Semantic holism

[lucaspa]

Semantic holism has been touted as suceeding logical positivism and actually representing how we tell what is true.

However, in reading about semantic holism, I have found just the opposite. As a philosophy it directly challenges science, because semantic holism declares not only that we can't know anything, but that reason itself is no good.

"One consequence of semantic holism, believe it or not, comes in the form of a threat to the very foundation of society. Let me explain. Holism seems to warrant bad reasoning, for it allows one to rationally maintain any statement come what may. That's bad enough. But it took about a half second for analytic philosophers to realize that things were, potentially, much worse. You see, philosophers from way, way, back in the analytic tradition believed deeply that, one way or another, reason was the proper foundation for society; it was both the mechanism that runs society and the grease on which the mechanism turned. 
Ever interested to be of use, philosophers have worked hard at coming up with a theory of argument to describe how reason ought to work in daily life. This is why you, as undergraduates at Virginia Tech, are subjected to classes like Philosophy 1504, Language and Logic; your philosophy department sincerely believes that this class will make you a better citizen. But, as some of you might have noticed in Philosophy 1504, the theory of argument asks that you grant certain crucial statements beforehand, without argument. Statements like, for example, that something can't both be true and false at the same time.

 Well, if holism is true, then we can't count on our fellow citizens accepting such statements. Nor can we count on being able to convince them that they ought to accept such statements, if they don't! We shouldn't even call them crazy if they don't accept such statements, though we do it anyway! In short, if holism is true then the whole notion of argument, and of reason, is up for grabs. Would you like to see what that looks like? 

&nbsp;<B>[Clip #4: The Argument Clinic (Monty Python's Flying Circus, The Money Programme)]</B>

"&nbsp; http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/python.htm

So once again, in their desire to get around the fact that atheism is a faith, atheists have embraced a philosophy that destroys the very rationality that they say atheism is based upon! And, of course, if reason and evidence is worthless, then science, which is based on reason and evidence, is also worthless.

Destroying science seems a high price to me to preserve the illusion that atheism is not a faith.

 

[Morat]

Lucapsa, I don't make the philosophies. I'm not a philosopher. I didn't invent semantic holism.

Like it or not, semantic holism is a valid response logical positivism, which you, yourself, point out is flawed. Like it or not, semantic holism states that, frankly, you can't ever be sure of anything. Like it or not, semantic holism states that no statement can ever be fully and completely evaluated.

It wasn't invented to "save atheism from being a belief". Many philosophers don't like it. Heck, I'd say most don't. But so far, no one has managed to get around it or show it to be wrong. (As I stated in another thread, my terminology might be wrong. It has been forever since those college philosophy classes. Nonetheless, the claim to 100% certainity of logical positivism has been replaced by the realization that certainty, that absolute confidance, is a pipe dream)

I can understand you want atheism to be a faith statement. I can understand you believe this. However, that doesn't give you license to start making up my positions!

I did not bring philosophy into this, you did. You brought up logical positivism, claimed I embraced it, and pointed out it was wrong. I told you I knew what logical positivism was, that I knew the verification criterion couldn't be verified, and asked you if you knew what replaced it.

I can't see how you manage to believe I hold two logically contradictory statements in my head at the same time. First you accuse me of holding to logical positivism (if it can't be proven, it doesn't exist), then of semantic holism (nothing can be proven). Which is it?

I wrote rather extensively on semantic holism as an extension of Jerry's "reasonable epistomology". That is, for any given event, observation, or entity, there is an infinite number of explanations. None can be proven, none can be disproven, not with 100% certainity. Instead you are left only with "reasonable epistomologies". Sufficient proof, not absolute proof. And an awareness that you could always be in error.

Does that sound familiar, Lucapsa? "You can't prove anything". "Even the most tested concept could be wrong"? These acknowledgements of semantic holism don't destroy science. They are the foundations of modern science. The holy grail of science is the Theory, which is not a fact! When has science ever claimed the absolute truth?

