Defining the term "evidence" in religion/science

[EnemyOfReason]

Statements like these show obvious traits of only being a debator, a presenter of "wisdom of words", mere words of persuasion from men.

I Corinthians 2:4,5
"And my message was not with wise and persuasive words, but in demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith should not rest on man's wisdom, but in God's power"

I am not a debater as I dislike the concept of competition and "winning". I just speak and have no reason to continue in a heated discussion. It is time consuming and involves to much human interaction which I avoid.

I was simply pointing our the fallacy of your argument so you could propose a newer one. I myself believe in god but I do not use illogical fallacies to prove God exists. I actually do not even attempt to provide evidence for god.

As doing so is yet again time consuming and involves too much debating.

 

[Elendur]

I suspect we are ultimately comparing "evidence" of religious hypotheses to scientific ones. Non-hypothetical entities of physics I'd simply classify as empirical physics, and the evidence that supports them I'd simply classify as physics.

The term shouldn't care whether it's physical or not. Since it'd severely limit it.
Why wouldn't we compare religious and scientific evidence?
The definition I provided with is all about determining what world you're in. How you do that is of less interest.

In this case a null hypothesis (of Holy Spirit) predicts nothing in particular about human experiences, whereas a hypothesis involving Holy Spirit (some unspecified 'presence' of something), predicts experience of the Holy Spirit within humans.

If it predicts nothing, then it's no hypothesis.
Since it doesn't provide with a proposition of a set of worlds.
Or rather, it's not a useful hypothesis in any way (since their purpose is distinguishing worlds).

Note also that hypotheses can be allowing for things they do not deal with.
For example a completely valid hypothesis would be one that proposes something about the human average height, but allows for everything in all other parameters.

I'd say your method of graphing multiple 'worlds' get's rather messy if we start trying to use such a grid system to start testing for the presence of *multiple* 'supernatural' (for lack of a better term) constructs.

I don't propose that we would use the grid representation for all uses, at most we'd need two complementary sets and one additional intersecting them both (the second being the actual world we live in).
And that would be at most. We won't actually need a graphical representation of any hypothesis/theory since it translates very well into a mindset that can separate evidence of interest given any new hypothesis/theory into evidence against or for (or neutral, of course).

The following question is a good representation:
"If this hypothesis/theory was true or false, what would the difference be?"

The answer to that question (to fall back on the height example) would be:
The difference would be that the average height either falls within the proposed interval or not.

Based on the Planck data I can see how the graph point that contains inflation, dark energy, dark matter, space expansion, *and* curvatons, wins out over the graph point that predicts inflation, dark energy, space expansion, and *not* curvatons. On the other hand, by adding for the possibility of simply adding in yet another supernatural construct on a whim, you've pretty much eliminated any possibility of ever falsifying either 'inflation', 'dark energy', or the expanding space claim.

If you've added something then you've constructed a new hypothesis/theory.
The older one has not 'survived', it has been abandoned.

Why wouldn't you allow for adding propositions to a hypothesis/theory?
(I see it as an effective tool to create more advanced hypotheses/theories much faster)

It seems like sooner or later you have to stop allowing for *multiple* supernatural constructs to all be involved in the *same* data, or there's no falsification method possible.

I don't see why. Each modification is a falsification.

Your graph could simply lead to a religion with multiple gods rivaling the pantheon of Greek mythology, or a theoretical monstrosity with multiple ad hoc entities, all of which defy empirical falsification.

Yup. Could.
Because what if that is the world we're living in?
By the way, if the set of worlds are equal for any two hypotheses/theories they are equally valid (though why someone would add a part that doesn't distinguish between any world is beyond me).
The only way I can imagine that someone could add things that doesn't help with distinguishing worlds is multiplications of propositions.
That doesn't change the set of worlds for the hypothesis/theory (i.e. doesn't help with anything). If you know of another way to add (and in extension subtract) without changing, let me know.

For example of a representation issue (Where they're equal, but not using any superfluous, i.e. non-distinguishing, proposals):
The function (which can be equated to a proposal) "e^x" is equal to "Sum (x^i)/(i!) where i goes from 0 to infinity".
The representations are equal to each other and each one has its strength when represented.

For example of a superfluous issue:
"Gravity makes things fall down." and "Gravity makes things fall down. Gravity makes things fall down.".

This is particularly true of any explanation offered for an uncontrolled event, and specifically an *uncontrollable* event.

