Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[hangback]

But in every single case where the person answered, "Jesus Christ", the interviewer changed the subject.

"God did it" is indeed a powerful explanation.

Of course the interviewer changed the subject because that's how it works, what if they had said they got their inspiration from another God what would you have wanted the interviewer to do? not everyone believes in the same God as you AV1611VET.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm of the opinion that testability is not necessary for a hypothesis to be scientific. Otherwise, science is blind to explanations that, while untestable, could very well be true.

I disagree. Science is a process by which we use natural and physical laws to explain natural and physical phenomena. So yes science, in theory, could miss out on an explanation that is true, if it is a supernatural one. In such a case, teh answer would be beyond science. So far, however, we have always been able to come up with natural explanations for natural phenomena.

After all, maybe God did do it. For science to work at its best, it needs to acknowledge that possibility. It may not be able to do anything with it, but still.

What good is such an explanation if we cannot test it or make use of it?

 

[Nooj]

"God did it" explains Who did it, and in the case of God, should automatically explain how He did it.

'God did it' does not explain his methods.

If the question is about who did it, then is 'God did it' an explanation...or an answer?

 

[sbvera13]

When I see a board with a nail in it, I assume 'hammer did it'.

When I see a Focus, I assume 'Ford did it'.

When I see the stars in the night sky, I assume 'God did it'.

And when you happen to come across the one board with a nail in that was done by a rock, your assumptions will laugh at you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I disagree. Science is a process by which we use natural and physical laws to explain natural and physical phenomena. So yes science, in theory, could miss out on an explanation that is true, if it is a supernatural one. In such a case, teh answer would be beyond science. So far, however, we have always been able to come up with natural explanations for natural phenomena.

Which begs the question: what is 'natural', and what is 'supernatural'? A neutrino is deemed natural, and a ghost is deemed supernatural, but how do they differ?

What good is such an explanation if we cannot test it or make use of it?

An explanation tells us why things are the way they are. Testability allows us to check whether it's right or wrong. If we want to know the truth, we can't arbitrarily ignore perfectly viable hypotheses, otherwise we're shooting ourselves in our collective foot.

 

[sandwiches]

Which begs the question: what is 'natural', and what is 'supernatural'? A neutrino is deemed natural, and a ghost is deemed supernatural, but how do they differ?

Well, if it happens in nature (aka the universe) it's natural. If ghosts exist, then they're not supernatural. They're just natural.

An explanation tells us why things are the way they are. Testability allows us to check whether it's right or wrong. If we want to know the truth, we can't arbitrarily ignore perfectly viable hypotheses, otherwise we're shooting ourselves in our collective foot.

How can you have a viable, untestable hypothesis?

 

[Skaloop]

And when you happen to come across the one board with a nail in that was done by a rock, your assumptions will laugh at you.

Or an axe, or an airgun, or a nail-filled pipe bomb, or, or, or...

And even if it was a hammer, AV couldn't know what kind of hammer it was. It could have been any one of hundreds of different hammers than man has created. But he'll still try to tell you in no uncertain terms that it absolutely had to have been done with a V16.11 hammer from the King & James Hammer Co.

 

[BananaSlug]

The problem with "Goddidit" is that it is always used as a last resort, and never really answers anything. One could follow with "why did God choose that way" or "how did God do it"? It fails to give any actual understanding.

Why is the sky blue?

Science:

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air. However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

Creationism: "Goddidit"

One provides a way that is not only testable, but actually give quality information. The other seems more like a lazy answer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, if it happens in nature (aka the universe) it's natural. If ghosts exist, then they're not supernatural. They're just natural.

So only the natural exists, and anything that exists is natural. Thus, the distinction between the two is meaningless.

How can you have a viable, untestable hypothesis?

Easy: you posit an explanation for something, but the explanation doesn't lend itself to being tested. "Magic gnomes did it" constitutes an explanation, since magic gnomes may very well have done it in their own ineffable way, but not in any testable fashion.

 

[Skaloop]

"God did it", by explaining everything, explains nothing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The problem with "Goddidit" is that it is always used as a last resort, and never really answers anything. One could follow with "why did God choose that way" or "how did God do it"? It fails to give any actual understanding.

