly obvious corollary, but it's mostly just ignored.

I think that at least I already agreed that, yes, then it's not a part of science. But I'll return to that Dara O'Briain quote: you don't get to fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

If you want to make a claim so completely untestable that any setup or experiment or equipment would yield no data about it, then, yes, let me be perfectly clear, then science has nothing to say about it. But then basic skepticism lets me call you gullible if you still insist in believing something for which you just said there is no evidence, no data that requires it as an explanation, and no imaginable way to distinguish it from the null hypothesis. And elementary logic lets me call you crazy if you claim any knowledge about something that you directly or implicitly called unknowable.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by westprog

Except that someone just insisted that "science has no limits". It's rather implicit in the claim, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't. Because it would be false. I explained why.

Quote:

What seems not to be grasped is that when someone makes a statement which is not a testable prediction, that is not part of science, and cannot be confirmed or refuted. This should be a fairly obvious corollary, but it's mostly just ignored.

It's not ignored; we simply disagree with you. Untestable predictions, and statements which do not generate them, are pure fantasy--there's literally no way to evaluate them. Science's standards for determining which ideas are worthy of consideration--those standards you've spent our entire conversation evading--specifically address such issues.

And this is yet again another example of you attempting to tell scientists what science is.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by IanS

I did not say I did Know. I said "perhaps" that is the case. But, if you insist on arguing about it, then you can just tell us ...

... what experience do you have in science research?

I'm not arguing. I'm telling you. You have no idea what I am, or what my qualifications are for discussing this subject.

Quote:

I have already answered that, very directly in the example of Darwin’s publications in the 1800‘s.

Darwin seems to be a good example because his explanation of evolution, particular as it later became applied to the evolution of Homo sapiens, is a very direct refutation of earlier religious beliefs (still held by many today of course) that God actually made Man.

That research into evolution has unequivocally shown that Homo sapiens evolved from earlier species. And that Man was therefore definitely not created by a miracle from any God.

Apart from Darwin’s famous first publication in 1859, On The Origin of Species, Darwin also wrote several later books on the subject of evolution, inc. in 1871 a book dealing directly with the Descent of Man from earlier species. All of that is of course extensively discussed in Wikipedia -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Des...elation_to_Sex


At that time, circa. 1850’s to 1880’s, afaik Darwin was not alone in choosing to publish genuine scientific research in the form of a book, rather than as a shorter discrete paper in one of the early scientific Journals.

The fact that Darwin, in the mid Victorian era, was publishing his work as a book, does not make it in any way inadmissible as a genuine scientific publication describing “new” and “original” research - everyone accepted at that time, and all of science accepts today, that Darwin’s publications are most certainly genuine scientific research.

And that simple confirms something that has been accepted all along - when religions make predictions or statements of fact which are subject to scientific confirmation or refutation - such as evolution, the age of the Earth, and so on - then science can have something to say about it.

Darwin's work was not explicitly atheistic, and if he makes reference to god in it, then please feel free to point out the section where he does so.

Quote:

If you want something different from Evolution, from more modern research papers, which directly refute the role of a God, then the paper by Vilenkin, Guth and Borde does precisely that in a very direct way -
Again, in his most recent book, Hawking explains why that paper on the No Boundary Condition, is actually a refutation of the claim that God made the universe. Hawking explains why the No Boundary Condition is a model which specifically excludes creation by any supernatural means (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Press London, 2010). Hawking had of course given similar explanations before in A Brief History of Time.

Just to be completely clear about the above - what Hawking and Vilenkin are doing in those books, is explaining in laymen’s terms for a popular audience, how and why certain of their earlier research papers on the origin of the universe, are specifically and directly excluding a supernatural cause (such as God) for the Big Bang and for the existence of what we call “our universe”.

There's an issue for cosmologists in the current understanding of the universe. The fact that the universe apparently appeared out of nothing seemed to be evidence of either a creator, or some not understood creation event.

However, a number of cosmologists, such as Hawking, have come up with models which (in very crude terms) treat the universe as a four-dimensional object, rather than a three-dimensional object that gets created at a particular point in time. This certainly addresses a particular technical point whereby creation seemed to be implied in the model of the universe then prevalent.

This doesn't have anything to do with the metaphysical nature of the universe, or whether the universe was created. It replaces a previous way of looking at the universe with a more sophisticated model.

It's not surprising that a more advanced model explains something that wasn't understood before. The mistake is in the view that this somehow cancels out all possible versions of god - because it replaces a model which depended on the earlier faulty scientific understanding.

It's hardly suprising that as our understanding of the universe increases, we

Quote:

But much more generally, as I said earlier, you must know perfectly well that every single scientific paper ever published, which now amounts to many millions of papers, describe how all known events and process occur in our universe by entirely natural means, and never in any of those discoveries and explanations is a God ever found to be part of the explanation.

And in none of those millions of papers is any ultimate explanation given. A segment of a train of explanations is given.

I don't think that the absence of any mention of god in millions of scientific papers implies that science can therefore reasonably deal with the issue of god.

Quote:

The fact that scientific authors conventionally and invariably choose not to spell out the blindingly obvious by specifically adding a sentence to say " the explanation given here rejects any suggestion that a God and supernatural events are necessary ", is irrelevant and entirely unnecessary - all of those papers give their explanations in a way which clearly excludes supernatural acts as any part of the process.

That's a complete cop-out. I don't expect every scientific paper which implicitly refutes the god concept to mention the fact, but I do expect that if science "excludes supernatural acts" then there should be at least one paper which bothers to mention it. There isn't because science doesn't deal with the issue.