Do evolutionists silence the critics?

[Athlon4all]

Remember, Jesus -- according to orthodox Christian theology -- was totally human.

But he was also God. He clearly showed knowledge that was greater than a normal human being. I'll point to Mark 2:

Mar 2:6-11
(6) But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
(7) Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
(8) And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
(9) Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
(10) But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
(11) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

See here how Jesus was able to know what the scribes were thinking. Jesus was completely man while being completely God. This is the mystery of Incarnation. Also, let us not forget that "Jesus said unto Him I am...the truth.." His supported Literal Genesis with his statements, and he is truth and he was completely God so you caannot refute what Jesus said based on that Jesus was fully man.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
An unscientific proposition, one that is not empirically supported, may well be rejected out of hand under a rational epistemology. There is an infinite search space of possible explanations for any given experience. Logic tells us that there are an infinite number of wrong answers in that search space. We can assume at the outset that the probability of any given proposition in that search space is wrong. Exceptions can be made on the basis of faith ...However, I cannot be required to take any given hypothesis seriously, otherwise, I could never have hope of freeing myself from the task of evaluating an infinite number of false propositions - including many that are untestable and unconfirmable - in order to spend time evaluating the truth of those which I choose to have (at least provisional) faith in. 

I wanted to get back to this one.  Most hypotheses in science are proposed without empirical support.  As Popper noted: "I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." So, your criteria of eliminating hypotheses also applies to science.  We are supposed to eliminate any and all hypotheses without empirical support, according to your criteria.  If we follow your criteria, then no one does science. Since science is done, then your criteria is falsified.

You are also worried because there are an infinite number of wrong hypotheses out there and we are not supposed to consider them.  Again, science does not agree.  You have heard that science is tentative.  That is, its conclusions are not final.  One reason for this is that one of the infinite hypotheses out there might explain the data better. Therefore we can't dismiss them out of hand.   This idea of considering the infinite number of hypotheses as valid is expressed by Eldredge:

"On the other hand, the basic prediction of evolution, as we have just seen, is abundantly confirmed.  Does this mean that we have proven evolution to be "true"?  It is more accurate to say that, thus far, we have failed to *falsify* the notion of evolution, but it is always possible that new observations will show the apparent pattern of progressive similarity that seems to link up all of life is, in some sense, false.  Also, it is possible that someone in the future will come up with an idea other than evolution that will also predict the patterns of similarity we see in the organic realm."  Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business, A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, pg. 38

Until an idea is falsified, no matter how outlandish it may seem to you, it can't be dismissed.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
But he was also God. He clearly showed knowledge that was greater than a normal human being. I'll point to Mark 2:See here how Jesus was able to know what the scribes were thinking. Jesus was completely man while being completely God.

Yes, that is orthodox Christian Christology -- completely human and completely divine.  However, your passage notes that while Jesus knew what the scribes were thinking, it does not say that Jesus had knowledge outside the general knowledge of humankind at the time.  Does it?  Even when Jesus is being questioned in the Temple at age 12, he is displaying the maximum amount of knowledge available at the time, but not knowledge beyond that of his questioners.

So, my point still stands. The objection to theistic evolution based upon the idea that Jesus can't be "wrong" is not supported Biblically or by orthodox theology.  Jesus could indeed by "wrong" by being human and limited to the knowledge of humans at the time. And the objection to theistic evolution disappears without harming Christianity.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Lucaspa,

Thank you for getting back to this subject. If you will, later today I will begin a new thread for this discussion. I will let you know - I think this belongs in Apologetics more than in Science/Evolution, but since it began here & everyone has been following it here (and since I don't like posting in GA), I will probably post it here.

Hopefully, I can finish this off. Right now, I must be busy with other concerns, but this evening I will find time to respond in a new thread.

 

[lucaspa]

Morat: A thought, however: I realize Lucapsa is gone for the time being, but this is the second or third time he (or is it she?) has brought up logical positivism in regards to atheism. (IE, you're relying on logical positivism which is false because the verification criterion can't be verified).

The issue here is that Lucapsa rightly rejects logical positivism as flawed, but does not understand nor embrace it's successor: semantic holism.

Morat, you can check my gender easily enough by looking at my profile. It is listed.

Now, logical positivism was the philosophy of science. I have been researching semantic holism and find that it has not replaced logical positivism in philosophy of science.  Which, of course, explains why I have never encountered it in the Philosophy of Science, the journal of the Philosphy of Science Association (and yes, I am a member).

In fact, I find that you substitute semantic holism precisely because it is derived from logical positivism:
"If we combine this confirmation holism with the Logical Positivist (q.v.) doctrine that the meaning of a sentence is its method of verification or confirmation, that is if we combine the doctrine that meaning is confirmation with the claim that confirmation is holistic, we get semantic holism."  http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/MentalSemanticHolism.html  So, you are simply giving us logical positivism by another name. With all the flaws of logical positivism.

What replaced logical positivism in science was falsification.

Semantic holism, however, states that you cannot ever truly show the parrot is dead.

No matter what test, what observation, what claim you make, there is always a way around it.