I never claimed to have absolute truth. Indeed, I repudiate the notion that I could ever have it. Yet you dare to tell me I have faith? In what? Name one thing, Lucapsa, that I believe is true beyond any questioning, one thing I believe with total certainty.

Determining truth relies on a reasonable epistomology, as Jerry pointed out. You cannot assume all explanations are true, because an infinite number of them cannot be.

Science works by such a reasonable epistomology. It's epistomology is simple: empirical evidence + falsification tests = reasonable certainity. You ignore all explanations without empirical evidence. You test (by falsification) those that have. Whatever is left, you have reasonable certainty in.

It's true that the Parrot might alive, no matter how you test it. Science acknowledges this, by labeling it's best and most certain explanations as "theory". No matter how well supported, no matter how certain, it could be wrong.

Semantic holism demolishes absolute certainty. Big fat whoop. Science hasn't dealt in absolute certainty in a hundred years or more.

You might find these conversations more enlightening, Lucapsa, if you'd bother to argue with what I say...not the atheist caricature you have in your head. For an otherwise bright person, you've got a major intellectual stumbling block on this topic. Take this, for instance:

Semantic holism has been touted as suceeding logical positivism and actually representing how we tell what is true.

It sounds like I've been saying that semantic holism shows what's true and isn't true. Do me a favor...quote me on it. Please, do so. Preferably one of the longer posts I've made on the subject, so that context is clear.

You see, my position on semantic holism hasn't changed. I brought it up to point out that, since the fall of logical positivism, "certainty" is for the birds. You're stuck coming up with ways to navigate an infinite range of possibly answers, without any way to "prove" which one is right. So you're stuck using methods designed to narrow the field, so you have a workable number of explanations to test from.

The downside of this is, of course, that you could be wrong. And you can't "prove" you're right. Which is what I've said about God all along, not that you've been listening!.

So, in other words, I've touted semantic holism as pointing out that "truth" isn't something that can ever be had. Only reasonable certainity.

 

[Gracchus]

So once again, in their desire to get around the fact that atheism is a faith, atheists have embraced a philosophy that destroys the very rationality that they say atheism is based upon! And, of course, if reason and evidence is worthless, then science, which is based on reason and evidence, is also worthless.

What evidence leads you to believe that semantic holism has anything to do with atheism or science?

It seems to me that you are attancking a straw man with a non sequitur.&nbsp;

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Morat
Like it or not, semantic holism states that no statement can ever be fully and completely evaluated.

You guys are nuts. Science makes observations, and collects data on a universe that is steadfast and consistant. But your opinion on your observations is nothing more then human reasoning. You are correct in that human reasoning is very flawed and unrelyable.

Those who are redeemed and born again have a tiny mind and a tiny heart that matches the big mind and the big heart of the God who created this universe that science observes. If christians were ever taken out of here, you would be in real trouble, because you would lose what little you have that is consistant.

The universe is consistant, but you have resigned yourself to a inconsistant understanding of that universe. It is like a pilot trying to fly a plane without gages. Sooner or later he will crash, it is just a question of when. Because he has no gages to guide the plane by. If he could see the horizon, you could go by that, but you have chosen to fly into a cloud so you do not see the horizon.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat Lucapsa, I don't make the philosophies. I'm not a philosopher. I didn't invent semantic holism.

Like it or not, semantic holism is a valid response logical positivism, which you, yourself, point out is flawed.

First, the semantic holism that you are proposing: a method of epistemology, doesn't exist.&nbsp; Second, the question is whether it is valid.&nbsp; If it is flawed, like I and several others point out, then it is not valid.

But so far, no one has managed to get around it or show it to be wrong.

That's incorrect.&nbsp; Several philosophers have critiqued it and shown it's flaws, especially as a tool for epistemology.&nbsp; I spent a portion of last&nbsp;night reading&nbsp;Quine's original "Two Dogmas ..." essay. And responses to it, particularly Larry Laudan's "Demystifying Underdetermination" and Donal Gillies "The Duham&nbsp;Thesis and&nbsp;the Quine Thesis".&nbsp; Both show semantic holism to be wrong. As does the author I quoted in starting this thread.