Control in this case is just helping to extract additional information from the same event (i.e. evidence).

First we'll have to see if you're willing to concede that a world with a Holy Spirit is more consistent with what we observe than one without it in terms of the recorded testimonies of humans since the dawn of recorded human civilization?

Nope. I'd like to see a proposed hypothesis and a evidence analysis of that before I make up my mind.
Now, whether I make all the work for that or not is irrelevant of course (with the small exception that other parts in the discussion might not agree with my proposition and/or analysis).

I'm willing to concede that it could be, but not that it is.

 

[Michael]

The term shouldn't care whether it's physical or not. Since it'd severely limit it.

Ok. We should however then distinguish from 'demonstrated physics/science' (in the lab) from theoretical physics. I'd propose we put supernatural constructs of religion in the same category as theoretical physics in terms of defining the ground rules for 'evidence'.

Why wouldn't we compare religious and scientific evidence?

Well, I see no real point in comparing supernatural constructs of religion to something like EM fields. One shows up in the lab each time, every time. The other, presumably not so much. It does make sense however to compare *hypothetical* physics to religious supernatural constructs. The often both lack 'evidence' from the lab in terms of demonstrating cause/effect relationships.

The definition I provided with is all about determining what world you're in. How you do that is of less interest.

Well, it gets "messy" IMO when the goal posts start to move, and the number of supernatural constructs increases beyond one. If we add the potential for *multiple* supernatural constructs, that could easily result in multiple supernatural deities in a religion or multiple supernatural constructs in some specific scientific claim that makes such a claim unfalsifiable.

If it predicts nothing, then it's no hypothesis.

We run into areas of science (like inflation) where the actual "predictions" made by the originator of the supernatural construct do *not* match the actual observations. Guth for instance claimed that the universe was homogenous on the largest scales, whereas the Planck data shows hemispheric differences in the data set.

If we allow for *multiple* supernatural constructs *and* we allow for 'goalpost movement', then david has the potential to add a category called 'inflation+curvatons', and the original inflation claim can now *never* be falsified because we can add/or subtract more supernatural constructs as we see fit.

Likewise a religion might try to assign one force of nature to one supernatural construct, say EM fields with Zeus, and another force of nature with another supernatural construct, like associating floods with some other deity.

I'm therefore having a *very hard* time seeing the logic in allowing for an unlimited sized graph, with an unlimited number of supernatural constructs. It seems as though if we do not limit ourselves to *one* and only one, the falsification process goes flying out the window, and anything goes.

Since it doesn't provide with a proposition of a set of worlds.
Or rather, it's not a useful hypothesis in any way (since their purpose is distinguishing worlds).

Like I said, the "theory" of the concept gets a lot more messy when the "worlds" might include multiple 'gods', or multiple supernatural hypothetical scientific entities. I see no falsification possibility in such a model, and the concept of 'evidence' could mean anything to anyone.

Note also that hypotheses can be allowing for things they do not deal with.
For example a completely valid hypothesis would be one that proposes something about the human average height, but allows for everything in all other parameters.

IMO your model works great in *non theoretical physics* but not so great in the theoretical realm where I'm most interested in "evidence".

The following question is a good representation:
"If this hypothesis/theory was true or false, what would the difference be?"

In Guth's case, he *originally* said that the difference would be that the universe would be the same on the largest scales.

Thanks to Planck, that question can finally be 'put to the test'. It's pretty clear now that the *original* claim failed. The ability to add a new supernatural construct and *change* the claim (move the goalposts) ultimately precludes us from falsifying inflation theory. What's the point of having 'tests' that by design can only lead to *more supernatural constructs* every time the original claims are falsified?

I don't see why. Each modification is a falsification.

In a "religious" setting, each "modification' simply adds a new "god", and the assumption of at least one "god" is a given. In the realm of theoretical physics, each modification simply adds a new supernatural construct, and the existence of at least one supernatural construct is *assumed*. There no way to falsify the original claim in such a scenario.

Yup. Could.
Because what if that is the world we're living in?
By the way, if the set of worlds are equal for any two hypotheses/theories they are equally valid (though why someone would add a part that doesn't distinguish between any world is beyond me).
The only way I can imagine that someone could add things that doesn't help with distinguishing worlds is multiplications of propositions.
That doesn't change the set of worlds for the hypothesis/theory (i.e. doesn't help with anything). If you know of another way to add (and in extension subtract) without changing, let me know.