What you can show is that the statement "the parrot is alive" is false.  But the statement "the parrot is dead" is always tentative in science, just like any theory is always tentative.

The problem for atheism is that science cannot falsify the existence of deity in general or the Judeo-Christian deity in particular.  Yet atheism claims not to be a faith, which means it must be knowledge. Therefore, militant atheism must find a way to show a statement to be false without the empirical, intersubjective data to do so.  The danger to science is that militant atheism will gladly change science to do so. This is more dangerous than creationism screwing around with a couple of particular theories; this attempts to change what science is and how it works.

What if the parrot is an illusion? What if you can't trust your senses?

This gets back to the two essential assumptions on any search for truth: you exist and you are sane.  Sanity is what you need to trust your senses.  However, given those two assumptions -- which everyone makes -- you can still falsify because true statements can't have false consequences. Therefore you can definitely show that the parrot is not dead by showing that the parrot has the characteristics of life: metabolism, response to stimuli, growth, and reproduction.  Any one of these falsifies the statement that the parrot is dead.

What if a trick convergence of light beams is causing you to examine a different dead parrot?

Welcome to Pierre Duhem's testing of hypotheses in bundles, backed by Quine.  Individual theories/hypotheses are never tested singly.  Instead they are tested in huge bundles.  One of the underlying set of hypotheses tested in examining the parrot is the whole theory of optics.  However, while hypotheses are tested in bundles, they can be tested in different bundles. This is where the controls come in -- testing the same bundle of hypotheses except the one hypothesis you are interested in. You can have a control to be sure that the underlying optics are operating.  

You can't, in essence, rule out the brain in the jar, the dragon in the garage, or the invisible pink unicorn. No matter how you think to test for it, no matter how clever you are with things, there's always a way around it.

Back to Duhem again.  Yes, you can save any hypothesis from refutation by simply proposing, ad hoc, that one of the underlying hypotheses doesn't work.  And you can always propose new ad hoc hypotheses to explain contrary evidence.  Thus, naive falsification is not a criteria to distinguish science from non-science. But, you don't have to use naive falsification.  Also, falsification doesn't depend on the person admitting the hypothesis is falsified.  Thus, you can continue to refuse to admit that invisible pink unicorn is falsified.  Hypotheses are independent of the people advocating them.  Just like the guilt or innocence of a person on trial is independent of what the defendent admits.  That you refuse to admit that IPU is falsified doesn't change that IPU is falsified.  Just so that creationists refuse to admit that creationism is falsified doesn't effect that creationism is falsified.

To be a good scientist or even a good searcher for truth means that you have the personal honesty and integrity to admit when your pet theory is falsified.  But even your lack in that area does not change whether the theory is falsified. 

Which is why science (and people) use things like burden of proof,

"Burden of proof" is something used in debates.  In science, all claims bear the same "burden of proof". 

With an infinite number of possibilities, I am forced to reject them all unless I have some evidence they are correct.

You are forced to reject the ones that have been falsified.  Your conclusion that the parrot is dead remains tentative because you have not been able to reject all the other hypotheses and one of them could turn out to be correct.

This is not faith.

I disagree. The idea that you are forced to reject them all without evidence they are correct is a faith.  You have taken a philosophical position contrary to science and decided that this is a way to determine truth.  That is faith.

This is the only way to function, period, in life.

There are other ways to function. Science does use another method.  Hypotheses not falsified are possible until falsified.  You live with unanswered questions.  That you declare your viewpoint the only one is very scary to me.  It is just as dogmatic as anything any creationist has said in this forum.  And you are killing science.

Semantic holism requires Jerry's "reasonable epistomology".

Semantic holism may require Jerry's position, but semantic holism itself is not required.  It is an untenable position that won't stand critical testing.  Because, if nothing is certain, then even semantic holism isn't certain.  How do you know your reasoning to get to semantic holism isn't an illusion?  How can you trust your own reasoning processes? See, try to be a real skeptic for a while and test your own hypotheses with your own hypotheses. 

Science works like this, as well. Neutrinos were only one of an infinite number of potential explanations for certain particle behavior.  Until experiments were desigened and performed that yielded positive evidence for neutrinos

See, this is where militant atheists try to rewrite science. Yes, neutrinos were one of possible explanations.  They were accepted because all the alternative conceivable hypotheses were falsified. The theory of neutrinos are still tentative because it is possible that a better theory is out there to explain the same results.

What you call "positive" results are controls that falsify all the conceivable alternative hypotheses.

Let me give you an example of science at work, the importance of falsification, and living with possibilities:

"1.  Tachyons:  can we rule them out.

The special theory of relativity has been tested to unprecedented accuracy, and appears unassailable.  Yet tachyons are a problem.  Though they are allowed by the theory, they bring with them all sorts of unpalatable properties.  Physicists would like to rule them out once and for all, but lack a convincing nonexistence proof.  Until they construct one, we cannot be sure that a tachyon won't sudently be discovered.