While semantic holism may not have been started to save atheism from being a faith (although I have my doubts about that), you use it as such.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Nonetheless, the claim to 100% certainity of logical positivism has been replaced by the realization that certainty, that absolute confidance, is a pipe dream)

Not the "realization", but the "claim".

&nbsp;You brought up logical positivism, claimed I embraced it, and pointed out it was wrong.&nbsp;&nbsp;I told you I knew what logical positivism was, that I knew the verification criterion couldn't be verified, and asked you if you knew what replaced it.

First, I claimed that your statements were logical positivist.&nbsp; And I continue to point out statements that you make that are logical positivist.&nbsp; While you claim not to be a logical postivist, you still make logical positivist statements.&nbsp; Second, semantic holism did not replace logical postivism in science.&nbsp; Popper's falsification did.

I can't see how you manage to believe I hold two logically contradictory statements in my head at the same time. First you accuse me of holding to logical positivism (if it can't be proven, it doesn't exist), then of semantic holism (nothing can be proven). Which is it?

As the quote I used in the other thread shows, semantic holism and logical positivism aren't the different entities you insist on. And yes, you do seem to be confused because, even tho you claim semantic holism, your statements are still logical positivism.

That is, for any given event, observation, or entity, there is an infinite number of explanations. None can be proven, none can be disproven, not with 100% certainity.

I know what you wrote.&nbsp; We are discussing the validity of your statements.&nbsp; You are just assuming they are valid.&nbsp; They aren't. You use the Monty Python dead parrot sketch as an example. The rest of us laugh at that sketch because we see a dishonest storekeeper caught in a fraud and using every invalid excuse possible to keep from refunding the customer his money.&nbsp; We laugh because the philosophy involved is absurd.&nbsp; You take the sketch seriously.

Now, in terms of "reasonable epistemologies", all sources I have found trace semantic holism back to Quines "Two Dogmas ... " essay.&nbsp; I read that essay last night and I think you and Jerry should hear what Quine has to say about gods

"Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries -- not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable epistemologically to the gods of Homer.&nbsp; For my part, I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods ... But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sets of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. ... "Physical objects,&nbsp;small and large, are not the only posits.&nbsp; Forces are another example; and indeed we are told nowadays that the boundary between energy and matter is obsolete. Moreover, abstract entities which are the substance of mathematics ... are posits in the same spirit.&nbsp; Epistemologically these are myths&nbsp;on the same footing with physical objects and gods, neither better nor worse...&nbsp;Ontological questions, under this view, are on a par with questions of natural science.&nbsp;... the issue over there being centaurs, or brick houses on Elm Street, seems more a question of fact.&nbsp; But I hve been urging that this difference is only one of degree,and that it turns upon our vaguely pragmatic inclination to adjust one strand of the fabric of science rather than another in accomodating some particular recalcitrant experience."

What this means is that your "reasonable epistomologies" don't exist.&nbsp; You have no excuse for not positing gods, or centaurs, or invisible pink unicorns.&nbsp;&nbsp;The evidence doesn't&nbsp;help you, so that claiming "there is no evidence" or claiming that you only accept empirical evidence doesn't help you.&nbsp; In rejecting or even doubting one posit you are making a faith statement because you can't know anything!&nbsp;

Does that sound familiar, Lucapsa? "You can't prove anything". "Even the most tested concept could be wrong"? These acknowledgements of semantic holism don't destroy science. They are the foundations of modern science.

Unfortunately, science has always stated that you could prove some things.&nbsp; That is, you can definitively show some ideas to be wrong. That is, you can falsify.&nbsp;

Science works by such a reasonable epistomology. It's epistomology is simple: empirical evidence + falsification tests = reasonable certainity.

Sorry, but you are mistating science.&nbsp; And you ignore that semantic holism denies the epistemology you invoked because there are no falsification tests under semantic holism.&nbsp; Under semantic holism, you can't falsify anything.&nbsp; What's worse, under semantic holism, there is no empirical evidence.&nbsp; You used that one when you said that light beams could be causing you to look at the wrong parrot.

