Evolution

[atomweaver]

He's right you know,

Naraoia = She

 

[Tinker Grey]

We have had this discussion so many times before,
are you saying that because we can not prove there is no God there may be a God?
there is no proof that there are no (put anything you like here) so must we consider they may exist,
that is just ludicrous, when do we use logic, common sense, and our normal five senses?
has anyone proved that magic is not possible? we could go on forever thinking of things that might be.

I think the sum of lucaspa's statement is that "God did it" and "God did not do it" are both unscientific statements.

Nothing requires you to consider either statement as true. Since neither can be tested, they both can be dismissed as a matter of scientific enquiry.

For me, then, given that I can't demonstrate or prove or test a god (whether by faith or science or whatever method of "knowing" someone wants to claim), I conclude it is rational to disregard the premise that there is a god. Belief in a non-demonstratable premise is of no value to me.

 

[consol]

I think the sum of lucaspa's statement is that "God did it" and "God did not do it" are both unscientific statements.

That goes without saying, it's impossible to prove a negative, and either way we look at it, God is a negative.

For me, then, given that I can't demonstrate or prove or test a god (whether by faith or science or whatever method of "knowing" someone wants to claim), I conclude it is rational to disregard the premise that there is a god. Belief in a non-demonstratable premise is of no value to me.

Me too, I could not agree more.

 

[TheDag]

No I am not wrong, in fact I am completely and absolutely right, and you know it,
(here's an assumption for you) you are just like all religious people, blind and deaf to anything that might upset their beliefs,
truth is not on your agenda, all you want is to be left alone to believe in the fantasy that someone put into your head,
why? because you need to believe it.

once again you are wrong. Once again you make assumptions without knowing what my beliefs are. People who have known me over time are aware that i have changed my beliefs on various topics because I was shown that I was wrong. I would be willing to bet that you have no idea what I believe and don't believe.

You however are blind and deaf in your beliefs. If you can't explain something then you consider it obviously can't be true. You are treating science as a religion rather than treating science as science. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. I think Naraoia is right. You should be ignored unless you can prove that you can have a rational conversation. Luckily for me there are others here who are willing and able to demonstrate what science is actually about rather than what you present it as being.

 

[lucaspa]

We have had this discussion so many times before,
are you saying that because we can not prove there is no God there may be a God?

If you put the emphasis on "may", then yes.

there is no proof that there are no (put anything you like here) so must we consider they may exist, that is just ludicrous, when do we use logic, common sense, and our normal five senses?

Sorry, but this is how science works. So you have just called science "ludicrous". Let me give you an example:
"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 suddenly 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.

Let's consider tachyons in particular. In terms of science they are very much like deity. They are allowed by theory, they are undetectable, and they are a pain in the butt if they exist. But we do consider that they may exist. Do you really want to declare that it is impossible for tachyons to exist? If you allow that they may exist, then you are doing nothing but Special Pleading in arguing for a different set of rules for deity.

has anyone proved that magic is not possible? we could go on forever thinking of things that might be.

And guess what? That's what science does! We go on forever thinking of things that might be. That's how all the scientific progress to date has been done! Right now Bojowald is considering a universe that might be before ours. Some people are considering that there are little pieces of space that might be (loop quantum gravity), I'm considering that there are adult stem cells that, when placed in an intervertebral disc, will become nucleous pulposus cells.

You are more a danger to science than any creationist. You would prevent us from doing science at all because you would stop us from "thinking of things that might be".

As to magic, tell us what you mean by that word. Remember Clarke's Law: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[lucaspa]

That goes without saying, it's impossible to prove a negative,

Nonsense. We prove negatives all the time. Let's take the negative "the earth is not flat". That has been proved, wouldn't you agree? And how about the statement "the earth is not the center of the solar system"? Also proved.

Consol, science mostly proves negatives. That is the result of the deductive logic science uses. True statements cannot have false consequences. Find false consequences and the statement is false. You've "proved the negative" of the statement.

"either way we look at it, God is a negative."

Please explain that.

 

[lucaspa]

Nothing requires you to consider either statement as true. Since neither can be tested, they both can be dismissed as a matter of scientific enquiry.

That's not quite accurate. It's not that they can be dismissed as a matter of scientific enquiry, but rather that science is unable (right now) to gather evidence either for or against either.

For me, then, given that I can't demonstrate or prove or test a god (whether by faith or science or whatever method of "knowing" someone wants to claim), I conclude it is rational to disregard the premise that there is a god. Belief in a non-demonstratable premise is of no value to me.

