Science Doesn't Work

[KCfromNC]

Debating over the number of angels over a head of a pin is more a pointer to how useless we can philosophize over things than a matter of religion or science. And you can totally substitute "QM" for angels here and get the same secular point.

Substitute QM how, exactly? In generating the models needed to build the computer you're using? I don't see the connection.

 

[Received]

Incorrect, you certainly know when the hypothesis is unsupported and that is why the two processes are different. You can't tell that an experiment failing to uphold your hypothesis means your hypothesis is wrong but it certainly leads in that direction. Consistently having that result will tend to stifle even the most optimistic ideological researchers, and it certainly won't advance their careers by putting forward ideas they can't evidence within statistical significance.

We can't even get there with God. We can't even define parameters to test or what our expectations are. We can't tell a positive result from a negative one.

There simply is no testing with religion. The only test is what you are willing to believe. No process, no objectivity, no falsifiable hypothesis that may or may not be upheld through testing.

Simply put, nothing reins in the believer in religion like the believer in a false hypothesis. The believer in false hypotheses gets multiple failed objective experiments. A believer of religions simply can't be reined in, there is nothing to bound them.



You just have to stop right there and explain what if any checks there are on religious ideas.

What does failing look like with religion? Not believing? How many tries should we have? and what standards should we use to evaluate them?



You are doing exactly what I said you are doing though, trying to equate two vastly disparate processes as if they are somehow equivalent.

If this post doesn't show that I'm not sure what would.

If religion had some sort of methodology for giving it a "fair shot" maybe we could converse on that point no?

I'm NOT making them equivalent, because I'm NOT comparing them literally, but instead analogously!

God, I need a cigarette and I don't even smoke!

 

[variant]

I'm NOT making them equivalent, because I'm NOT comparing them literally, but instead analogously!

God, I need a cigarette and I don't even smoke!

Your lack of self awareness isn't my problem.

Analogy: a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way

When you make an argument via analogy it is only as good as the analogy.

So, what's the objective testing model for religion and how does the peer review process work? And how will we know if we've given it a 'fair shot'?

This IS your argument, that it would be unfair to dismiss religion without giving it a 'fair shot' just as it would be improper to quit science after a failed experiment.

This leads to the question of what does 'fair shot' mean, and how can we compare the rigorous scientific environment with the religious one at all if we don't know what you mean by that?

 

[Received]

Your lack of self awareness isn't my problem.

Analogy: a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way

When you make an argument via analogy it is only as good as the analogy.

So, what's the objective testing model for religion and how does the peer review process work? And how will we know if we've given it a 'fair shot'?

This IS your argument, that it would be unfair to dismiss religion without giving it a 'fair shot' just as it would be improper to quit science after a failed experiment.

This leads to the question of what does 'fair shot' mean, and how can we compare the rigorous scientific environment with the religious one at all if we don't know what you mean by that?

I'm lacking self-awareness. What else?

 

[variant]

I'm lacking self-awareness. What else?

Well you could also stand change up your standard argument.

You deflect a lot too, like right here, not actually addressing criticism.

It's fun to see you pretend that you weren't really making the argument that scientific experimentation and religious ideas are analogous when I have quotes like this:

Maybe you messed up the God experiment, or the experiment did tell you something you didn't recognize.

Please detail the "God experiment" I want to see your methodology.

 

[GforPerplexed]

hmmm, if you have a reasonable theory it should be provable regardless. If it is not provable it means nothing in the physical world.

If it is provable, it may mean a great deal, but it may not change anything or only slightly change things over time.

hmmm, Time V Change.

I wonder if we have enough time to change.

 

[bhsmte]

Well you could also stand change up your standard argument.

You deflect a lot too, like right here, not actually addressing criticism.

It's fun to see you pretend that you weren't really making the argument that scientific experimentation and religious ideas are analogous when I have quotes like this:



Please detail the "God experiment" I want to see your methodology.

For the most part, I tend to enjoy the OP's posts. Sometimes though, he tries too hard to make a point and this is one of those times.