So, the epistemology of science you invoke doesn't work. Neither do any other "reasonable epistemologies".&nbsp;

Now, what epistemology does science really use?&nbsp; In simple terms, it is the epistemology of deductive logic combined with intersubjective observations.&nbsp; True statements cannot have false consequences.&nbsp; While individual statements do not have observational consequences, bundles of statements do.&nbsp; And you can test statements in different bundles. So you can devise a "control" such that the bundle of statements is identical to the experimental bundle of statements except for one statement.&nbsp; Therefore, if the observational consequence (the one statement) is contrary to the statement, then the statement is false.&nbsp; Without a doubt.&nbsp; You can keep eliminating statements this way until there is only one left standing.&nbsp; It is this last statement -- hypothesis or theory -- that you mistake for all of science.&nbsp; You either don't know about or choose to ignore the controls and the falsified hypotheses and theories out there. (as did Quine)

Now, science is still tentative because there may be an alternative hypothesis out there that will also explain the observations you have. So you are not certain that the hypothesis/theory is correct.&nbsp;

The price paid for this is that you have to consider as possible entities that haven't been falsified.&nbsp; To say those entities are non-existent is making a statement of faith.

Again, it's not saying the statement is inaccurate. Just that it's faith. But then, under semantic holism, atheism is still a faith because you have no reason whatsoever to doubt the existence of any entity.

You ignore all explanations without empirical evidence.&nbsp;

First, "ignoring"&nbsp;is not the same as&nbsp;"wrong".&nbsp; But, in fact, you&nbsp;don't&nbsp;ignore them.&nbsp; You acknowledge their existence and try to find a way to falsify them.&nbsp;

The above is again a logical positivist statement.&nbsp; That was the essence of logical positivism, in fact. That you could ignore/declare entities non-existent without&nbsp;verification/empirical evidence.&nbsp;

It's true that the Parrot might alive, no matter how you test it.

Nope, that's not true.&nbsp; You can falsify the statement "the parrot is alive".&nbsp; Now, whether the shopkeeper will acknowledge the falsification is a different matter.&nbsp; The correct way to say this is: "the parrot might not be alive, no matter how much empirical evidence you have for it being alive."&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Gracchus
What evidence leads you to believe that semantic holism has anything to do with atheism or science? &nbsp;

The claim is by Morat that semantic holism prevents atheism from being a faith.&nbsp; The idea is that only entities with positive evidence need to be considered possible.

The claim is by Quine and others that semantic holism tells us about epistemology (how we know) and therefore it impacts science.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7 You guys are nuts. Science makes observations, and collects data on a universe that is steadfast and consistant. But your opinion on your observations is nothing more then human reasoning. You are correct in that human reasoning is very flawed and unrelyable.

According to semantic holism, that "steadfast and constant" can't be known.&nbsp; Also, according to semantic holism, the observations and data are not reliable.

Those who are redeemed and born again have a tiny mind and a tiny heart that matches the big mind and the big heart of the God who created this universe that science observes.

Actually, semantic holism would say this statement is in error, because one person can never match another because each speaks a slightly different internal language.

The universe is consistant, but you have resigned yourself to a inconsistant understanding of that universe.

I agree with your assessment of semantic holism.&nbsp; While Morat claims that semantic holism says that nothing can be known with certainty, what it really says is that nothing can be known at all. That whenever faced with a "fact" contradictory to your beliefs, you can always reasonably dismiss the fact.

 

[Jerry Smith]

In rejecting or even doubting one posit you are making a faith statement because you can't know anything!

Again, the false dichotomy. I refer you to my new thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/31526.html

Unfortunately, science has always stated that you could prove some things. That is, you can definitively show some ideas to be wrong. That is, you can falsify.

You can falsify using logical methods, and attempt to mirror the real world in your postulates, but since you can never prove that the real world is truly mirrored in your postulates, you cannot falsify any claim that goes to what the real world is with absolute certainty. Science does not depend on the ability to have absolute certainty (or "proof") of falsification: it merely depends on reasonable certainty.