This is a rationale for your own belief. You apparently can't test deity, but theists have. So we are talking about your own shortcomings, not a shortcoming of theism.

However, I submit that you do indeed have belief in a "non-demonstrable premise". In order for you to "disregard the premise that there is a god", you must believe that natural processes happen on their own. BUT, you can't demonstrate or prove that. See my thread on Methodological Naturalism. So it appears that "a non-demonstrable premise" is of value to you after all. And there goes your rationale out the window.

You need to find a legitimate rationale. There is one.

 

[lucaspa]

We have had this discussion so many times before,
are you saying that because we can not prove there is no God there may be a God?
there is no proof that there are no (put anything you like here) so must we consider they may exist,
that is just ludicrous, when do we use logic, common sense, and our normal five senses?
has anyone proved that magic is not possible? we could go on forever thinking of things that might be.

I notice that you never came up with the peer-reviewed scientific article to back your claim of "fact". Instead, all we get are excuses.

 

[lucaspa]

And wasn't the message of that story that you shouldn't be skeptical like Thomas?

Not really. Instead, since most people are not going to be able to get the same evidence Thomas did, Jesus is blessing those who are able to believe without getting that particular evidence.

John 20:27: "Then Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who haven't seen me and believe anyway."

Of course I can understand that something so dependent on subjective experience as religion would not want you to doubt and seek more solid evidence,

We are all dependent on subjective experience in most of our lives. Science is a very limited form of knowing and applies only to a minority part of our lives. The story is not that believers should not seek evidence; other passages urge them to do so. It's just that no one else is going to be able to get this evidence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nonsense. We prove negatives all the time. Let's take the negative "the earth is not flat". That has been proved, wouldn't you agree? And how about the statement "the earth is not the center of the solar system"? Also proved.

Nope: the first is incredibly well-evidenced, and the second is a matter of definition (the centre of the universe is wherever you want it to be). There's a reason why scientific theories are never promoted to 'fact'.

Consol, science mostly proves negatives.

Science proves nothing, since its premises are themselves unprovable. That's just a consequence of our inherent epistemological limitations.

That is, you can't prove that you're not a brain in a vat, so you can't prove that anything about your perceived reality.

 

[lucaspa]

When I was working around them (no longer am) it was an unskilled job. I also have friends and family who I included in the figure I gave. So my involvement was certainly not one scientist to another or anything like that. I just happened to work with them.

The problem Hespera has (and I have it too) is that you tried to use this relationship to give you greater "authority" than you have. I don't know what the "unskilled job" was, but I am guessing you have not had an post-college science training. That means, unless you do some reading in the philosophy of science literature, that you have not had their exposure as to how and why scientists do what they do. But you were trying to tell us that science and scientists work a particular way. Bottom line, you don't have enough information to back the claims you were making.

The bible instructs in several places to check what you are taught and make sure it is true.

But did you? Did you question all 200+ scientists you claim you know about this claim that scientists discredit each other's work for funding?

there are certainly those who will never question any scientific study.

True. But remember that scientific studies are checked before they are published! They have to go thru peer-review and those reviewers are very critical. Do you remember any conversations about trouble the scientists were having getting their work published? About the comments made by peer-reviewers and how many journals turned the study down?

Yes, we still get some bad studies slipping thru peer-review. It's not a perfect system. But there is a basis for lay people not questioning studies in the scientific literature: the study got questioned before it was published.

I would say that lay people need to be a lot more careful about news reports of scientific studies. Those are often overhyped and the titles often are inaccurate. You need to read the whole article for details and you will often find the details contradict the newsperson's wild claims.

 

[Hespera]

The problem Hespera has (and I have it too) is that you tried to use this relationship to give you greater "authority" than you have. I don't know what the "unskilled job" was, but I am guessing you have not had an post-college science training. That means, unless you do some reading in the philosophy of science literature, that you have not had their exposure as to how and why scientists do what they do. But you were trying to tell us that science and scientists work a particular way. Bottom line, you don't have enough information to back the claims you were making.




But did you? Did you question all 200+ scientists you claim you know about this claim that scientists discredit each other's work for funding?



True. But remember that scientific studies are checked before they are published! They have to go thru peer-review and those reviewers are very critical. Do you remember any conversations about trouble the scientists were having getting their work published? About the comments made by peer-reviewers and how many journals turned the study down?

