Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Fervent]

I don't see how.

If the world was not brought into existence by what is visible, the things we can find based on what we can see cannot explain how God created the world.

Then why does it work and produce tangible results? If it's all illusory as you seem to believe, then any method would produce equivalent results, with the scientific method being no better than random people just making things up.

I've already stated why it is "successful"...it's recursive/self-correcting nature. It's persuasive because of a sampling error called survivorship bias. The graveyard of failed scientific theories is quickly forgotten, and only the ones that survive the tests are taken into consideration. The methods inolved explain the success independent of the theoretical constructs.

The "successfulness" argument addresses a necessary condition for truth, but there are at least two considerations for truthfulness. Necessity and sufficiency. Science seems to be able to establish a fair case of necessity, but it is unclear if it can provide an answer to sufficiency.

You may believe that reality is really just "shadows on a cave wall", but I can't agree. I don't believe God creates misleading or false realities.

I take Him at His word that He will hand people over to their own destructive ends. He promises a strong delustion because people prefer to live in darkness than walk after the light.

Yes it does.

He never promised we could trust empirical appearance. His promise is that we must walk by faith, not by sight.

Nothing in scripture tells us that we can use rockets to send robots to other planets either. So "it isn't in the Bible" doesn't mean we can't therefore do it.

Being wowed by technical prowess isn't really suggestive of truth value. We're talking about justifying what it is we believe to be true here, and ultimately the best science can muster in that regard is consensus opinions that have not currently been proven false. The method has a high level of utility, but utility is not the same thing as truth. In fact, a lot of things that are useful increase in utility the more we abstract them from reality such as road maps.

 

[River Jordan]

If the world was not brought into existence by what is visible, the things we can find based on what we can see cannot explain how God created the world.

And if the "visible" (assuming you mean "detectable") things fully account for the origin of the world, that must be how God created.

Amos says that God creates mountains and wind. But when we see volcanoes create new mountains we don't figure there must be some other undetectable things going on.

I've already stated why it is "successful"...it's recursive/self-correcting nature.

You can say that, but reality shows otherwise.

It's persuasive because of a sampling error called survivorship bias. The graveyard of failed scientific theories is quickly forgotten, and only the ones that survive the tests are taken into consideration. The methods inolved explain the success independent of the theoretical constructs.

No, scientists do not forget failures; it's actually the exact opposite of that. One of the first things I was taught as a scientist is that we oftentimes learn more from our failures than from our successes.

The "successfulness" argument addresses a necessary condition for truth, but there are at least two considerations for truthfulness. Necessity and sufficiency. Science seems to be able to establish a fair case of necessity, but it is unclear if it can provide an answer to sufficiency.

Science isn't about discovering "truth".

I take Him at His word that He will hand people over to their own destructive ends. He promises a strong delustion because people prefer to live in darkness than walk after the light.

But you seem to be assuming you know what that delusion is. How do you know it's not something else that you may have fallen for?

He never promised we could trust empirical appearance. His promise is that we must walk by faith, not by sight.

Yes, in our faith. But I highly doubt God intends us to approach things in the all or none manner you present, where we either take everything by faith or take everything by sight. That would be ridiculous (and dangerous).

Being wowed by technical prowess isn't really suggestive of truth value. We're talking about justifying what it is we believe to be true here, and ultimately the best science can muster in that regard is consensus opinions that have not currently been proven false. The method has a high level of utility, but utility is not the same thing as truth. In fact, a lot of things that are useful increase in utility the more we abstract them from reality such as road maps.

You seem to be more focused on philosophy than actual science. That's fine for thought exercises and discussions, but when it comes to how actual science is conducted by actual scientists, it's effectively meaningless.

 

[Fervent]

And if the "visible" (assuming you mean "detectable") things fully account for the origin of the world, that must be how God created.

Seems quite boastful to make such a claim. Where do you derive such a promise?

Amos says that God creates mountains and wind. But when we see volcanoes create new mountains we don't figure there must be some other undetectable things going on.

It's one thing to create a theoretical model, it's another to believe that the model is accounting for reality itself.

You can say that, but reality shows otherwise.

Hardly.

No, scientists do not forget failures; it's actually the exact opposite of that. One of the first things I was taught as a scientist is that we oftentimes learn more from our failures than from our successes.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm attacking scientific methodologies or saying human beings shouldn't engage in scientific research. I'm not, I'm just suggesting we shouldn't go around pretending the models themselves produce anything more than a practical way to manipulate phenomenal behavior. There remains an insurmountable gap between phenomenon and ontology.

Science isn't about discovering "truth".