Falsify the statement: "The parrot is alive."

If I guess right, then you will use something fairly straightforward:

"Living means that it is, among other things, respiring. If it were respiring we could detect it by direct observation. We cannot detect respiration by direct observation, therefore the parrot is not respiring, therefore, it is dead."

Well, given the postulate that we could detect respiration, your falsification test is correct, but since your postulate is meant to mirror the real world, and your test to falsify a statemtent about a real parrot, we need not grant you the postulate, or your falsification. One of those infinite set of alternative hypotheses is this:

"The parrot is only respiring on a cellular level, unlike other parrots who use lungs. Furthermore, testing for oxygen consumption will not help, because this parrot only sometimes uses oxygen respiration. Other times, it uses another chemical process for respiration."

You cannot dismiss this hypothesis, and you probably cannot falsify it. Since I have an infinite search space to draw from, you certainly cannot falsify every alternative to respiration being observable, therefore you can never conclude that you have successfully falsified my statement: "the parrot lives!"

The same applies for any conceivable falsification test.

Fortunately, science does not rely on "proof" of falsification: only reasonable acceptance of falsification.

 

[Jerry Smith]

That whenever faced with a "fact" contradictory to your beliefs, you can always reasonably dismiss the fact.

Morat nor I say this. We say whenever faced with an "hypothesis" that is not demonstrated convincingly, you can always reasonably dismiss the hypothesis.

A straw man is of no use to anyone here.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I guess I should have made my post# 8 much shorter. I think it appropriate to summarize here:

Lucaspa accuses Morat and myself of being willing to destroy science in order to "rescue" atheism from being a faith position. Upon reflection, it appears to be Lucaspa who is risking the destruction of science in order to falsely convict atheism of being a faith position.

As demonstrated, if we cannot dismiss an untested hypothesis, we can never falsify any hypothesis. No matter what our falsification test, some untested (or untestable) hypothesis (indeed an infinite number of them) can be proposed that explains the results of the test in some way that avoids falsification of&nbsp;the original hypothesis under consideration.

Without the ability to dismiss an untried hypothesis, we can never falsify a tried one. Without the ability to falsify, science cannot function. If science is to have meaning, then we must be allowed to dismiss untried hypotheses (indeed - we must be allowed to dismiss all of them, apart from the one we are hoping to test!)

 

[Morat]

First off, I think Jerry's summation is a better branching off place than any other, and fully agree with his summation.

Secondly, you might want to differentiate between philosophies of science and philosophy in general. One is a subset of the other.

So, frankly, when I talk about overarching philosophy, responding with specific philosophies of science is answering someone else's point.

God isn't a scientific issue, something we've all agreed on.

We're not even talking about science here, but the concepts that science, indeed any methodology or worldview rests on. Real philosophy, not the working stuff.

Now, let's start somewhere simple and build from there:

Do you agree with the following statement:

For every entity, event, or observation, there exist an infinite number of possible explanations?

 

[sulphur]

Let us just rest for the time being with pure science. I cannot see how these other matters of philosophy affect known facts and theories based on .empircal evidence.This type of arguement is grandstanding and proves no purpose

 

[Morat]

Um, since we're discussing what is, and isn't, faith all this is very much on topic.

 

[Jerry Smith]

sulphur, I'm sorry. I realize this is somewhat off-topic. We are not directly dealing with science in this discussion, at least: we shouldn't be confusing philosophy with science in this way, but for various reasons, I've kept posting my end of this discussion in the science forum.

In my attempt to consolidate this "discussion" into one thread (Lucaspa, science, and atheism - an attempt which has so far failed, Lucaspa carried on his side of the discussion somewhat. This is my reply to his comments there.

Me, previously:The argument is not that we are forbidden from working with unproven hypotheses: it is only that we are allowed to dismiss any that are untested unless we choose not to!