I'll have to chew on it for a bit. Ultimately I'm suggesting that A) God exists and B) connects to humans via the Holy Spirit. I'm ultimately proposing the existence of any additional 'physical thing' (which I assume has real physical substance), and potentially a new (or current) form of energy that allows God to interact with humans. In essence I'm adding multiple constructs (God and energy), but God is simply the physical universe and the energy could be an ordinary EM field. Let me think about it a bit.

Control in this case is just helping to extract additional information from the same event (i.e. evidence).

So consider the Planck/inflation scenario. We extract information from Planck that doesn't jive with the *original* claim about homogeneity on the largest scales. Do we use that 'evidence' to falsify the original claim, or do we allow the original claim to change to something new, and allow for another supernatural construct? Is it "fair" to then claim that there is actually evidence for inflation+curvatons, or is it fair to claim that the original inflation claim was falsified by a "test"?

Nope. I'd like to see a proposed hypothesis and a evidence analysis of that before I make up my mind.

Interesting. You seem pretty squeamish about applying this graph to a "religious" claim. Human are 'real' things and they report having experiences with something they associate with God, often through some device/thing they call a 'Holy Spirit'. It's a crude claim akin to your 'gravity makes things fall down', but it's actually a physically demonstrable claim in terms of even ancient human writings. It's harder however to physically define 'Holy Spirit", define the physical connection between Holy Spirit, and *test* it in a lab in controlled experimentation.

In *theory* at least however, the 'controlled experimentation' wasn't supposed to be a 'requirement' or we must by necessity rule out scientific claims like inflation and dark energy.

Now, whether I make all the work for that or not is irrelevant of course (with the small exception that other parts in the discussion might not agree with my proposition and/or analysis).

I'm willing to concede that it could be, but not that it is.

Well, the 'could be' part is encouraging. Admittedly associating a real and demonstrated form of energy with the term 'Holy Spirit' would provide more "detail', and more ability to 'test' the idea. As I mentioned however, if we start making controlled experimental results the minimum requirement of "evidence", that also automatically rules out inflation theory and string theory, probably large parts of QM. That seems overly restrictive, even by my standards.

 

[Paulos23]

When people are baptized by the Holy Spirit, He "reveals" what our natural capacities cannot apprehend (mentally and physically).

Others then who have not experienced firsthand these "revelations" too often deduce that they must be imaginary, possibly psychotic, etc. in bases. Why? Because they cannot put to the test these "revelation experiences", these work of the Holy Spirit experiences are not subject to science. Natural man and science are the limiting factors.

It is that simple.

So in one sweap you move yourself and your god to a place where you don't have to prove anything, but can claim anything.

Been there, done that. When I was a believer I excepted claims like that once, until it became obveous that there wasn't anything consistent in those claims and some of those claims can lead to harm when taken to their logical extent.

Sure, it is nice to believe in an all powerful creator. But what good is it to do so? It becomes a science stopper since any question you can't answer becomes 'goddidit' and prevents you from looking further.

That is why I ask for evidence, because if it does exist and has impact on this universe then there should be signs. To take all of religious experance and remove it from such requests is to put it in the relam of unconditional faith. And having been there before, I see no reason to go back there without evidence.

 

[Michael]

Sure, it is nice to believe in an all powerful creator. But what good is it to do so? It becomes a science stopper since any question you can't answer becomes 'goddidit' and prevents you from looking further.

One could in fact make that same "science stopper" argument about hypothetical claims like string theory, or SUSY theory, ect. I'm not sure they are necessarily 'science stoppers' for other individuals, but you rarely see a string theorist reject string theory. There's always an answers in one of the extra dimensions of spacetime.

 

[Michael]

Without any effort, you can......

.....spam, spam, spam, spam.

 

[Elendur]

Ok. We should however then distinguish from 'demonstrated physics/science' (in the lab) from theoretical physics. I'd propose we put supernatural constructs of religion in the same category as theoretical physics in terms of defining the ground rules for 'evidence'.

Why would we separate anything?
The term still works, whether we're talking about something that contains propositions or not.
Of course, if you can provide with a reasoning behind why it should be separated, I'd read it carefully, but I see no reason why. It effectively divides things as it is. In a useful manner (does it, or does it not, predict any worlds).

Well, I see no real point in comparing supernatural constructs of religion to something like EM fields. One shows up in the lab each time, every time. The other, presumably not so much. It does make sense however to compare *theoretical* physics to religious supernatural constructs. The often both lack 'evidence' from the lab in terms of demonstrating cause/effect relationships.