Agreed, but talk of science rarely acknowledges that fact.

But you seem to be assuming you know what that delusion is. How do you know it's not something else that you may have fallen for?

I made no such claim, I'm a moderate skeptic and am willing to operate under a multitude of conceptual models of reality without subscribing to any of them. I do prefer a Biblical model to a scientific model, but that's only because God has always proven Himself true to me and men have repeatedly proven themselves liars.

Yes, in our faith. But I highly doubt God intends us to approach things in the all or none manner you present, where we either take everything by faith or take everything by sight. That would be ridiculous (and dangerous).

It's a question of foundations, not universals. We either find our foundation in faith in God and His word, or we pretend that our culturally reinforced intuitions are self-evidently true. Faith doesn't prevent us from engaging in science, but it does require our understanding of science is different from how an atheist understands it.

You seem to be more focused on philosophy than actual science. That's fine for thought exercises and discussions, but when it comes to how actual science is conducted by actual scientists, it's effectively meaningless.

Science doesn't stand on its own feet, as if what science is is just floating around in space detached from human concepts. What and when people are engaged in science is a philosophical question, as are how we interpret what existing scientific discovers tell us about the world at large. Denying philosophy entirely leaves scientific theories effectively meaningless, because philosophy drives interpretation. My concern is with philosophy because my concern is with questions of knowledge and truth, not with gizmos and gadgets and technical utility. So it's not that I deny or oppose scientific research in any way, it's simply that I recognize that what I am looking for cannot be found within the confines of scientific methodologies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science isn't about discovering "truth".

Man, that's for sure!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Man, that's for sure!

He's not saying what you think he's saying.

 

[AV1611VET]

He's not saying what you think he's saying.

It sounded good though!

 

[Fervent]

He's not saying what you think he's saying.

Yes, there's a difference between creating a map and writing a fairytail. Both are technicallly not about truth, but one does require reference. Of course, science is often idealized in a way that doesn't match the nature of it as a recursive process or the extent of its explanatory value

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It sounded good though!

Only to those who have no desire to hear...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, there's a difference between creating a map and writing a fairytail. Both are technicallly not about truth, but one does require reference. Of course, science is often idealized in a way that doesn't match the nature of it as a recursive process or the extent of its explanatory value

Or rather, one deals with facts (both science and cartography) and one deals with talking about 'truths' (fairy-tails).

 

[River Jordan]

Seems quite boastful to make such a claim. Where do you derive such a promise?

Scientists have managed to figure out the nature and origins of lots of things. If you think a particular scientific explanation is incomplete and would be better by adding something, then let's see what you have.

It's one thing to create a theoretical model, it's another to believe that the model is accounting for reality itself.

That's too non-specific to discuss.

I'm just suggesting we shouldn't go around pretending the models themselves produce anything more than a practical way to manipulate phenomenal behavior. There remains an insurmountable gap between phenomenon and ontology.

If you're saying people shouldn't use scientific models to derive philosophical conclusions, I guess I agree (although I've never had much use for philosophy).

I made no such claim, I'm a moderate skeptic and am willing to operate under a multitude of conceptual models of reality without subscribing to any of them. I do prefer a Biblical model to a scientific model, but that's only because God has always proven Himself true to me and men have repeatedly proven themselves liars.

Ok.

It's a question of foundations, not universals. We either find our foundation in faith in God and His word, or we pretend that our culturally reinforced intuitions are self-evidently true.

Not everyone operates in such an all or none manner.

Faith doesn't prevent us from engaging in science, but it does require our understanding of science is different from how an atheist understands it.

If by that you mean theists will sometimes put theological spin on the results of science whereas atheists don't, then I agree (it's kinda self evident).

Science doesn't stand on its own feet, as if what science is is just floating around in space detached from human concepts. What and when people are engaged in science is a philosophical question, as are how we interpret what existing scientific discovers tell us about the world at large.

Only if one is inclined to view things philosophically. Not everyone tries to extrapolate philosophical meanings from scientific results.

Denying philosophy entirely leaves scientific theories effectively meaningless, because philosophy drives interpretation.

Not in my experience. It wasn't that long ago that my work group, through field studies, found a previously undiscovered breeding population of a species. No one attempted to derive any philosophical meaning from that, nor did anyone use philosophy to "drive interpretation" (unless you're defining philosophy as something like "all of human thought"). The interpretation was straight forward.

My concern is with philosophy because my concern is with questions of knowledge and truth, not with gizmos and gadgets and technical utility.

Nah, you've been using gizmos, gadgets, and technology to interact with me.