Lucaspa: This is worse. Who does the choosing? What criteria is the choosing based upon? You are saying that we get to throw out hypotheses on personal whim? When we "dismiss" them, how do we know they were wrong? You do realize that nearly all the currently accepted major theories were dismissed at one time or another by some scientists. For instance, what would have happened if Special Relativity would have been chosen to be dismissed when it was untested? Right now ekpyrotic theory is untested. Are we allowed to dismiss it?

Individual scientists get to do the choosing. Einstein's formulation of special relativity did not obligate Rutherford to consider it. As an interesting hypothesis that was subject to testing, Einstein and some colleagues did take an interest in testing it, and the result was providential. However, Rutherford and many others did not, and were entitled not to. If Einstein himself had dismissed the hypothesis, we would be in no worse position now than if he had never proposed it - or if he had never been born. Dismissing hypotheses therefore has no more negative impact on science than the accident of who is born and who is not. It does have a positive influence on science however (as I have pointed out).

Relativity's falsification test is overturned if we cannot dismiss untried hypotheses. Take, for instance, measurement of the gravitational lens effect, which is the iconoclastic falsification test.

If the gravitational lens effect had been absent during the famous 19-something eclipse (and later), we could have claimed relativity remained unfalsified by proposing either one unfalsifiable hypothesis that explains away the absence of the gravitational lens effect, or by continually proposing falsifiable hypotheses that explain away the absence each time the previous one was falsified.

1 (unfalsifiable): A crafty alien, not wanting us to know about relativity uses an elaborate device that reflects all of the starlight that is measurably influenced by the sun's gravitational field back toward the path it would take without the presence of the sun's gravitational field.

2 (falsfiable): The gravitational lens effect is exactly negated by the influence of the sun's magnetic field. You can falsify this in principle, but I can propose an infinite number of hypotheses (some of them, admittedly rather outlandish) that save relativity from falsification. Alternatively, after you perform your falsificaiton test on my alternative hypothesis, I can propose another to patch up my hypothesis, preventing you from falsifying it, and do so ad infinitum.

Unless you dismiss these untested or untestable hypotheses without attempting to test them, relativity can be saved from any falsification test and is therefore unfalsifiable. Because it is unfalsifiable, according to your own criteria, confirming evidence is worthless.

This is the crux of the whole matter. Science does not work if we are compelled to take a positive position on untried and untestable hypotheses. It does work if we are allowed to dismiss them, and treat them as false. An untested hypothesis, if it must be considered "uncertain" until tested, can always be used to introduce uncertainty into our tests of the hypotheses we are interested in.

Lucaspa: Let's bring this close to home. An argument used to "prove" theism that we have seen on this board is First Cause to get the universe. The hypothesis is deity had to create the universe. I have countered that "proof" by pointing to 3 alternative hypotheses for First Cause:

Well, see there is your mistake. You can present alternative hypotheses to demonstrate the error of argument from ignorance, but your hypotheses do nothing toward proving that the hypothesis of God as first cause is unfalsifiable. The fact is that it is unfalsifiable in principle, because by definition the creative process exists outside the observable universe. You can, if you wish, refrain from demonstrating this, and simply refuse to accept the hypothesis until the apologist in question offers a falsification test. You can&nbsp;explain to her&nbsp;that her particular unfalsifiable hypothesis does not merit your attention. In short, you think she is wrong, and without being able to provide a falsification test for her hypothesis, she can never prove herself right.

Me, previously: Science could not work if every hypothesis offerred carried an obligation to any other than its own proponents that it must be tested before dismissed.

Lucaspa: Why not? Most theorectical physicists don't do their own testing. Einstein and Hawking do not. They rely on others to test the hypothesis before dismissal. Physics doesn't seem to have suffered.

The "Why not?" is answered above, in excruciating detail. The fact is those "others" who do the testing of Einstein's and Hawking's theories do so because they are interested in the results - not because they are obligated to consider them. If it were a matter of obligation, then they would be equally obliged to do the same for my own hypotheses. I am a fairly creative fellow and probably could keep them running for the duration of their working lives if I wished so that they might never get around to fulfilling their obligation to Einstein's and Hawking's hypotheses.