3.  Time travel:  just a fanstasy?

The investigation of exotic spacetimes that seem to permit travel into the past will remain an active field of research.  So far, the loophole in the known laws of physics that permits time travel is very small indeed.  Realistic time-travel scenarios are not known at the time of writing.  But as with tachyons, in the absence of a no-go proof, the possibility has to stay on the agenda.  So long as it does, paradoxes will haunt us.''  Paul Davies, About Time, 1994.

 

[Morat]

Now, logical positivism was the philosophy of science. I have been researching semantic holism and find that it has not replaced logical positivism in philosophy of science. Which, of course, explains why I have never encountered it in the Philosophy of Science, the journal of the Philosphy of Science Association (and yes, I am a member).

In fact, I find that you substitute semantic holism precisely because it is derived from logical positivism:
"If we combine this confirmation holism with the Logical Positivist (q.v.) doctrine that the meaning of a sentence is its method of verification or confirmation, that is if we combine the doctrine that meaning is confirmation with the claim that confirmation is holistic, we get semantic holism." http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/...nticHolism.html So, you are simply giving us logical positivism by another name. With all the flaws of logical positivism.

It's quite possible I'm using the wrong terminology. It has been an awful long time since my college philosophy classes.

However, what I'm discussing is the conflict between verification and holism (no, they are not the same thing!). A verificationist will attempt to test an issue, secure in the knowledge that his test will yield an true/false type of answer.

A holist can avoid verification altogether, quite rationally, if he so chooses. Which is the point. It's the sort of confusion verificationists were trying to get away with, but you're stuck without a way to prove that the parrot is dead, because no matter what test, what evidence, uncertainty can and does exist.

Which doesn't change the "truth" of the matter, of course. I'd provisionally agree that the parrot is one or the other. The matter at hand is can it be proved with 100% certainity? The answer, of course, is no.

The problem for atheism is that science cannot falsify the existence of deity in general or the Judeo-Christian deity in particular.

Never claimed it did, despite your attempts to pin it on me. That gets tiresome, by the way. I can think for myself, and certainly are more cogent about my own worldview than you are.

Yet atheism claims not to be a faith, which means it must be knowledge.

Nope. My lack of belief is not faith, neither is it knowledge. My lack of believe, in fact, is grounded firmly in lack of knowledge. I lack any convincing reason to believe in God, therefore I don't.

Since I freely admit the possibility of error, I don't see how it can be faith or knowledge.

If you want, you can claim my personal requirements for "convincing reasons to think something is true" are a faith, but that isn't atheism. I'd be happy to admit my personal standards are axiomatic, true because I assume them to be. That'd qualify as faith, even though experience tends to bear them out.

But atheism is a result of them. And so is my belief that soccer is called "football" in England. Quite a little religion I've got there.

Therefore, militant atheism must find a way to show a statement to be false without the empirical, intersubjective data to do so. The danger to science is that militant atheism will gladly change science to do so. This is more dangerous than creationism screwing around with a couple of particular theories; this attempts to change what science is and how it works.

Really? Care to point to a few examples? All these militant atheists screwing around with science?

Apparantly I qualify, and I have no urge to change how science operates, despite many attempts to pin it on me. (Seriously, Lucapsa, how long before you stop interjecting those strawmen into the conversation? This could be a valuable and insightful conversation, if it wasn't for the fact that it's Lucapsa versus Strawman Atheist, with Morat's response).

This gets back to the two essential assumptions on any search for truth: you exist and you are sane. Sanity is what you need to trust your senses. However, given those two assumptions -- which everyone makes -- you can still falsify because true statements can't have false consequences. Therefore you can definitely show that the parrot is not dead by showing that the parrot has the characteristics of life: metabolism, response to stimuli, growth, and reproduction. Any one of these falsifies the statement that the parrot is dead.

I'd agree with you (on the two assumptions for getting along in life). Indeed, I don't believe in God because I don't add more assumptions to the list. My existance and experience does not give me any reason to believe God exists. To think otherwise would be to add basic assumptions. To believe in something without reason is faith.

Yet you claim the opposite is also faith. If believing in something without reason is faith, and not believing in something without reason is also faith, then you can't avoid faith, and we might as well find a new word to describe "Believing in something without reason" because that jolly well is different than "Not beliving in something because you don't have a reason".

As for the parrot: What test do you propose? Heartbeat? Perhaps it is merely slow, or weak, and thus not detectable by your instruments? Instrument error? There are many ways the parrot can still be alive, and look dead to your tests.

Welcome to Pierre Duhem's testing of hypotheses in bundles, backed by Quine. Individual theories/hypotheses are never tested singly. Instead they are tested in huge bundles. One of the underlying set of hypotheses tested in examining the parrot is the whole theory of optics. However, while hypotheses are tested in bundles, they can be tested in different bundles. This is where the controls come in -- testing the same bundle of hypotheses except the one hypothesis you are interested in. You can have a control to be sure that the underlying optics are operating.

What, you think I'd disagree? What do you think "reasonable certainity" means, if not finding ways to test that increase confidance level? But the whole problem is, not matter how well you test, you can't be sure.