Why is the sky blue?

Science:

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air. However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

Creationism: "Goddidit"

One provides a way that is not only testable, but actually give quality information. The other seems more like a lazy answer.

But it's an answer nonetheless, right?

 

[sandwiches]

So only the natural exists, and anything that exists is natural. Thus, the distinction between the two is meaningless.

Correct.

Easy: you posit an explanation for something, but the explanation doesn't lend itself to being tested. "Magic gnomes did it" constitutes an explanation, since magic gnomes may very well have done it in their own ineffable way, but not in any testable fashion.

Then it is definitely not a viable hypothesis nor is it a useful nor meaningful explanation of anything. You can't do absolutely anything with such an explanation. It provides nothing but empty words.

 

[sandwiches]

But it's an answer nonetheless, right?

Since 'god did it' can be replaced with 'aliens did it' or 'Elvis did it' with absolutely no net difference, the statement is vacuous and entirely meaningless.

The problem is that unlike the answer 'I don't know' saying 'god did it' actually can be harmful in that it can make people stop looking for an explanation. If we had stopped at 'god did it' instead of science, we'd still be dying "old" at 40.

 

[3sigma]

Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

No, it isn’t an explanation; it is a thinly disguised admission of ignorance. Saying “Goddidit” is a condensed way of saying, “I don’t know how it happened, but I’m uncomfortable with not knowing so I’m going to assume an explanation that reinforces my comforting religious beliefs and I’m unwilling or unable to investigate the matter any further.”

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No, it isn’t an explanation; it is a thinly disguised admission of ignorance. Saying “Goddidit” is a condensed way of saying, “I don’t know how it happened, but I’m uncomfortable with not knowing so I’m going to assume an explanation that reinforces my comforting religious beliefs and I’m unwilling or unable to investigate the matter any further.”

QFT

//Thread

 

[Split Rock]

Which begs the question: what is 'natural', and what is 'supernatural'? A neutrino is deemed natural, and a ghost is deemed supernatural, but how do they differ?

Natural is by defintion something that exists in nature and follows natural laws. A ghost would be a spirtual or supernatural entity. You cannot see it, feel it, smell it or hear it (unless it is haunting you). WHOOOOOAAAOOWWWWWW!!!!!!

An explanation tells us why things are the way they are. Testability allows us to check whether it's right or wrong. If we want to know the truth, we can't arbitrarily ignore perfectly viable hypotheses, otherwise we're shooting ourselves in our collective foot.

How does not accepting a hypothesis you cannot test constitute "shooting one's self in the foot?" We will never know if it is correct anyway.

 

[Nooj]

Natural = that which exists, supernatural = that which does not exist?

 

[MoonLancer]

Natural = the falsifiable

supernatural = the unfalsifiable

at least that's my take

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Since 'god did it' can be replaced with 'aliens did it' or 'Elvis did it' with absolutely no net difference, the statement is vacuous and entirely meaningless.

Well, it's not entirely meaningless. 'God' has various connotations that 'Elvis' does not: to say 'Goddidit' is to say something rather specific and meaningful, albeit something untestable and unverifiable.

The problem is that unlike the answer 'I don't know' saying 'god did it' actually can be harmful in that it can make people stop looking for an explanation. If we had stopped at 'god did it' instead of science, we'd still be dying "old" at 40.

I'm not suggesting we accept it as an explanation, because science doesn't just look at what works. It looks at what works best, and 'Goddidit' has never the best available option.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Natural is by defintion something that exists in nature and follows natural laws.

You're going round in circles. If 'natural' is that which exists in nature, then what is 'nature'? If it's that which follows natural laws, what laws are 'natural', and why?

A ghost would be a spirtual or supernatural entity. You cannot see it, feel it, smell it or hear it (unless it is haunting you). WHOOOOOAAAOOWWWWWW!!!!!!

Then, by your definition, neutrinos are supernatural: you cannot see, feel, smell, or hear them.

In fact, ghosts aren't supernatural, since you can see, feel, hear, and even smell them (depending on which New Age hokery you subscribe to).

How does not accepting a hypothesis you cannot test constitute "shooting one's self in the foot?" We will never know if it is correct anyway.

"... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth..." - Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of the Four