Science and philosophy

[Micaiah]

From another thread:

Sorry, but no. Science doesn't work like that; it isn't literary criticism and it isn't philosophy. 2+2 always = 4, whatever way you look at it.

Is science that objective?

 

[notto]

Yep. It demands objective, repeatable observation that is falsifiable. It encourages challenges and review of its material, and self corrects when theories are falsified.

Most times scientific consensus is reached by a community of scientists who have a wide range or religious, political, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. What can be more objective than that?

 

[Crusadar]

Science objective? If anything it is materialistic in nature - where anything that falls outside of the natural world is not "science". Nothing more than materialistic bigotry if you ask me.

 

[Uphill Battle]

well, I don't know about every scientific discovery/process is completely materialistic, but I would think that it does by definition do away with any supernatural explanations for anything. But I would think that a great deal of scientific evidence is "fit" into whatever the current model is, unless it is self-contradictory.

 

[notto]

Science objective? If anything it is materialistic in nature - where anything that falls outside of the natural world is not "science". Nothing more than materialistic bigotry if you ask me.

Can you provide a way for science to objectively test for the supernatural or the unmaterialistic. Science doesn't rate poetry or evaluate beauty but then it was never intended to. Is this bigotry?

 

[Crusadar]

notto said: Can you provide a way for science to objectively test for the supernatural or the unmaterialistic. Is this bigotry?

My statement was not in showing that the supernatural can be proven scientifically, because you and I know it exists (I hope), otherwise we would not be here discussing it. What I was pointing out was that often we dismiss the supernatural not because it cannot be proven, but the implications if such were to exist.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

From another thread:



Is science that objective?

probably not, and that is why the example is math not science.
but the problem with subjectivity in science stems from the fact that it is done by people not by unemotional or uninvolved computers.

first, look at things in science like prions or ulcers caused by bacteria. These are examples of where the scientific world ignored and even humiliated the proponents of the theory. Yet the single person was right and the community wrong.

second, look at how science is done. It is big expensive business and this deforms the science, not so much because of what it discovers as it deforms the direction that science takes. the fact that much of scientific work is funded by the military doesn't help one bit.

but that doesn't address the question that you really want to ask, is science objective? especially in the light of its assumption of provisional methodological naturalism/materialism.

If your question is:
is science discovering things that are really out there and supplying the proper theories to explain what it has found? The answer from a Christian viewpoint appears to be a qualified yes and no. *grin*
Fundamentally science is never going to answer the questions in terms of God, nor can it, and those are really the right answers, however those answers aren't scientific but religious. So they appear to be incomplete to the religious minded but are fully functional and useful within the domain of science so they are correct in that domain.
And that is the precise problem with the religious, they can never be content with something which claims ignore God.
.....

 

[notto]

notto said: Can you provide a way for science to objectively test for the supernatural or the unmaterialistic. Is this bigotry?

My statement was not in showing that the supernatural can be proven scientifically, because you and I know it exists (I hope), otherwise we would not be here discussing it. What I was pointing out was that often we dismiss the supernatural not because it cannot be proven, but the implications if such were to exist.

The scientific method basically says that if the supernatural exists, we cannot test for it so therefor, it is not bigotry to exclude it from tests by design.

If science used the supernatural in its explanations, it could explain everything in a multitude of ways, so it really would not be describing anything or providing any value.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i stumbled across an interesting paper on God and science at:
http://www.jubileenow.com/papers/covscipap.htm

worthwhile reading.

I walked into a senior seminar class a few years ago to find a student in tears, weeping because she felt that God had drifted further and further away from her during the years of her study of science. The building pressure of scientific explanations—enzymes and ecosystems, kidneys and operons—seemed to leave little room for the God who had performed miracles on Sunday morning in her home church. That class period was spent in talking about the God who is always there, always governing, always manifesting himself, in pointing out that he is not a God who occasionally pops in to do a miracle, but otherwise is absent.1

I was rather upset myself, for we are truly concerned to teach the concept of the active presence of God in our department. How had our student missed it? Why was she thinking of God as a craftsman, a watchmaker whose vast clockwork ran itself, rather than the Creator King, reigning as governor over all his creation? "He makes the winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants."2 It is true that her reaction reflected a religious background which emphasized God’s frequent intrusion into the natural order, but it was still troubling that after four years at a Christian college, her instinctive reaction was to see God as absent from the usual course of nature.