Reasonable sure, certainly. But totally sure? Never.

Back to Duhem again. Yes, you can save any hypothesis from refutation by simply proposing, ad hoc, that one of the underlying hypotheses doesn't work. And you can always propose new ad hoc hypotheses to explain contrary evidence. Thus, naive falsification is not a criteria to distinguish science from non-science. But, you don't have to use naive falsification. Also, falsification doesn't depend on the person admitting the hypothesis is falsified. Thus, you can continue to refuse to admit that invisible pink unicorn is falsified. Hypotheses are independent of the people advocating them. Just like the guilt or innocence of a person on trial is independent of what the defendent admits. That you refuse to admit that IPU is falsified doesn't change that IPU is falsified. Just so that creationists refuse to admit that creationism is falsified doesn't effect that creationism is falsified.

To be a good scientist or even a good searcher for truth means that you have the personal honesty and integrity to admit when your pet theory is falsified. But even your lack in that area does not change whether the theory is falsified.

What, science comes down to opinion then? You believe the IPU is falsified because you think "pink" and "invisible" are mutually exclusive? Yet I do not think it is falsified, because I know when it chooses to be visible, it is pink?

Pshaw! Right back at you. Your lack in that area does not change whether the theory is falsified!

Sorry, Lucapsa, I don't think it works on personal opinion. You claim the IPU is falsified. I point out that your "test" doesn't apply, because it's based on a faulty understanding of the problem. Yet you're right, and I'm wrong?

Says who?

"Burden of proof" is something used in debates. In science, all claims bear the same "burden of proof".

Really? So, basically, you'd say that claiming successful cold fusion would get the same scrunity as a paper on the successful hybridization of common weeds?

You are forced to reject the ones that have been falsified. Your conclusion that the parrot is dead remains tentative because you have not been able to reject all the other hypotheses and one of them could turn out to be correct.

Almost. After all, what if your falsification was the result of instrument error? Is it still falsified?

I disagree. The idea that you are forced to reject them all without evidence they are correct is a faith. You have taken a philosophical position contrary to science and decided that this is a way to determine truth. That is faith.

Lucapsa, I don't understand how on Earth you can take me claiming that there is no way to determine truth as "a way to determine truth".

What's next, proving black is white?

As I've stated, since there is an infinite number of wrong answers, I cannot possibly falsify them all in a lifetime. Do you agree or disagree?

Since I can't possibly test/research/examine the merits of each and every possibly deity, I have to find another way to address them. Do you agree or disagree? (If you disagree, I want to know how to test an infinite number of concepts in a finite time-span).

I have chosen to test only those that have positive, empirical evidence to back them up, since that narrows the field dramitically. I have also rejected any that are logically contradictory.

And I don't think my conclusions are the "absolute truth".

There are other ways to function. Science does use another method. Hypotheses not falsified are possible until falsified. You live with unanswered questions.

Lucapsa, this is getting annoying. If you can't seperate me from the caricature in your head, I'm going to avoid this topic with you altogether. I'm sick of spending half my time correcting you on statements I have made.

You say "Hypothesis that are not falsified are possible until falsified". Quite true. But hypothesis that are not falsified, but have no positive evidence and have not been tested are not assumed to be true, either!.

That's your flaw, Lucapsa, where this whole conversation breaks down. You can't sit there and pretend that all hypothesis are considered valid until they're falsified. That's BS and you know it. If that was the case, why would we bother with "theory"?

Hypothesis may not be considered impossible until falsified, but they are certainly not considered valid or true.

 

[Morat]

That you declare your viewpoint the only one is very scary to me.

What? That you don't accept as "true" every possible answer until you've tested them all?

Go on, dispute it. Feel free. Let me know how you test an infinite number of explanations in a finite lifetime, okay?

It is just as dogmatic as anything any creationist has said in this forum. And you are killing science.

Me? Kill science? Hardly. Perhaps the strawman Atheist you have in your head. He seems quite stupid.

Semantic holism may require Jerry's position, but semantic holism itself is not required. It is an untenable position that won't stand critical testing. Because, if nothing is certain, then even semantic holism isn't certain.

Abso-fracking-lutely.

How do you know your reasoning to get to semantic holism isn't an illusion? How can you trust your own reasoning processes?

You don't. You can't. But you said it yourself. We all assume we exist, and that we're rather sane. We take them as true, because we need them to function.

Doesn't mean they're right.

See, try to be a real skeptic for a while and test your own hypotheses with your own hypotheses.

What makes you think I haven't, Lucapsa?

See, this is where militant atheists try to rewrite science.

We should form a club, you know. All this science rewriting. Perhaps we can get a tax break, eh?

Yes, neutrinos were one of possible explanations. They were accepted because all the alternative conceivable hypotheses were falsified. The theory of neutrinos are still tentative because it is possible that a better theory is out there to explain the same results.

Lucapsa: What was the state of neutrinos before any other alternative hypothesis were falsified? Were they considered valid? Or only potentially valid?

What you call "positive" results are controls that falsify all the conceivable alternative hypotheses.