Yes, we still get some bad studies slipping thru peer-review. It's not a perfect system. But there is a basis for lay people not questioning studies in the scientific literature: the study got questioned before it was published.

I would say that lay people need to be a lot more careful about news reports of scientific studies. Those are often overhyped and the titles often are inaccurate. You need to read the whole article for details and you will often find the details contradict the newsperson's wild claims.

I think maybe our Dag just has a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that science progresses by falsifying, not by proving.

You could interpret it as people "discrediting" each other, in the way that politicians try to do, trashing each other's character and integrity. If science were like that it would be a very unpleasant and unproductive field to be in. Its not like that though. Its too bad Dag got that impression.
Its not the correct interpretation.

None of the unskilled workers around the dept here have any more than just the say-hi-in-the-hall sort of relationship with the professors. They are operating in totally different circles. If someone got to know one or two of them, somehow, you might get some in-depth talk, tho our stockroom and custodial staff arent likely to understand much of it.

Substantive discussions with 200 plus though... that is a claim that does not ring true. Id sure have to hear some exact details before i'd give it any credibility.

 

[lucaspa]

Nope: the first is incredibly well-evidenced,

And that "well-evidenced" shows that the earth is not flat, doesn't it? We've proved a negative!

and the second is a matter of definition (the centre of the universe is wherever you want it to be).

I didn't say "universe" did I? I said "solar system". And yes, the earth is not the center of the solar system. We've proved another negative.

There's a reason why scientific theories are never promoted to 'fact'.

First, you have apples and oranges. You are talking about supported theories. I'm talking about falsified theories. It is possible to definitively falsify a theory. When we do, we have "proved a negative." That's what falsification is.

Second, well, actually theories are taken as "fact". The theory "the earth is round" is regarded as fact. Right? Whewell showed that supported theories are accepted as fact in more advanced theories. His example was the Kepler's theories of planetary orbits became "fact" in Newtons' theory of gravity.

Third, technically you are correct in that scientific theories are never "proved" in the strict sense of the word. There are several reasons for this.
1. You can't "prove" by inductive logic.
2. You can only disprove by deductive logic. You can't "prove" by deductive logic because:

a. no matter how many falsification tests a theory has survived, there are still an infinite number of tests awaiting (and the theory may fail one of them) and
b. no matter how well supported a theory is, there may be another theory that better explains the evidence you have.

Science proves nothing, since its premises are themselves unprovable. That's just a consequence of our inherent epistemological limitations.

You are not listening. Science disproves. This is inherent in deductive logic:
If H, then C
Not C
Therefore not H.

Or, true statements cannot have false consequences.

Now, you have opened another discussion: the assumptions behind science. This is different than whether science can "prove" or disprove by the methods it uses. As you originally started your post, these are irrelevant.

And yes, in any search for truth you are going to come upon statements that you must assume are true but you may never be able to "prove" are true. The 2 most essential statements are:
1. I exist.
2. I am sane.

You're example about a brain in a vat goes to #1. Nor can we prove we are not in the Matrix. But this is different from being able to prove that the earth is not flat. Within these essential statements, we can prove negatives.

But everyone accepts those 2 statements.

In addition, there are 5 assumptions about the physical universe necessary to do science:
1. Rationality.
2. Accessibility.
3. Contingency.
4. Objective.
5. Unified.

These happen to be conclusions about the nature of the universe Christians derived from their belief in God. Several scholars have argued that this is the major reason that modern science developed in Western Europe when it did instead of dying still born as it had in previous cultures: the assumptions necessary to do science were handed to science on a silver platter by Christianity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And that "well-evidenced" shows that the earth is not flat, doesn't it? We've proved a negative!

No: evidence does not constitute proof. No matter how much evidence we have to the contrary, the possibility remains that the Earth is, in fact, flat.

It's just that this possibility becomes ever more remote, to the point that it is proven all reasonable doubt.

It is not until all doubt has been removed that one can call it proven.

I didn't say "universe" did I? I said "solar system". And yes, the earth is not the center of the solar system. We've proved another negative.

We've done no such thing. My point was that there is no special point in space in the universe, and this extends to the solar system because, obviously, the latter is in the former.

That is, the 'centre' is wherever you define it to be. It could be the Earth, the centre of mass, the galactic core, the centre of the Oort cloud, the Sun, etc.

In any case, you first have to prove the existence of the solar system itself exists.

Second, well, actually theories are taken as "fact". The theory "the earth is round" is regarded as fact. Right?