 

[variant]

For the most part, I tend to enjoy the OP's posts. Sometimes though, he tries too hard to make a point and this is one of those times.

I find the attempts to be clever by masking huge differences in ideas behind wordplay somewhat tiresome.

 

[Received]

I find the attempts to be clever by masking huge differences in ideas behind wordplay somewhat tiresome.

Nobody is forcing the energy from you.

 

[Received]

For the most part, I tend to enjoy the OP's posts. Sometimes though, he tries too hard to make a point and this is one of those times.

If anything, it's me not making a point hard enough, given how short it is and how I basically made it between clients. Also because I'm using my evil therapist skills by leaving things at a very concise level so we can have a discussion. I couldn't made the point of the OP then, but I honestly didn't think I'd get this much non sequituring with science being taken literally.

 

[Received]

Well you could also stand change up your standard argument.

Say again?

You deflect a lot too, like right here, not actually addressing criticism.

The conclusion I'm deflecting is premised on the faulty idea that I'm meaning things literally, and I'm not.

Please detail the "God experiment" I want to see your methodology.

Like I've said a few times: trying something a fair number of times that encapsulates a good selection of serious and good theological ideas. As opposed to trying one and generalizing that the whole system is whack. Remember that our tendency to use science is based in our prescientific tendency to experience and relate to the world, not the other way around.

Now, I think there are more variables here. A person grows up with a particular religious perspective he thinks is true. He builds his life around it. This means when the cards come down that he's much less emotionally inclined to be motivated to respond reasonably by giving other perspectives a shot. I think this fits nicely with Paradoxum's insightful comment, implying that if God was really there, he'd sort of give us a hand when we try a theology that fails. That right there is the philosophical crux of the reason why people don't try again.

I think you can take this variable and run with it, proving it experimentally. One day when I have a fancy PhD, I'll try doing just this: seeing if the emotionality and reasoning associated with the above moderate not wanting to give other theological perspectives a chance. So far I think the hypothesis is a good one.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

...because I tried an experiment and didn't get results.

God doesn't work...because I tried a specific theology and didn't get results.

Right?

I don't think they really compare. God works, kind of. Look around and you'll see how well.


(^^ Not necessarily meant derisive.)

 

[variant]

Say again?

Your standard argument is to try smooth over differences between different concepts.

The conclusion I'm deflecting is premised on the faulty idea that I'm meaning things literally, and I'm not.

The "figurative" analogy is just as wrong here as the actual process of science and religion being "tried" are remarkably different.

Unless you don't mean to advocate that we literally try out religion?

Like I've said a few times: trying something a fair number of times that encapsulates a good selection of serious and good theological ideas.

Vague and useless.

As opposed to trying one and generalizing that the whole system is whack.

Right the general problems an unbeliever would find with Christianity couldn't possibly be generalized to Mormonism or Islam, I should probably try them all out.

They actually fail for all the same reasons, so taking up the mantle of belief isn't so simple as you seem to think

Remember that our tendency to use science is based in our prescientific tendency to experience and relate to the world, not the other way around.

Science is merely refined epistemology, something religion simply is not.

Now, I think there are more variables here. A person grows up with a particular religious perspective he thinks is true. He builds his life around it. This means when the cards come down that he's much less emotionally inclined to be motivated to respond reasonably by giving other perspectives a shot. I think this fits nicely with Paradoxum's insightful comment, implying that if God was really there, he'd sort of give us a hand when we try a theology that fails. That right there is the philosophical crux of the reason why people don't try again.

The theology doesn't "fail" though It goes on it's merry way. There is no test except belief itself. It is all very properly subjective.

I think you can take this variable and run with it, proving it experimentally. One day when I have a fancy PhD, I'll try doing just this: seeing if the emotionality and reasoning associated with the above moderate not wanting to give other theological perspectives a chance. So far I think the hypothesis is a good one.

I suggest you simply look into the reasons people give up religious thinking.

 

[variant]

Nobody is forcing the energy from you.

What I mean there is that it is tiring to see the same old junk from someone who is capable of better.