Really? So, once we have positive evidence, we know we have the "truth". Why do we call them theories, then? Because we're so certain?

Positive evidence is merely "things we expect to see if this were true". It might falsify some alternative hypothesis, but not all of them.

Let me give you an example of science at work, the importance of falsification, and living with possibilities:

"1. Tachyons: can we rule them out.

The special theory of relativity has been tested to unprecedented accuracy, and appears unassailable. Yet tachyons are a problem. Though they are allowed by the theory, they bring with them all sorts of unpalatable properties. Physicists would like to rule them out once and for all, but lack a convincing nonexistence proof. Until they construct one, we cannot be sure that a tachyon won't sudently be discovered.

Yep. So? They haven't been falsified. Yet they're not shoved into the standard model and considered part of physics.

They're a big unknown, and the only time they're used is when trying to test for them, or rule them out.

Can you point out any paper that assumes tachyons exist that isn't testing for tachyons?

 

[Morat]

As to your statements about falsification (in another thread), I tend to agree with you. Scientific falsification is as close to 100% as you can get.

However, there's always wiggle room, as Creationists show. Radiometric dating should falsify a young earth. But of course, what if the tests are wrong? The assumptions behind the tests?

Long-shots. Unlikely. But possibilities none the less.

 

[Morat]

Let me emphasize a key point in this conversation:

I claim that science does not accept as valid unsupported and untested hypothesis.

That seems fairly straightforward. Commonsense. Derivative from the bloody terms "hypothesis" and "theory".

I don't, in fact, see how it's really arguable. A hypothesis is, pretty much, a guess. One based on experience, or facts, perhaps. But not something with a decent level of certainty. As long as lack of evidence, lack of support, lack of verification prevent it from attaining a decent level of certainity, it remains a hypothesis.

And a hypothesis, however interesting, isn't assumed to be true. It's a null concern, except for those testing the hypothesis in some way. It's taken as false, not in the sense that it's been conclusively disproved, but in the sense that there isn't enough evidence to treat it as true.

Except, of course (for you pedants out there) if you're trying to test or support the hypothesis in question. I wouldn't think I'd have to add something that obvious, but you'd be surprised at what some people will think.

To use the above examples: Until neutrinos accumulated enough evidence for physicists to be reasonable certain they existed, they weren't used. They weren't added to the standard model, for instance.

They were hypothetical particles. Anything using them was, by definition, using them hypothetically. Papers, experiments, anything that used them was testing them by sheer virtue of seeing if these hypothetical particles existed.

But no one walked around going "Neutrinos exist". They weren't used to patch up the standard model (the reason they'd first been deduced), for instance. Why not? Because until they were shown to be valid, they were treated as non-existant. Because they hadn't passed any tests, didn't have any evidence, and there was no reasonable certainity they existed.

Which is different than falsified. Very different.

By way of analogy: I'm driving down a long stretch of highway near Roswell. My brother turns to me, and says, do you think there will be a large spaceship-shaped diner around that bend in the distance?

There could be. I know, offhand, that diners exist. And it's not a stretch of the imagination to think one might be shaped like a spaceship. Not in this part of New Mexico. Which means, currently, the hypothesis that a spaceship-shaped diner exists around that bend is unfalsified.

But I have no evidence it's there yet. No signs. No previous experience. No notes in a roadmap. I can't see around the bend, obviously. No radio ads. Nothing.

Do I assume the diner is there? Do I tell my brother "Let's stop and eat there?"

Of course not. We don't know it's there. I can say "Well, if there is one, I'll want to stop.". But I don't plan to stop.

Why not? Because I don't believe it's there. However reasonable the hypothesis, I don't have any evidence it's correct. If I drive past a sign, hear an ad on the radio, or just turn the bend and see it....then it'll be different. I'll have some evidence.

But, you say, aren't those falsification tests? No. The lack of a sign doesn't mean it's not there. The lack of an ad, likewise. Not seeing it doesn't mean it's not there (I might not be there yet, or it might be hidden behind a few trucks or a small hill).

I don't think anyone, however, would argue that I was being unreasonable in not believing it existed. I don't think anyone would accuse me of having "faith" it didn't exist.

Yet people tell me the exact same logic, the exact same reasons, are faith when applied to God.

Why? I don't believe in God for the same reasons I don't believe in the diner around the corner, and diners are considerably more commonplace.

I fail to see the faith in not believing without reason.*



*And, once again for the pedants in the audience, by "reason" I mean "reasons which are convincing.". "Reasons which are convicing" can be assumed to mean "reasons or evidence that are sufficient given the nature of the claim (things which are unique or out of the ordinary will require more substantial evidence than things which are commonplace)".

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat Let me emphasize a key point in this conversation:

I claim that science does not accept as valid unsupported and untested hypothesis. ...And a hypothesis, however interesting, isn't assumed to be true. It's a null concern, except for those testing the hypothesis in some way. It's taken as false, not in the sense that it's been conclusively disproved, but in the sense that there isn't enough evidence to treat it as true.