But they're still making propositions of the world. Including the religions claims. That's the important part.

Well, it gets "messy" IMO when the goal posts start to move, and the number of supernatural constructs increases beyond one. If we add the potential for *multiple* supernatural constructs, that could easily result in multiple supernatural deities in a religion or multiple supernatural constructs in some specific scientific claim that makes such a claim unfalsifiable.

And I return to the point, what if the world is like that (minus the un-falsifiability, I've already stated that those are of little to no interest)?

We run into areas of science (like inflation) where the actual "predictions" made by the originator of the supernatural construct do *not* match the actual observations. Guth for instance claimed that the universe was homogenous on the largest scales, whereas Planck data shows hemispheric differences in the data set.

And thus you've demonstrated evidence against the alleged theories/hypotheses.

If we allow for *multiple* supernatural constructs *and* we allow for 'goalpost movement', then david has the potential to add a category called 'inflation+curvatons', and the original inflation claim can now *never* be falsified because we can add/or subtract more supernatural constructs as we see fit.

But the original was falsified. Or at the very least abandoned.

Likewise a religion might try to assign one force of nature to one supernatural construct, say EM fields with Zeus, and another force of nature with another supernatural construct, like associating floods with some other deity.

And then you have new hypotheses/theories.

I'm therefore having a *very hard* time seeing the logic in allowing for an unlimited sized graph, with an unlimited number of supernatural constructs. It seems as though if we do not limit ourselves to *one* and only one, the falsification process goes flying out the window, and anything goes.

You can still go after the predictions, that should severely limit the amount of work required.
The definition (and more specifically, the representations) allows for unlimited stuff because I have no reason to assume a limit.
Especially when we have little problems with creating new situations that are conceptual in nature.

Like I said, the "theory" of the concept gets a lot more messy when the "worlds" might include multiple 'gods', or multiple supernatural hypothetical scientific entities. I see no falsification possibility in such a model, and the concept of 'evidence' could mean anything to anyone.

The hypothesis/theory has prepositions (ignoring the cases where it allows for all or no worlds, which really are the only ones who lack falsification).
Use those.
Determine how the worlds where the hypothesis/theory is true differ from where it's not.
Use that.

If you don't have the opportunity to examine any off the propositions, i.e. use/examine/access/gather evidence, suspend judgment.

IMO your model works great in *non theoretical physics* but not so great in the theoretical realm where I'm most interested in "evidence".

It works the same from where I'm standing
If you could explain a bit more why it wouldn't work, then I could go more in-depth with the response.

In Guth's case, he *originally* said that the difference would be that the universe would be the same on the largest scales.

Thanks to Planck, that question can finally be 'put to the test'. It's pretty clear now that the *original* claim failed. The ability to add a new supernatural construct and *change* the claim (move the goalposts) ultimately precludes us from falsifying inflation theory. What's the point of having 'tests' that by design can only lead to *more supernatural constructs* every time the original claims are falsified?

... The original was falsified.
They made a new hypothesis/theory.
I really don't see the problem.

In a "religious" setting, each "modification' simply adds a new "god", and the assumption of at least one "god" is a given. In the realm of theoretical physics, each modification simply adds a new supernatural construct, and the existence of at least one supernatural construct is *assumed*. There no way to falsify the original claim in such a scenario.

Two things:

1. "Is a given"? Why would it ever be? You still have all worlds where no god exists.
2. If the original claim was altered it is not the same as the original anymore, correct? Leading to the obvious conclusion that it's a different claim.

I'll have to chew on it for a bit. Ultimately I'm suggesting that A) God exists and B) connects to humans via the Holy Spirit. I'm ultimately proposing the existence of any additional 'physical thing' (which I assume has real physical substance), and potentially a new (or current) form of energy that allows God to interact with humans. In essence I'm adding multiple constructs (God and energy), but God is simply the physical universe and the energy could be an ordinary EM field. Let me think about it a bit.

no hurry, it seems we've got things to straighten out between us.

So consider the Planck/inflation scenario. We extract information from Planck that doesn't jive with the *original* claim about homogeneity on the largest scales. Do we use that 'evidence' to falsify the original claim, or do we allow the original claim to change to something new, and allow for another supernatural construct? Is it "fair" to then claim that there is actually evidence for inflation+curvatons, or is it fair to claim that the original inflation claim was falsified by a "test"?

