Unknowns, are better for science, than repetitions of what is assumed to be known (selah)

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So there is a philosophical problem, with Scientism. That problem, is the value Scientism gives that which it starts out with. Science starts with unknowns. Scientism, takes those unknowns and equivocates that all unknowns have the same fundamental value. That value is antecedent. More specifically, to theory. Antecedent to theory. In other words, Scientism calls unknowns subjugant to theory.

The problem with subjugating all unknowns, to theory, is first that it encourages false positives. General theories, which discern little difference between one unknown and another, have the danger that one unknown be mistaken for another. Thus it appears that a theory can be made of something, when the precise unknown it is dealing with, is mistaken. Second, subjugating unknowns together suggests that one theory, about an unknown, is on equal footing with other theories, that take the same unknown as foundation. This leads to an idea of scientific progress, that all unknowns will one day be subject to an arch-theory, that is able to identify the value all unknowns are given, in the same given way.

What is needed, is imagination. Imagination, frees unknowns to be what they are for their own value. With imagination, unknowns are able to interact with each other, in ways that are far more creative, than they can ever be, held as subjugant to Scientism. This is a simple dynamic: the more freedom you give the imagination to deal with unknowns, the greater the overall creativity that those interactions achieve. It is not an assumption that science can not reckon with unknowns, but that science that prizes imagination before subjugating an unknown to a theory will arrive at the needed conclusion concerning that science, more quickly and more precisely than had it prized anything else.

What is intelligent about this, is that it allows utility to be found in the manner of approach, before foregone conclusions about what a given unknown can accomplish. "Design" is just one such kind of unknown. It is not that knowing what something is, tells you everything about what it can do, rather a designation of "design" suggests that a degree of what defines that design, is unknown even to the design. This amplifies its power, because it is in direct conjunction with what is unknown even to it: that is, what it is capable of. Thus you have the concept of intelligent design, which brings the unknown into relationship with the imagination.

I hope this has been of some education.

Thanks.

 

[Tolworth John]

Science that relies on philosopical ideas, but rejects in advance certain philosopical ideas is neither scientific or honest.

 

[Gottservant]

Science that relies on philosopical ideas, but rejects in advance certain philosopical ideas is neither scientific or honest.

Without specific quotes, it is hard to tell whether you are speaking about me, or just something in general.

If you are talking about me, I would say "No, saying 'it is dishonest' is dishonest".

If you are talking generally, for one thing you are using the word "idea" as if it was "leaning"; second, claims about science that are philosophical are not necessarily unscientific, they may be pre-scientific; third, contesting scientific soundness does not necessarily mean rejecting theory or relying on something that was not theoretically sound or both, it is more a matter of questioning motive and what purpose you are trusting to bring scientific study into effect.

Again, you did not claim all these things, so its hard to know what you mean, but by no means should the conversation stop there!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I hope this has been of some education.

It has not. I have learned nothing from you. (And you still have learned nothing about science.)

You still do not understand science, how it works, or what theory is.

Now you've gone and thrown about the word "scientism" as a sort of slur against science, the practice of science, and anyone who puts value in the things science actually finds.

 

[Tolworth John]

Without specific quotes, it is hard to tell whether you are speaking about me, or just something in general.

If you are talking about me, I would say "No, saying 'it is dishonest' is dishonest".

If you are talking generally, for one thing you are using the word "idea" as if it was "leaning"; second, claims about science that are philosophical are not necessarily unscientific, they may be pre-scientific; third, contesting scientific soundness does not necessarily mean rejecting theory or relying on something that was not theoretically sound or both, it is more a matter of questioning motive and what purpose you are trusting to bring scientific study into effect.

Again, you did not claim all these things, so its hard to know what you mean, but by no means should the conversation stop there!

I'm talking about rejecting in advance the idea that something caused the big bang, as in the Kalam ' I can't spell the rest ' logical idea, that everything that has a begining has a cause.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm talking about rejecting in advance the idea that something caused the big bang, as in the Kalam ' I can't spell the rest ' logical idea, that everything that has a begining has a cause.

What's that got to do with the OP? (What does anything have to do with the OP word salad? It's not really your fault the OP is devoid of meaning.)

 

[Gottservant]

It has not. I have learned nothing from you. (And you still have learned nothing about science.)

You still do not understand science, how it works, or what theory is.