Lucaspa: Now, what appears to have happened is that you have confused testing itself with who does the testing. All hypotheses get tested. The sequence of events is usually:&nbsp;[pedantry snipped]

No, actually I have not confused the testing with who does the testing.&nbsp;Sorry to disappoint.

No, indeed All hypotheses do not necessarily get tested. There&nbsp;is an entire class of hypotheses, that cannot be tested!&nbsp;That certainly gives the lie to the idea that they all are. Now the fact is most that are conjured up are turned over briefly, and "tested" for credibility, but either our scientists are not very imaginative, or they do not "test" each and every one of their hypotheses rigorously before dismissing many of them. Since neither of us are inside the heads of the scientists, I wouldn't care to commit to a position about what goes on in there. I would think that the evidence suggests that they spend more time doing productive work than testing out every whim that crosses their minds. This is one of those cases where I disbelieve your story, despite the fact that I cannot "rule it out" or "falsify it." I think you are wrong.

Me, previously: Now, when you provide a reference that clearly demonstrates "science's" opinion on this, I will possibly accept that "science" does not agree with me.

Lucaspa: I did this in the post where this appeared. Apparently you didn't read the quote from Eldredge.&nbsp; I will post it again with an additional one from Davies showing the position of science.

I did read Eldredge's post. While he may not be entitled to speak for all of "science" (to use your grandiose rhetoric), it matters little. He does not express disagreement with my position. He discusses ideas that cannot be ruled out, not ideas that cannot be dismissed. Likewise for Paul Davies. We do disbelieve&nbsp;ideas that have been ruled out (indeed - we must!), but we also disbelieve ideas that we see no merit in. Dismissals of&nbsp; ideas and the ruling out of ideas are not one and the same thing, despite the fact that we always dismiss ideas we have ruled out.

Now, if you would care to speak for yourself and let "science" do the same, I would be glad to carry on this discussion with you. If you would like to speak for&nbsp;"science", you will need to do better than to have individual scientists&nbsp;who probably did not&nbsp;intend to speak for all of "science" do it for you. You will probably also need to find a&nbsp;credible source&nbsp;from the philosophy of science who is qualified&nbsp;to speak for it. For my part,&nbsp;instead of&nbsp;putting&nbsp;my words into "science's" mouth, I will&nbsp;demonstrate that science cannot function in the way that you and I agree it must if we are&nbsp;obligated to carry a positive&nbsp;position about untested and untestable hypotheses.

Me, previously:As you have mentioned, no test of an hypothesis carries any weight unless there is the possibility of falsifying that hypothesis.

Lucaspa: I didn't mention that. Please provide the quote.

Ok, here you go:

This is a mistatement of what scientific propositions are. As Popper noted, any scientific proposition can be supported, if that is what you are looking for. What counts is falsification, not empirical support. Empirical support only counts if it is an unsuccessful attempt at falsification.

Post# 13 in Do Evolutionists silence the critics?

Please don't waste our time. I could have been carrying on our discussion instead of looking that up. We both know that science depends on falsification. If you disagree, then I've got some ICR books to sell you.

This is the idea that ideas are not science unless they are falsifiable. That is not true.&nbsp; Science works by falsification. But being unfalsifiable does not exclude a hypothesis from what we consider science. And being falsifiable does not necessarily mean that a hypothesis is scientific.&nbsp; Falsifiability is NOT a criteria to distinguish what is science from what is not science.

Ok, I'll bite. Show me how to perform a scientific investigation when falsification is impossible. What would it look like?

Also, being unfalsifiable does not mean it is wrong.&nbsp; Remember those 3 alternatives for First Cause?&nbsp; None of them are falsifiable.&nbsp; But that has nothing to say whether they are First Cause or not.

You are right. It has everything to say about whether I'm obligated to carry a positive position about them or not.

Atheism as stated this way is
1. Incorrect semantics
2. Unstable.

And you have failed to demonstrate&nbsp;either of these two premises.

"Do not believe a deity exists" is the same as saying "believe a deity does not exist".

No it is not. The root of the confusion is about to be exposed, but I will wait to expose it in terms of Butler's hypothesis.