"Do we use that 'evidence' to falsify the original claim, or do we allow the original claim to change to something new, and allow for another supernatural construct?"
Point 2 and 3 aren't really inseparable, if you're going to produce a dilemma, please be more careful.
But in essence. Yes to 1, yes to 2 and yes to 3 (not including the the "and" though) if it'd actually distinguish any worlds.

Interesting. You seem pretty squeamish about applying this graph to a "religious" claim. Human are 'real' things and they report having experiences with something they associate with God, often through some device/thing they call a 'Holy Spirit'. It's a crude claim akin to your 'gravity makes things fall down', but it's actually a physically demonstrable claim in terms of even ancient human writings. It's harder however to physically define 'Holy Spirit", define the physical connection between Holy Spirit, and *test* it in a lab in controlled experimentation.

If you wanna be more correct we can introduce bayesian probability, that'd be a tad (read much) more complicated though. I don't have those things straightened out myself, but I wouldn't be that scared to try.

In *theory* at least however, the 'controlled experimentation' wasn't supposed to be a 'requirement' or we must by necessity rule out scientific claims like inflation and dark energy.

And I've included no such requirement.
How you acquire/produce the evidence is of no matter (with exceptions to forging etc. of course, which if I remember correctly bayesian probability helps with).

Well, the 'could be' part is encouraging. Admittedly associating a real and demonstrated form of energy with the term 'Holy Spirit' would provide more "detail', and more ability to 'test' the idea. As I mentioned however, if we start making controlled experimental results the minimum requirement of "evidence", that also automatically rules out inflation theory and string theory, probably large parts of QM. That seems overly restrictive, even by my standards.

Controlled experiments is in most cases a luxury.

 

[durangodawood]

Evidence in science: Repeatable. Demonstrable. Aiming at objectivity.

Evidence in religion: the above, plus the whole realm of subjective evidence, intuition, feelings, personal testimony.

 

[Michael]

The term shouldn't care whether it's physical or not. Since it'd severely limit it.
Why wouldn't we compare religious and scientific evidence?
The definition I provided with is all about determining what world you're in. How you do that is of less interest.

I still think we need to define a baseline 'empirical world' that includes everything that shows up on Earth, and shows up in the lab. That's at least a part of the world that we might all agree exists, even if each of us believe that *more than* the 'baseline' world exists. There might be "more" in the world, but "at least' that much exists because we can demonstrate them in the lab, like gravity and EM fields. Maybe other kinds of matter/energy exist, maybe not, but everything on the periodic table shows up in a lab experiment.

Anything however that has yet to show up in a lab experiment, or worse yet, *incapable* of showing up in a lab experiment (by definition) would be a 'hypothetical' entity that may or may not be a part of the world we actually live in.

If it predicts nothing, then it's no hypothesis.
Since it doesn't provide with a proposition of a set of worlds.
Or rather, it's not a useful hypothesis in any way (since their purpose is distinguishing worlds).

So take an item like inflation that predicted a homogeneous world on the largest scales, and thanks to Planck we know it's not. What now? Is inflation falsified, or can the claims change, and goal posts be moved in an ad hoc fashion?

Note also that hypotheses can be allowing for things they do not deal with.
For example a completely valid hypothesis would be one that proposes something about the human average height, but allows for everything in all other parameters.

I'm thinking your idea works well inside empirical world, but not in the extension graph area we're actually trying to look at. Evidence in empirical world is easy to differentiate between. Evidence *outside* of empirical world is harder to define and more apt to become 'subjective' pretty quickly.

I don't propose that we would use the grid representation for all uses, at most we'd need two complementary sets and one additional intersecting them both (the second being the actual world we live in).
And that would be at most. We won't actually need a graphical representation of any hypothesis/theory since it translates very well into a mindset that can separate evidence of interest given any new hypothesis/theory into evidence against or for (or neutral, of course).

It's a useful mental tool, and we don't have to talk in terms of graphs. I believe the sticking point comes back to the falsification aspect. There has to be a possibility of falsifying the concept *outright*, or it's technically outside the boundary of science and therefore outside the concept of 'evidence'. How do we ensure that sufficient "evidence against" ultimately falsifies the claim?