Atheism has to claim more than that. In fact, logical positivism claimed more than that.  Both claim that unsupported and untested hypotheses are wrong.  That is exactly what you do and is what Jerry claimed. Look at your sentence again: "It's taken as false,"

This is where I strongly disagree and all of science disagrees with you. This is where you are misstating science.  Apparently you didn't read or didn't understand the quote from Davies.  To you the default position is that a statement is false until it is "proved".

But this isn't science.  The choice is broader than either rejecting the hypothesis or accepting it as valid. 

I am claiming that science does not reject unconfirmed and untested hypotheses.  It also doesn't accept them as valid.  Instead, science refrains from either and considers them possible.  You state this when you say: It's a null concern.  But then you turn around and state "It is false".  Morat, you are not even consistent within the same run-on sentence. 

The problem for atheism with all this is that science does work by falsification.  What isn't falsified stays on the table as possible. Therefore, for science to back atheism science should be able to falsify the existence of deity. But it can't.  Like tachyons, deity is possible in science.  Now, how many people run around saying they "lack a belief" in tachyons?  Or how many people say "I don't believe in" tachyons?  Or how many scientists consider the phrase "there is no evidence for" tachyons a reason to drop the idea?

Instead, what do you say? 

But no one walked around going "Neutrinos exist".  Because until they were shown to be valid, they were treated as non-existant. Because they hadn't passed any tests, didn't have any evidence, and there was no reasonable certainity they existed.

No one walked around saying "Neutrinos don't exist" either, did they?  So, were they really treated as non-existant?  As you say, no, they weren't. Because if they really were treated as non-existant, no one would have tested for their existence, would they?  Why spend a lot of time and effort something that you know don't exist?  So, the fact is that science didn't know whether neutrinos existed or not.  Just as science didn't know whether atoms existed or not and science doesn't know now whether tachyons exist or not.

Treating neutrinos as non-existant is not the "null position" you state earlier.  Rather, it is the logical positivist position that entities do not exist until they are "verified" (see your quote below). While admitting that logical positivism has been falsified and claiming that you don't use logical positivism, your statements are logical positivist.

Now, once the hypothesis has been tested and failed to be falsified, it is accepted as a supported hypothesis (see below).  At this point it is accepted as (provisionally) fact until and unless new data falsify it.  That is the stage neutrinos are at. It is the same stage atoms are at.

I don't, in fact, see how it's really arguable. A hypothesis is, pretty much, a guess. One based on experience, or facts, perhaps. But not something with a decent level of certainty. As long as lack of evidence, lack of support, lack of verification prevent it from attaining a decent level of certainity, it remains a hypothesis.

A logical positivist statement again.  Notice that you even use the word "verification".  BTW, even with support via testing and failing to falsify it, a hypothesis remains a hypothesis.  After testing it is either a falsified hypothesis or a supported hypothesis, depending on how the testing turned out.

And a hypothesis, however interesting, isn't assumed to be true. ...Except, of course (for you pedants out there) if you're trying to test or support the hypothesis in question. 

In order to test the hypothesis by the hypothetico-deductive method, you must assume the hypothesis is true in order to find deductions with observational consequences. 

The point, Morat, is although the hypothesis is not assumed to be true prior to testing, it is NOT assumed to be false.  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted Woodland  You keep trying to skew science to say that untested hypotheses are false until they are verified.  That isn't how science works.  Untested hypotheses are neither true nor false until testing.

Now, having driven that point home several times, let's look at your Roswell example and get to the heart of one of the problems atheists have with being told that their belief is a faith.

I don't think anyone, however, would argue that I was being unreasonable in not believing it existed. I don't think anyone would accuse me of having "faith" it didn't exist.

I submit that here is one of the problems, and it lies within atheists.  Atheists believe that theism is false; that deity does not exist.  Theists acknowledge that their belief in deity is faith.  Therefore, to atheists, "faith" is equaled to being false.  Thus, for me to say that atheism is a faith is heard, by atheists, as "atheism is false".  Also, to atheists, faith is unreasonable.  This is so much a part of their dogma that they have ceased to examine it.  So note Morat's emphasis on "unreasonable". 

I've said it before, but let me say it again.  Faith is almost never "unreasonable".  Theists have reasons for their faith.  I may not agree with them but they are reasons. Atheists have reasons for their faith.  When we started this dialogue I said that atheists pit their personal experience of no experience of deity against theists' personal experience of deity.  Morat never addressed that.  I'll say it again: everyone places their personal experience above that of others.  Science limits itself to only those personal experiences that are shared by everyone under approximately the same circumstances.  This gets around the problem of different personal experiences but it severely limits what science can investigate.

Bottom line: both atheists and theists are being reasonable. Both have faith.  Let's take this out of the realm of religion for a bit.  Last November I went to the polls and voted for the candidate I believed would do the best job.  It was a statement of faith.  I had no scientific evidence.  I had my personal experiences of listening or reading what the candidates said their positions were. I had my research on past performance. I had my own beliefs (faiths) of what I consider a "good" job to be and what policies are best for the country. Was my faith choice "unreasonable"? Of course not.  But did I know which candidate would do the best job. Of course not.