The only&nbsp;purpose is to allow the speaker to pretend atheism is not a faith.

The purpose is to accurately describe a position. We have no reason, be it faith or knowledge, to believe that a deity exists, so we do not. I could well claim that the reason you seem so confused on this point is to "pretend that atheism is a faith." I will not. I think that you are honestly confused, and will discuss it in terms of Butler's hypothesis, in my next post, which will be posted simultaneously.

 

[Jerry Smith]

(continued from previous post)

For instance, look at this:They [unfalsifiable hypotheses] are worthless to science, and must be dismissed - out of hand. This is the view of methodological naturalism, and that is one of the cornerstones of science.

You have just made a very positive statement about what is true and not true. Of course, you have completely misstated methodological materialism, and I will go into that in the next post.

No, I have made a positive statement about what is useful and what is not. And you will have some demonstrating to do in that next post (which I have not read yet, though it may well be posted by now) - explaining my misstatement of methodological naturalism.

Now atheism is faced not with a general "lack of belief" in deity, but a position on the nature of the physical universe. If you say "Butler is wrong and natural works all by itself" then you are making a statement that isn't backed by science.

But - if you say merely that Butler is wrong, you are making much weaker statement: not one about the universe - not that the universe lacks a deity, but one about your view of Butler's hypothesis - that it is incorrect. No, that isn't "backed by science". It is backed only by reason. It cannot be backed by science unless Butler has provided us with a means for empirically testing his hypothesis. Since it cannot be empirically tested, science can not render an opinion on the matter, and should not be expected to. However, since it is an hypothesis: and therefore a concept, one can apply reason to evaluate the concept without also making an evaluation about the universe at the same time.

It is your intent to show that a negative position can always be recast as a positive one. Strictly speaking, this is usually the case, but the transformation is not of the simplistic sort that you propose, where the negative of hypothesis A is the same as the positive of the negation of A.

Let A be an hypothesis about the universe.

Let B be a negative position on A.

Let C be the negation of A.

Note that B is an position on a concept (or on an hypothesis).

Note that A &amp; C are hypotheses about the universe.

Because of this, B cannot be equivalent to C, because it does not have the same object. Because it has a concept rather than the universe as its object, B cannot reduce to C.

An evaluation of B, because it is not a statement about what is real, but instead a statement about an idea, does not depend on empirical support. It depends only on logical support. Logic tells us that a statement about empirical reality that is not tested by empirical evidence is unlikely to be correct, and therefore we can conclude that the idea is likely to be incorrect and dismiss it.

This does not require us to postulate a statement about empirical reality that includes the negation of A. When I dismiss the theory of Santa Claus, I do not simultaneously construct a theory of no-Santa.

That is where we got into the whole thing of dismissing hypotheses. You have to dismiss this hypothesis and say it is wrong without the data to do so. Now you have a very definite faith statement: natural = without deity. No evidence at all and no reason to suppose you are correct.

No data can confirm our hypothesis, because our hypothesis is not about empirical reality. A strong atheist might present a hypothesis about empirical reality such as you suggest. A weak atheist would not.

Our reason to suspect we are correct in our hypothetical evaluation of the concept is that the concept itself, being without empirical evidence in its support - is ungrounded in empirical reality.

So here again, the false dichotomy of "faith vs. knowledge" as related to a negative position on an hypothesis is not rescued by the improper transformation of that position into a postive position on reality. It can only be transformed into a positive position on the merit of a concept of reality - not reality itself.

I think that I have made my 2 cases:

1) Science cannot survive without the option of dismissing the untested or untestable and

2) When dealing with negative positions, the correct dichotomy is "uncertainty" vs. "disbelief", which in turn opposes the dichotomy of belief "belief from faith" vs "belief from empirical knowledge".

Pardon me for my earlier poisioning of the well. It seemed harmless enough at the time to propose that "atheism as faith" was nonsense, thinking that I had successfully communicated my points in earlier threads. As to the title of my other thread - that was an attempt at humor. I'm sorry again if it fell flat.