The following question is a good representation:
"If this hypothesis/theory was true or false, what would the difference be?"
.....
Why wouldn't you allow for adding propositions to a hypothesis/theory?
(I see it as an effective tool to create more advanced hypotheses/theories much faster)

FYI, it depends on whether your adding *supernatural* propositions to a hypothesis, vs. adding 'natural' changes to it. I see no way to falsify the first claim if multiple supernatural claims are now allowed. I see no reason on the other hand to reject anyone adding *empirically demonstrated* aspects to their claims to somehow make up for variations between observation and prediction. If however anything goes in terms of making up supernatural constructs, falsifiability goes flying out the window.

The statement begins with 'If this hypothesis is true, then X. If not X, then shouldn't the hypothesis be falsified?

If we now allow for the addition of *additional hypothetical entities* with additional hypothetical properties, the original claims and assumptions ultimately can never be falsified because they have been *assumed to be true*.

I don't see why. Each modification is a falsification.

Not exactly.

BB theory is based upon one "unfalsifiable' interpretation of the redshift phenomenon, and the unfalsifiable claim of metric expansion. I'll explain how that assumption becomes unfalsifiable by the addition of multiple supernatural constructs.

BB theory used to "predict" a decelerating universe because scientists assumed that gravity was the "most important thing" in space. No other force of nature was expected to play much of a role in what was thought of at the time as the 'vacuum' of space. Even at this moment in time, the standard BB hypothesis require the concept of "metric expansion" it's first non laboratory demonstrated/non demonstrable claim, and inflation as the 'cause' of that process. Already at this point it actually had two "hypothetical' components to it, specifically the metric expansion of space claim, and the inflation claim, something no astronomer can or will ever demonstrate in a lab in controlled experimentation.

The SN1A data came along and effectively 'falsified' the claim that the universe was decelerating.

Instead of allowing the *basic premise/claim* about the cause of redshift to die a natural scientific death, we got the addition of another supernatural construct.

Now the last claim that Guth made about inflation that was left standing bit the dust in Planck data.

Already I've read several, and posted a couple (david posted the first one actually) papers that simply *add more supernatural constructs* and modify the original claims yet again.

This constant movement of the goal posts makes falsification of the *original claims* completely impossible. The original claims are not being falsified, the goal posts are simply being moved to suit themselves.

Likewise if you look at human history, mankind started associating "natural" forces with "deities". We ended up with a pantheon of 'gods' in Greek mythology.

If there's no constraint put on the *number* of supernatural constructs, anything can be explained with enough of them.

The problem however is that all natural phenomenon become 'supernatural' in origin.

The only way I can imagine that someone could add things that doesn't help with distinguishing worlds is multiplications of propositions.

That's exactly where we've been in cosmology theory since Hubble, and it's exactly where we are with religion since the dawn of time. If anything however *religion* has ultimately 'simplified' it's core beliefs, whereas cosmology theory has created a 'pantheon' of supernatural constructs.

That doesn't change the set of worlds for the hypothesis/theory (i.e. doesn't help with anything). If you know of another way to add (and in extension subtract) without changing, let me know.

I'm thinking about it.

I have to stop here for a bit. I'll see if I missed anything critical in a little while.

 

[Michael]

Evidence in science: Repeatable. Demonstrable. Aiming at objectivity.

Evidence in religion: the above, plus the whole realm of subjective evidence, intuition, feelings, personal testimony.

Actually the whole draw of string theory is "intuition, feelings and personal testimony" too.

The thing is, 'part' of science, the 'empirical' half falls into your first category.

The other half of physics, the hypothetical half isn't actually repeatable nor objective in the sense that it shows up in the lab.

That's the area of science where the term "evidence" becomes subjective and "intuitive" pretty quickly.

 

[durangodawood]

Actually the whole draw of string theory is "intuition, feelings and personal testimony" too.

The thing is, 'part' of science, the 'empirical' half falls into your first category.

The other half of physics, the hypothetical half isn't actually repeatable nor objective in the sense that it shows up in the lab.

That's the area of science where the term "evidence" becomes subjective and "intuitive" pretty quickly.

So what?

1. String theory doesnt claim to have evidence.
2. Its not based on feelings, intuition, and personal testimony. It IS based on mathematical compatibility with observed reality.

Basically, its a proposal in search of scientific evidence to back it up.

 

[Michael]

So what?

1. String theory doesnt claim to have evidence.

I suppose the same could be said of the way some people treat their 'supernatural' concepts of God too.

2. Its not based on feelings, intuition, and personal testimony. It IS based on mathematical compatibility with observed reality.