My student was probably suffering from the usual conventions of science teaching, even by Christians. We may believe in Yahweh, the God who makes covenant both with his people and his world, but we teach science as we were trained. We imply that the creation is to be viewed as an autonomous clock. A product of an infinite, loving intellect, true enough, but still a product, a mechanism rather than a dependent creature acting in obedience. We treat natural law as something which God implanted into the universe, rather than His moment by moment free choice. We imply that the uniformity of nature is innate to the creation, rather than a revelation of God’s faithfulness. Even our comments supporting God’s position as Creator—"This is God’s plan for the world." "He made us work this way."—reinforce the concept of the clockmaker God. We neglect the concept of the providential King of the creation, the shepherd of Israel. One would think God blocked the flames from burning Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo, as if he were a suit of divine asbestos rather than the Lord of the flames who directed his obedient servants not to burn the three ‘friends.

...

 

[shernren]

Now, who wants to bet there's going to be a creation science proponent jumping onto this statement within 24 hours saying "See, God could have made all those radioactive atoms go manic and decay a gazillion times faster than they are supposed to!" without reading the rest of the essay?

 

[Micaiah]

To what extent do you think a persons view on origins affects how they interpret scientific evidence.

 

[notto]

To what extent do you think a persons view on origins affects how they interpret scientific evidence.

Considering that the mainstream view of most scientific theories is accepted by people of all faiths, nationalities, political background, gender, race, or age, I would say fairly little.

There are of course people who admit that their faith affect their view on scientific evidence by openly claiming that they will not accept and will reject any evidence that contradicts their religious views.

These people are called creationists.

As far as acceptence of mainstream scientific thought by those that actively work in the sciences and are currently working or publishing in the fields of biology and geology, I doubt that a strong correlation between the persons view and their acceptance of the conclusions reached through scientific consensus could be found.

 

[The Lady Kate]

To what extent do you think a persons view on origins affects how they interpret scientific evidence.

Well, humans are, as they say, only human...complete objectivity may be impossible, but one can make the effort.

Of course, which group with their stance on origins actually makes the effort?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Considering that the mainstream view of most scientific theories is accepted by people of all faiths, nationalities, political background, gender, race, or age, I would say fairly little.

There are of course people who admit that their faith affect their view on scientific evidence by openly claiming that they will not accept and will reject any evidence that contradicts their religious views.

These people are called creationists.

As far as acceptence of mainstream scientific thought by those that actively work in the sciences and are currently working or publishing in the fields of biology and geology, I doubt that a strong correlation between the persons view and their acceptance of the conclusions reached through scientific consensus could be found.

The argument that just because we are in the minority (YEC) doesn't mean much in the long run. it's just as possible for 1 in 100 to be right, as it is for 1 in 1,000,000 to be right, while the majority is wrong. But that doesn't make any inpact whatsoever.

But I don't think every YEC REJECTS evidence that condradict our religious views, I think (without getting into a debate on any one evidence) that we don't see the evidence in the same light. We view the evidence, and see how it fits into young earth. But then again, we beleive in the supernatural as well.

Complete objectivity cannot be claimed on either side, however. Old earth theorists typically (not all) don't even beleive in supernatural, and because it isn't testable by anything that they can conceive by scientific method, then it doesn't exist. I would hazard a guess that some tests are performed that could be biased towards a billion year old earth.

But again, you say scientific concensus... and that does show some bias towards the popular opinion.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The argument that just because we are in the minority (YEC) doesn't mean much in the long run. it's just as possible for 1 in 100 to be right, as it is for 1 in 1,000,000 to be right, while the majority is wrong. But that doesn't make any inpact whatsoever.

But I don't think every YEC REJECTS evidence that condradict our religious views, I think (without getting into a debate on any one evidence) that we don't see the evidence in the same light. We view the evidence, and see how it fits into young earth. But then again, we beleive in the supernatural as well.

Complete objectivity cannot be claimed on either side, however. Old earth theorists typically (not all) don't even beleive in supernatural, and because it isn't testable by anything that they can conceive by scientific method, then it doesn't exist. I would hazard a guess that some tests are performed that could be biased towards a billion year old earth.

But again, you say scientific concensus... and that does show some bias towards the popular opinion.

take the two recent scientific examples of prions causing BSE and ulcers being caused by bacterial infection. here are places where a single man stood up to the whole scientific establishment and was proven to be right.

do you know what they had that YECists don't in their david and goliath fight against science?

any evidence at all for the science of their position.
any systematic explanation of the evidence against their position.

and as has been done innumerable times before here, i challenge you to start a thread that presents 1 piece of YECist evidence for a young earth that has not been shown to be wrong.

or present a YECist explanation for either the 2p+2q chimps gene = 2 human, explain the backwards teleomeres for example. or explain the GLO pseudogene or the HERV-W viral dna co-opted as a mammalian placental protein.

it is not, contrary to your posting, a matter of different interpretation. there is NO evidence for a young earth nor a global flood and lots of evidence for a very old earth and universe.

but take one specific piece of data- like the telomeres in human 2 gene, and show use exactly how the same data can be interpreted in 2 different ways.
that after all is the purpose of us being here and spending our time at these discussions.
persuade me, with the science.


btw
i am a supernaturalist and agree that it forms the great divide between people, but it doesnt divide scientists because it isnt in science.
....