So, back to Morat's Roswell analogy with the diner.  He has three basic choices of what to say to his brother:
1. "I believe you're right and there is a diner there."
2. "I believe you are wrong and there isn't a diner there."
3. "I don't know whether you are right or wrong, we'll just have to wait and see."

The first two are obviously beliefs and faith. Morat doesn't know. As he points out, either position is reasonable.  But only the last choice is a non-faith position.

BTW, science is the third choice.

 

[Jerry Smith]

So, back to Morat's Roswell analogy with the diner. He has three basic choices of what to say to his brother:
1. "I believe you're right and there is a diner there."
2. "I believe you are wrong and there isn't a diner there."
3. "I don't know whether you are right or wrong, we'll just have to wait and see."

The first two are obviously beliefs and faith. Morat doesn't know. As he points out, either position is reasonable. But only the last choice is a non-faith position.

BTW, science is the third choice.

Ok, Lucaspa, I'm going to offer the obvious fourth choice here, and I think you will find science as compatible with it as with the "head shaking, we just don't know" response of #3. You will be able to see that especially well with claims that are not so ordinary as diners in New Mexico, such as leprachauns, tooth fairies & Santas.

4: Is there a good reason to believe that? Do you have that information from a trustworthy source, have you seen the diner before, etc..?

"No"

Then I don't believe you. You are just guessing, and I think you are guessing wrong. It's not unlikely that there is a diner shaped like a flying saucer, but it is unlikely that you would guess the correct place from all these miles of I-40 in the desert. The odds are against you being right & I therefore think you are wrong.

This is really a revision of option 2, but it could be taken as it's own 4th option. Since we know that there are more than 3 options for a response (and possibly much more - just the fact that we only listed three does not mean those are the only possibilities), we need not leave ourselves shrugging our shoulders and pretending a false uncertainty about the existence of Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

Lucaspa, I would greatly appreciate it if you addressed my comments from the other two threads about your false dichotomoy of faith vs knowledge, and about the impossibility of falsification of a particular hypothesis if unverified hypotheses cannot be dismissed.

The first two are obviously beliefs and faith. Morat doesn't know.

Once again, the false dichotomy. The first is a positive belief, and is faith. The fourth option is disbelief, not a belief that depends on faith or knowledge. Morat does not know, but since his belief is not a positive one, it is not a matter of a belief out of faith or belief out of knowledge, but a matter of strict uncertainty in the absence of faith and knowledge, or disbelief in the absence of faith and knowledge.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat To believe in something without reason is faith. ... If believing in something without reason is faith, and not believing in something without reason is also faith, then you can't avoid faith

Ah, here's the problem.  I got to this in the last post, but here you state it clearly.  GIGO. If you start off with the wrong premise, you will, of course, end up with the wrong conclusion.  Faith is not believing something without reason; faith is believing in something without proof.   From Merriam-Webster: "2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof" Now, go to "belief" "3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence "  Now go to "proof"  "1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"

The short answer to your complaint is: Yes, most of our existence involves faith statements; we can't avoid them.  For the simple reason that we almost never have the totality of evidence necessary to compel acceptance.

So, when atheism says deity does not exist, then it is faith because there is no compelling evidence for that.  When theists say deity does exist it is faith because, although they have reason and evidence, they don't have the evidence necessary to compel acceptance.

One last note: I see you are still trying to use the semantic sleight of hand "not believing in something".  That is equivalent to saying "believing something does not exist". 

Some of the myths that have infiltrated atheism are clearly evident now.  One is the myth that faith involves no reasons.  Yet any theist will give you his/her reasons for believing as they do.  You and I disagree with the reasons but they are reasons.

Now, once again let's look at your major reason for your faith: My existance and experience does not give me any reason to believe God exists.  Your experience does not include any experience of deity, as it includes experience of diners.  Your experience (and mine) is no experience of deity.  Therefore you hypothesize from that that deity does not exist. A logical hypothesis.  A reasonable hypothesis.  But is it the only hypothesis you and I can make?  No.  I already listed some alternative hypotheses:  we lack the deity detecting module in our brain; deity doesn't choose to contact us; we have been contacted but didn't recognize it for what it was.

Since the alternative hypotheses have not been falsified and, even by your standards we don't have verification that our untested hypothesis is correct, we have no compelling evidence (or any evidence) to say it's true.  Belief without compelling evidence is faith.

As I've stated, since there is an infinite number of wrong answers, I cannot possibly falsify them all in a lifetime. Do you agree or disagree?

Let's put it this way. There are VAST (very large number) but finite number of hypotheses and you can't test them all. In fact, some of them you probably won't even think of.  However, because you test hypotheses in very large bundles, you can indeed test all, or nearly all, the wrong answers by testing different bundles.

Now, the inability to test all hypotheses also means that there is a possible correct one out there. Which is one reason why science is tentative. Perhaps the hypothesis supported by the data now will turn out to be incorrect in the future.

However, that doesn't change that hypotheses that are falsified you know are falsified.