The problem is that with all those extra spacetime dimensions, virtually anything and everything is possible mathematically speaking. Why try to "make it match" in the first place if you aren't trying to give it an air of 'evidential support'? Isn't that driven by an *emotional* desire of some sort?

Basically, its a proposal in search of scientific evidence to back it up.

The same could pretty much be said for any supernatural (and natural for that matter) concept of God.

I hear you, I just don't see how any of that helps us actually falsify (or verify) any supernatural claims (scientific or religious).

 

[Michael]

FYI, your mathematical aspect *might* have merit were it actually *applied* and used to *falsify* the claim itself. Unfortunately that is rarely if ever the case. All the popular and specific mathematical SUSY models were falsified at LHC, and in fact SUSY theory failed it's own 'golden test' at LHC, yet astronomer are apparently praying for a miracle in 2015. In the meantime SUSY theory is an exotic matter of the gaps claim. Likewise Guth used math to justify his claim of homogeneity on large scales, but that math isn't now being used as an actual falsification mechanism. Rather the mathematical goal posts are simply being moved to postdict a fit to the Planck data, and inflation is still *assumed to be true*.

 

[durangodawood]

I suppose the same could be said of the way some people treat their 'supernatural' concepts of God too.

The problem is that with all those extra spacetime dimensions, virtually anything and everything is possible mathematically speaking. Why try to "make it match" in the first place if you aren't trying to give it an air of 'evidential support'? Isn't that driven by an *emotional* desire of some sort?

The same could pretty much be said for any supernatural (and natural for that matter) concept of God.

I hear you, I just don't see how any of that helps us actually falsify (or verify) any supernatural claims (scientific or religious).

String theory is NOT a claim. Its a proposal. It will be evaluated, and stand or fall, against scientific evidence that turns up.

Are you saying that supernatural claims are ALSO proposals awaiting the discovery of empirical evidence before we can consider them "true"?

 

[Michael]

String theory is NOT a claim. Its a proposal. It will be evaluated, and stand or fall, against scientific evidence that turns up.

Are you saying that supernatural claims are ALSO proposals awaiting the discovery of empirical evidence before we can consider them "true"?

If the scientific establishment treated all hypothetical concepts as "proposals" awaiting the discovery of empirical evidence before they considered them to be "true", I might agree with you. Unfortunately even NASA says stuff on their websites that are more like "knowledge statements" than "proposals".

Case in point:

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

They state rather bluntly that "dark matter" is *not* composed of ordinary matter. How do they know that considering the fact that more matter was just found in the form of plasma last year than all the rest of the mass in the universe? Not coincidentally it's located *exactly* where "dark matter" is supposedly located.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

Apparently their "new and improved" exotic matter and exotic energy numbers come from Planck data, but that very same Planck data shows a hemispheric difference that defies and actually falsifies their theory *entirely*! They're already tinkering with additional supernatural constructs as "ad hoc gap filler". Worse yet, there are already *multiple* such constructs to choose from.

If "science" really treated their pet beliefs as "proposals", I might buy your idea. They don't. They hold some ideas rather "sacred", particularly the concept of an expanding space claim they could never hope to demonstrate in a lab.

 

[durangodawood]

If the scientific establishment treated all hypothetical concepts as "proposals" awaiting the discovery of empirical evidence before they considered them to be "true", I might agree with you. Unfortunately even NASA says stuff on their websites that are more like "knowledge statements" than "proposals".

Case in point:

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

They state rather bluntly that "dark matter" is *not* composed of ordinary matter. How do they know that considering the fact that more matter was just found in the form of plasma last year than all the rest of the mass in the universe? Not coincidentally it's located *exactly* where "dark matter" is supposedly located.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

Apparently their "new and improved" exotic matter and exotic energy numbers come from Planck data, but that very same Planck data shows a hemispheric difference that defies and actually falsifies their theory *entirely*! They're already tinkering with additional supernatural constructs as "ad hoc gap filler". Worse yet, there are already *multiple* such constructs to choose from.

If "science" really treated their pet beliefs as "proposals", I might buy your idea. They don't. They hold some ideas rather "sacred", particularly the concept of an expanding space claim they could never hope to demonstrate in a lab.