 

[Uphill Battle]

take the two recent scientific examples of prions causing BSE and ulcers being caused by bacterial infection. here are places where a single man stood up to the whole scientific establishment and was proven to be right.

do you know what they had that YECists don't in their david and goliath fight against science?

any evidence at all for the science of their position.
any systematic explanation of the evidence against their position.

and as has been done innumerable times before here, i challenge you to start a thread that presents 1 piece of YECist evidence for a young earth that has not been shown to be wrong.

or present a YECist explanation for either the 2p+2q chimps gene = 2 human, explain the backwards teleomeres for example. or explain the GLO pseudogene or the HERV-W viral dna co-opted as a mammalian placental protein.

it is not, contrary to your posting, a matter of different interpretation. there is NO evidence for a young earth nor a global flood and lots of evidence for a very old earth and universe.

but take one specific piece of data- like the telomeres in human 2 gene, and show use exactly how the same data can be interpreted in 2 different ways.
that after all is the purpose of us being here and spending our time at these discussions.
persuade me, with the science.


btw
i am a supernaturalist and agree that it forms the great divide between people, but it doesnt divide scientists because it isnt in science.
....

Oh, but the statement "shown to be wrong" can't be applied. Refuted, yes, but ToE is going to refute anything that doesn't fit with the ToE model. Most evidences given for ToE are though of as absolute fact, and therefore, sufficient "show the creationist wrong" proofs. but there isn't any evidence for ToE that isn't open to some critisism. It just isn't accepted by old earth theorists that way.

I don't think one side is ever going to convince the other though, not either scientifically or supernaturally.

(P.S. Lets not forget who won between David and Goliath. )

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Oh, but the statement "shown to be wrong" can't be applied. Refuted, yes, but ToE is going to refute anything that doesn't fit with the ToE model. Most evidences given for ToE are though of as absolute fact, and therefore, sufficient "show the creationist wrong" proofs. but there isn't any evidence for ToE that isn't open to some critisism. It just isn't accepted by old earth theorists that way.

I don't think one side is ever going to convince the other though, not either scientifically or supernaturally.

but that is not what i personally have seen science do, in my lifetime.
prions and H. pylori modified long accepted theories.
HERV's have caused a minor upheaval in genetics and i took a medical virology class that skipped the retrovirus with the prof's statement that there were no medically significant retroviruses.
(in 1974)

but to prove your point you have only to present one piece of data that persuades people here that the earth could be young or that can not be explained in terms of TofE. rather than these philosophic generalities present one piece of data we can talk about.

and it is not true that people dont change their minds i was OEC 5 years ago when i started to restudy the issues, i took the TE stand as a result. lots of people here can relate their changing understanding as well. there are even a few YECists that learned about the evidence that changed their science without losing their faith. wow what a concept. sure proves AiG's slippery slope to unbelief is erronous.


.....

 

[notto]

Old earth theorists typically (not all) don't even beleive in supernatural, and because it isn't testable by anything that they can conceive by scientific method, then it doesn't exist.

I would have to see some statistics to accept this claim or a clarification of what you mean by typically. The number of mainstream scientists who are theists (believe in the supernatural) is usually polled at anywhere from 40-60% depending on how the question is asked. I would not consider that typical.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Old earth theorists typically (not all) don't even beleive in supernatural, and because it isn't testable by anything that they can conceive by scientific method, then it doesn't exist.

no, OEC are supernaturalists, they believe God created kinds, only not all in one week as do YECists but over almost 4 billions years.
there is an excellent list of CED positions at:
http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/week6.html


absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
silence is not the same thing as disbelief.

because science is limited to the observable or the testable it does not mean there isn't anything outside of science, it only means that to posit the supernatural or the lack of it is a metaphysical statement not a scientific one.

...

 

[neverforsaken]

science is the study of facts and evidence right? so i believe everything supernatural to be possibility even though there may be a lack of evidence. every miracle to be explainable by science. However, consider this. If i went back in time to the bronze age with an XM-29 ( http://www.sg.hu/kep/2005_03/sg9_4.jpg ) i assume those in that age would view my using it as a miracle perhaps view me as a god who can spit fire from my holy device and cause building to blow up by looking at it. Heck, i could probably smoke an few groups of greek phalynx in a few seconds before they even reach me.
Everything that exists in this universe has a scientific explaination, but are we able to understand that science with the methods or current view of the universe? Just as the acients would be dumbfounded by technology that while advanced even by our standards is not hard to imagine, so too would God be able to manipulate the universe in ways we currently cant comprehend and perhaps will not have the brain capacity to understand.

but anyway, im simply saying that science can explain all.