However, what I'm discussing is the conflict between verification and holism (no, they are not the same thing!). A verificationist will attempt to test an issue, secure in the knowledge that his test will yield an true/false type of answer.

Let's go back to the quote again: "If we combine this confirmation holism with the Logical Positivist (q.v.) doctrine that the meaning of a sentence is its method of verification or confirmation, that is if we combine the doctrine that meaning is confirmation with the claim that confirmation is holistic, we get semantic holism." http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/...nticHolism.html

Denying that they are the same thing doesn't address the evidence presented.  "Semantic holism states Mental (or semantic) holism is the doctrine that the identity of a belief content (or the meaning of a sentence that expresses it) is determined by its place in the web of beliefs or sentences comprising a whole theory or group of theories."  http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/MentalSemanticHolism.html

The difference is not in the confirmation or verification, but in whether statements are tested in isolation or in groups. Logical positivism said statements were tested individually and semantic holism says that statements are tested only as the whole of the language.

"but you're stuck without a way to prove that the parrot is dead, because no matter what test, what evidence, uncertainty can and does exist."

It's not uncertainty that is involved, but that the person being challenged changes one or more of the group of statements.   

The matter at hand is can it be proved with 100% certainity? The answer, of course, is no.

But the statement "the parrot is alive" can be falsified with 100% certainty (so can the statement "the parrot is dead"). What the Monty Python sketch shows is that the shopkeeper keeps changing one or more of the group of statements behind the statement "the parrot is dead".  IOW, that statement has a whole bunch of subsidiary statements on what a parrot is and what dead is.  The shopkeeper keeps changing those subsidiary statements.

Nope. My lack of belief is not faith, neither is it knowledge. My lack of believe, in fact, is grounded firmly in lack of knowledge. I lack any convincing reason to believe in God, therefore I don't.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Also, like the shopkeeper, you can change the meaning of "convincing" and "reason" to avoid any reason advanced by theists.  And you do.  You started off with "personal experience" but, once that was in danger, quickly changed it to objective, intersubjective evidence.

But I'm not trying to change your beliefs, Morat.  Stay atheist by all means.  The problem for science and for society is portraying a belief as knowledge.  Whenever people have done this in the past, violence has resulted as those with the belief find the people without it to be unreasonable and dangerous because they won't accept knowledge.  And yes, atheists do this. Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea wants theists locked up in zoos so they don't present a danger to people like you who "don't have beliefs".  This is a logical extension of your insistence that atheism isn't a faith.

Really? Care to point to a few examples?

Yep. Go to about.com and look at the essays in the Agnosticism/atheism section. Or look at yourself and what you state about hypotheses.  Don't forget Jerry's "reasonable epistemologies". Also, consider this letter to Science by a self-described "rational atheist"
"It would therefore appear that a rational atheism offers much better hope for the future, and I heartily agree with the criticism of the Templeton Foundation's various activities expressed by physicist Weinberg, while wondering how a scientific society like the AAAS ever came to have a once-ordained priest as head of the advisory board of its religion program." Ejnar J. Fjerdingstad*
Svendgaardsvej 52,
DK-8330 Beder, Denmark.
E-mail: ejfjerdingstad@po.ia.dk

Now, the "once-ordained priest" in question is Francisco Ayala, one of the most noted evolutionary biologists in the world and member of the NAS.  Dr. Fjerdingstad would have Ayala excluded based solely on once having been a priest. Never mind his scientific credentials.  If this isn't discrimination, I don't know what would qualify.
 
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5421/1773b 

 

[Jerry Smith]

I'm going to drop the other thread, for the simple reason that, instead of moving the discussion as I intended, we are spreading it out over several threads instead.

I will not equivocate on the meaning of the word "debate", as it is not important to the substance of this one. We can both save time by not equivocating on the meaning of terms that are tangential to the core of the "discussion". I will defer to your use of the term debate and, to avoid starting another "discussion," I will use the term "discussion from here on in.

Faith is not believing something without reason; faith is believing in something without proof.

But, science does not admit of proof in the sense of absolute knowledge. It admits only of evidence. Therefore, your position requires us to consider every scientific finding as one that is believed on faith, and truly nothing more. Most scientists will disagree with this, I believe. I think that they would suggest that they do have faith in the methods of science, but that those methods produce results that they may have a non-faith-like confidence in.

I think you are now equivocating on the meaning of the term "proof", and that you would characterize science as one reasonable method of gaining knowledge, not a system for acquiring more statements of faith.

If so, then the epistemology of philosophical naturalism likewise is a reasonable method of acquiring knowledge (aka a reasonable epistemology), and not a system of faith.

I will be back this evening. Please try to adress the false dichotomy of faith vs knowledge, and please address the fact that your position (that unverified and unverifiable hypotheses cannot be dismissed) makes falsification impossible, and therefore renders science powerles. I will look forward to your reply.

 

[sulphur]

Jerry I would recommend that you read stephan jay goulds book "the rocks of ages" which introduces the idea of NOMA . I think it would sort out some of your ideas.