You are too attached to the idea of scientists or "science" acting all religious, epistemologically

They are just trying to make a model that 1. at first doesnt contradict known reality, and 2. eventually is actually demonstrable as correct. IF one group or another uses some overconfident language in explanations "dumbed down" for public consumption... well, its simply not that big of a deal. For sure it doesnt reflect an actual level of certainty about reality similar to the certainty that religious people like to bask in.

 

[Michael]

You are too attached to the idea of scientists or "science" acting all religious, epistemologically

I'm just noting that some beliefs are 'acts of faith' on the part of the "believer", in things and concepts that fail to show up in the lab. That's true in 'science' as well as 'religion'. I do however recognize a significant difference between empirical physics and hypothetical physics. The pure acts of faith occur in hypothetical physics.

They are just trying to make a model that 1. at first doesnt contradict known reality,

But even if we start with string theory, that "desire" to tinker with the math to make it 'look right' is really just an emotionally (probably curiosity) driven process. Whether it actually has any meaning in the real world however is anyone's guess. There's no falsification mechanism, and no verification mechanism. It's just something people do because it interests them personally and it gives them an enjoyable outlet for their mathematical skills.

The "popular" maths created to describe SUSY theory have all been falsified at LHC, and SUSY theory flunked it's own "golden test". What remains now are the "bottom of the barrel" concepts, and "hope" apparently.

I hear you about the mathematical aspect, but it is actually never used in astronomy to falsify BB theory. Specifically it's never used to falsify their *pure faith* in metric expansion of space, and all the supernatural constructs around that same claim. Failures only lead to *additional* supernatural constructs, not a falsification of the original claims.

and 2. eventually is actually demonstrable as correct.

How about the case with SUSY theory or Guth's claims about homogeneity on the largest scales, where the math and the claim was demonstrated to be *incorrect*?

If there is no valid way to falsify the *original* claims, it's not really 'science' anymore, it's pure religion.

IF one group or another uses some overconfident language in explanations "dumbed down" for public consumption... well, its simply not that big of a deal.

It is to me. It bugs me as much as it bugs atheists when theists use overconfident language about 'evidence for God'. When there is no evidence of doubt, no evidence of them second guessing their *original* claims, and no empirical support, then it's really just a two bit *bad* religion.

For sure it doesnt reflect an actual level of certainty about reality similar to the certainty that religious people like to bask in.

Well, I'm afraid my last 8 years of online debates would suggest exactly the opposite is true. Just look at the draconian rule system over at Cosmoquest. Any and all opposing cosmological points of view are actually dismissed with great prejudice, and even *major* falsification data is simply swept under the carpet, much like we're seeing with the Planck data right now. Every possible falsification opportunity is simply used as an excuse to insert yet another ad hoc supernatural construct.

The basic "expansion'" dogma is the equivalent of a "sacred" belief in astronomy today, even though Hubble himself talked about *two* possible solutions/explanations for redshift, not one.

 

[Michael]

For sure it doesnt reflect an actual level of certainty about reality similar to the certainty that religious people like to bask in.

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments | Popular Science

When the "scientists" start "controlling" all dissent, it's frankly rather hard to believe that they don't have that same 'certainty' that you're describing. Sure, some spammers and 'deniers' bug me too, but if you're not allowed to even discuss these things anymore, it's more like "preaching from the high and mighty pulpit" than actual science.

 

[Davian]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7753868-70/#post64188950

You know I love you Mr Strawberry, and I'm not picking on you individually, or directing my question to you personally, but this particular exchange seems to be quite common around here. It begs the question: What exactly counts as "evidence"?

In science it's not uncommon for 'evidence" to be based upon a perceived *effect* that something has on another thing. For instance, we notice the *effect* that gravity has on objects. We notice the effect that EM fields have on charged particles.

The concept of evidence gets blurry quickly however as we move toward 'theoretical' physics because the cause/effect relationship *cannot be demonstrated* in controlled experimentation. For instance, there is no cause/effect demonstration between redshift and 'expansion of space' in the lab, no cause/effect demonstration between inflation and expansion of space, not cause/effect demonstration between dark energy and expansion of space, no demonstration between exotic matter and any effect on photons. All the cause/effect relationships are simply *assumed* without respect to laboratory confirmation.

What then can be considered *evidence* for something like a "Holy Spirit" that according to many humans has a tangible effect on humans?

What is this "tangible effect"?

 

[Michael]

What is this "tangible effect"?

According to those who've written about for the past few thousand years, it is most commonly associated with the conveyance of knowledge/information and/or feelings of peace/tranquility/bliss.