 

[Received]

What I mean there is that it is tiring to see the same old junk from someone who is capable of better.

And what I mean there is that nobody is forcing you to read over my threads and exhaustingly respond to the exhausting points.

 

[Received]

Your standard argument is to try smooth over differences between different concepts.

Says the person who presupposes the concepts aren't different. How many times can we go over this? 1429 bottles of beer on the wall, 1429 bottles of beer...

The "figurative" analogy is just as wrong here as the actual process of science and religion being "tried" are remarkably different.

Unless you don't mean to advocate that we literally try out religion?

Vague and useless.

Interesting how the point you consider vague and useless (without asking for more detail, hmm) is precisely the answer to the other points in this quoted section.

Right the general problems an unbeliever would find with Christianity couldn't possibly be generalized to Mormonism or Islam, I should probably try them all out.

Nobody says they don't generalize to those. What's of relevance is how easy people give up. That says everything. If I were to conclude all women are insane after having a single terrible relationship, then either I'm correct or not. Likewise apropos this subject.

They actually fail for all the same reasons, so taking up the mantle of belief isn't so simple as you seem to think

Question begging.

Science is merely refined epistemology, something religion simply is not.

Refined according to whom? You're committing the line drawing fallacy here: science and religion are both epistemologies, and they're both more refined than a naked epistemology that precedes systems. But according to your arbitrary definition, religion doesn't make the cut but science does.

The theology doesn't "fail" though It goes on it's merry way. There is no test except belief itself. It is all very properly subjective.

I suggest you simply look into the reasons people give up religious thinking.

Are you suggesting that it's just reasons that motivate people, rather than emotion? And I disagree that religious belief has no standard for determining whether it's the case or not. That just reflects the gag reflex you have toward religion. Here are religion's criteria for determining whether something works or not: the same criteria for pretty much everything. Which is: it holds X and Y which when fulfilled promises Z, and when you've tried to actualize X and Y without getting Z, the particular belief system in question has failed its own criteria, then you discard and move on.

 

[Received]

I don't think they really compare. God works, kind of. Look around and you'll see how well.


(^^ Not necessarily meant derisive.)

I'd say this reflects trying different theologies with theories that don't fit the universe well enough.

But what if I have a glittery theology with a theory big enough for everything (including science, QM, philosophy, psychology, etc.) that you haven't tried yet? Precisely because you've prematurely written off religion because you've hastily generalized, you've closed yourself off emotionally and ideologically from even considering seriously this idea. That goes for every theology and philosophy and belief system for everything.

 

[Received]

Everyone please keep in mind that I'm not arguing (at all) that science doesn't work. I'm appealing to the type of fallacious reasoning a person would commit like with the OP. And you can replace science with the following:

I tried dating a woman who ended up being crazy...and concluded I shouldn't date because all women are crazy.

I tried a protein smoothie blend that gave me indigestion...and concluded I shouldn't try any protein drinks because they all give me indigestion.

I tried debating with a Christian but he was an idiot...and concluded that all Christians are idiots.

You get it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Everyone please keep in mind that I'm not arguing (at all) that science doesn't work. I'm appealing to the type of fallacious reasoning a person would commit like with the OP. And you can replace science with the following:

I tried dating a woman who ended up being crazy...and concluded I shouldn't date because all women are crazy.

I tried a protein smoothie blend that gave me indigestion...and concluded I shouldn't try any protein drinks because they all give me indigestion.

I tried debating with a Christian but he was an idiot...and concluded that all Christians are idiots.

You get it.

But isn't that the inductive method, test a subset and make a conclusion about the whole set? It sounds like you just admitted that the OP is just a straw man argument, a logical fallacy used as a facade for an argument that never happened.

 

[Received]

But isn't that the inductive method, test a subset and make a conclusion about the whole set? It sounds like you just admitted that the OP is just a straw man argument, a logical fallacy used as a facade for an argument that never happened.

Oh God, variant will definitely relish this.

No, I don't think it's a straw man. It's just modeling the behavior I see as fallacious (hasty generalization) for the sake of discussion.