Insofar as they have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. History tells us, however, that this property does not preclude a theory from being subsequently disproven: classical mechanics was once established fact, but has since been refuted.

Whewell showed that supported theories are accepted as fact in more advanced theories. His example was the Kepler's theories of planetary orbits became "fact" in Newtons' theory of gravity.

On the contrary, Newton's theory itself was disproven. Kepler's posits were evidenced by mathematical models (both classical and relativistic), but the fact remains that the true situation is completely different. It's unlikely, but nonetheless possible. Logic proves, science evidences.

You are not listening. Science disproves. This is inherent in deductive logic:
If H, then C
Not C
Therefore not H.

Or, true statements cannot have false consequences.

I understand that. But the point is we cannot use science to determine C or ¬C with absolute certainty. Your logic is valid, but your premises unsound.

Now, you have opened another discussion: the assumptions behind science. This is different than whether science can "prove" or disprove by the methods it uses. As you originally started your post, these are irrelevant.

And yes, in any search for truth you are going to come upon statements that you must assume are true but you may never be able to "prove" are true. The 2 most essential statements are:
1. I exist.
2. I am sane.

My existence is known, not assumed. My sanity, however, is.

You're example about a brain in a vat goes to #1. Nor can we prove we are not in the Matrix. But this is different from being able to prove that the earth is not flat. Within these essential statements, we can prove negatives.

But everyone accepts those 2 statements.

Not everyone.

Several scholars have argued that this is the major reason that modern science developed in Western Europe when it did instead of dying still born as it had in previous cultures: the assumptions necessary to do science were handed to science on a silver platter by Christianity.

Err, science flourished in all countries. Ancient Asia and Greece, the Middle-East during the Islamic Golden Age, etc. Human curiosity is universal. Science flourishes where like-minded people can meet and organise coordinated enterprises without the burden of survival.

The people indigenous to Africa have, to put it lightly, been preoccupied with famine, drought, and disease, to worry too much about scientific pursuits (notice the exception of Egypt: with plentiful food and water, a grand civilisation could flourish). The West, with the discovery of the New World, had no such concerns: with plenty of food and water, medicine and resources, scientists could investigate the world with unparalleled freedom.

Indeed, the only link science has with Christianity is that the first modern scientists were those who went out into the world to find evidence supporting the events depicted in the Bible (Eden, the Noah's Ark, etc).

 

[Naraoia]

double post

 

[Naraoia]

Nonsense. We prove negatives all the time. Let's take the negative "the earth is not flat". That has been proved, wouldn't you agree? And how about the statement "the earth is not the center of the solar system"? Also proved.

I think (read: hope) consol might have meant "universal negative" I still don't understand how God is a negative, though.

 

[consol]

I still don't understand how God is a negative, though.

A God is and will remain a negative until we are able to say that it's possible for Gods to exist,
if we are talking in fantasies or dreams then Gods or anything else for that matter might exist,
but if our feet are on the ground and we are thinking straight we must assume that a God can not exist,
we might want or need a God to exist but that changes nothing other than our thoughts.

We must draw a line and say what we think is possible and what we think is not possible,
to say ANYTHING is possible is just muddying the water, because ANYTHING is obviously NOT possible,
and Gods are one of the things that are NOT possible, along with fish that eat planets.

 

[TheDag]

Substantive discussions with 200 plus though... that is a claim that does not ring true. Id sure have to hear some exact details before i'd give it any credibility.

So because it has not been your experience you doubt it can be true. is that what is known as good scientific method?

 

[Danyc]

So because it has not been your experience you doubt it can be true. is that what is known as good scientific method?

No, that's what is known as reasonable doubt.

I have it also. 200?



Science is the means by which we discover how God created. Lucaspa has already explained this to you but I did not see you reply to him on the subject. It is probably the most important one here.

Ignore consol.

 

[Hespera]

So because it has not been your experience you doubt it can be true. is that what is known as good scientific method?

It has nothing to do with "good scientific method". It has to do with common sense.

You claim to have learned from scientists something significant about the way they work. Got the same info from some 200 of them, apparently?

Those of us who work in science, with scientists, have a very different understanding of how things work.

So who is going to be credible? The unskilled worker looking in from outside with whatever memory or understanding of what he thinks "200 scientists" all said to him?

Sorry.. I just dont buy it.

I wont presume to tell you your job, whatever it is.

As for science, how about if you just learn how it really works from those who know, and let it go at that.