So it's not that I deny or oppose scientific research in any way, it's simply that I recognize that what I am looking for cannot be found within the confines of scientific methodologies.

Well I wish you the best of luck in your search.

 

[Fervent]

Or rather, one deals with facts (both science and cartography) and one deals with talking about 'truths' (fairy-tails).

Facts? I suppose one might believe as much, but that sounds like a bit of an overreach to me. Science studies behaviors and phenomena, and then theorizes about what the "factual" fundamentals happen to be. Explaining its success apart from the truth of the theories involved is explainable by applying one of the major theories that often serves as a point of debate. If diversity of species can be explained through recursive adjustments without direction, then successful theories can also be explained by that same recursive process without believing that it involves facts or truly approaches whatever "reality" is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists have managed to figure out the nature and origins of lots of things.

Including the moon?

Check out this thread I made ten years ago:

Moon Theories

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Facts? I suppose one might believe as much, but that sounds like a bit of an overreach to me. Science studies behaviors and phenomena, and then theorizes about what the "factual" fundamentals happen to be. Explaining its success apart from the truth of the theories involved is explainable by applying one of the major theories that often serves as a point of debate. If diversity of species can be explained through recursive adjustments without direction, then successful theories can also be explained by that same recursive process without believing that it involves facts or truly approaches whatever "reality" is.

So it's not a fact that an object dropped will fall to the ground when you're on Earth, or that the West Coast of America in California meets the Pacific Ocean?

 

[River Jordan]

Including the moon?

That's not something I've ever looked into.

 

[Fervent]

Scientists have managed to figure out the nature and origins of lots of things. If you think a particular scientific explanation is incomplete and would be better by adding something, then let's see what you have.

Circular reasoning.

That's too non-specific to discuss.

Oh?

If you're saying people shouldn't use scientific models to derive philosophical conclusions, I guess I agree (although I've never had much use for philosophy).

Philosophy is unavoidable, though there is much sophistry within philosophy. We either critically engage with philosophical concepts and develop our ability to criticize our own positions, or we adopt beliefs uncritically on the basis of intuition that is more often nothng more than popular opinon within the current cultural milieu.

Ok.


Not everyone operates in such an all or none manner.

I'm speaking to developing a coherent, consistent understanding of what is factual or true. Questions of warrant are going to be bound up with the ontologies we intuitively believe

If by that you mean theists will sometimes put theological spin on the results of science whereas atheists don't, then I agree (it's kinda self evident).

Atheists put a metaphysical spin on it as well, it's just that the atheistic spin is embedded into the process and anyone who questions it has the wagons circled around them.

Only if one is inclined to view things philosophically. Not everyone tries to extrapolate philosophical meanings from scientific results.

I have yet to encounter someone who doesn't have some philosophical understanding of what science is supposed to be explaining, though some do so implicitly rather than explicitly. While lip service is paid to the recognition that science doesn't study "truth" it is generally argued by people who believe in science that scientific discoveries are true(or at least approximately true)

Not in my experience. It wasn't that long ago that my work group, through field studies, found a previously undiscovered breeding population of a species. No one attempted to derive any philosophical meaning from that, nor did anyone use philosophy to "drive interpretation" (unless you're defining philosophy as something like "all of human thought"). The interpretation was straight forward.

Philosophy operates on different levels, just because narrowly focusing on specific details doesn't reveal an assumed philosophy doesn't mean when we look at the whole forest philosophy doesn't play a part.

Nah, you've been using gizmos, gadgets, and technology to interact with me.

Sure, science has brought a great deal of value to the world. It has a great deal of utility. But as you said yourself, science doesn't study truth or falsity. Yet most people seem to expect it to provide them with true statements, so is it studying truth or isn't it?

Well I wish you the best of luck in your search.

My search has concluded, the rest of the journey is making sense of what I have found.

 

[Fervent]

So it's not a fact that an object dropped will fall to the ground when you're on Earth, or that the West Coast of America in California meets the Pacific Ocean?

Define "object"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Define "object"

No.

 

[Fervent]

No.

Then how can we determine whether or not what you've said is factual?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not something I've ever looked into.

Re the moon, you have plenty to look into.

Plenty.

So I would assume the moon would be an exception to your point that 'scientists have managed to figure out the nature and origins of lots of things' ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then how can we determine whether or not what you've said is factual?

I don't see why I need to define what an object is to say that if I pick something up, hold it out not even to full arm's length, and then let go of it, it will fall to the floor or whatever is beneath me, thus showing the fact of gravity as it's known on Earth.
Do that as an experiment, then get back to me.