Now you've gone and thrown about the word "scientism" as a sort of slur against science, the practice of science, and anyone who puts value in the things science actually finds.

If its a choice between an unknown and prefabricated "science" (scientism), the unknown will always win the discovery stakes.

As I said, imagination is more important to science than knowing the answer.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm talking about rejecting in advance the idea that something caused the big bang, as in the Kalam ' I can't spell the rest ' logical idea, that everything that has a begining has a cause.

I guess I am saying "everything that has a beginning, has a reason to inspire"

 

[Hans Blaster]

If its a choice between an unknown and prefabricated "science" (scientism), the unknown will always win the discovery stakes.

As I said, imagination is more important to science than knowing the answer.

Mashing ideas together doesn't make them true, or comprehensible. You're word salad does not make for a complete diet of ideas.

 

[Unqualified]

@Gottservant I understand what you are saying and it seems like what scientists are doing. They have come up with imaginary unknowns like dark energy to mimic the designer. It has stopped being science and honest. Anything to avoid God who they also can’t understand.

science also follows a multi disciplinary approach. They collaborate with philosophy, like you are saying to make rules of the game. The disciplines have their place but overlap. The philosophical rules they have made since the acceptance of intelligent design have changed to help their great need to explain the unexplainable, to keep pace will religion and creation science. The interdisciplinary approach feeds their imaginations to make a philosophical view of the universe into a scientific finding which they can’t prove yet.

 

[Hans Blaster]

@Gottservant I understand what you are saying and it seems like what scientists are doing. They have come up with imaginary unknowns like dark energy to mimic the designer. It has stopped being science and honest. Anything to avoid God who they also can’t understand.

Congratulations! You seem to be the only one with the decoder ring. Perhaps you are reading things into his statements. I for on would like him to use the phrase "dark energy" if that is the kind of thing that bothers him.

 

[Unqualified]

It’s his thread. Are you trying to disprove what he says about evolution on every front? Be cause you are on opposite sides. @Gottservant is a rather challenging writer, furthering the dialogue of evolution theories and creationism.

Congratulations! You seem to be the only one with the decoder ring. Perhaps you are reading things into his statements. I for on would like him to use the phrase "dark energy" if that is the kind of thing that bothers him.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It’s his thread. Are you trying to disprove what he says about evolution on every front? Be cause you are on opposite sides. @Gottservant is a rather challenging writer, furthering the dialogue of evolution theories and creationism.

He babbles incoherently and fills his posts with things irrelevant to science. (I only comment on his "science" posts.) When I find something I can reply to I generally lay down a marker. Exactly *once* has he written a whole paragraph that was reasonably coherent and not horribly wrong. (Unfortunately it wasn't the whole post.)

Several of us have tried to get him to at least understand the thing he is arguing against (usually evolution), but it doesn't seem to reach him.

 

[Unqualified]

He babbles incoherently and fills his posts with things irrelevant to science. (I only comment on his "science" posts.) When I find something I can reply to I generally lay down a marker. Exactly *once* has he written a whole paragraph that was reasonably coherent and not horribly wrong. (Unfortunately it wasn't the whole post.)

Several of us have tried to get him to at least understand the thing he is arguing against (usually evolution), but it doesn't seem to reach him.

Can’t pin him down you are saying. Are you pro evolution? Sounds like the man wants to have a discussion. His ideas sound clear to me. You want to battle out the details. When he is talking philosophy,he has a source. Don’t you see this is the present state of science. A change in the rules of progression to the establishing of theories and proving them. The designer is using intelligence in the making or planning of the universe so scientists are thinking He is using a very imaginative way in what He did. And so they are using intelligence ie imagination to analyze His every move and pinpoint the unknowns in a broad way.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can’t pin him down you are saying. Are you pro evolution? Sounds like the man wants to have a discussion. His ideas sound clear to me. You want to battle out the details. When he is talking philosophy,he has a source. Don’t you see this is the present state of science. A change in the rules of progression to the establishing of theories and proving them. The designer is using intelligence in the making or planning of the universe so scientists are thinking He is using a very imaginative way in what He did. And so they are using intelligence ie imagination to analyze His every move and pinpoint the unknowns in a broad way.

I am supported by the scientific evidence.

This isn't the philosophy board or the theology board, it is science time here. He demonstrates repeatedly that he doesn't understand it and doesn't bother learning it.

 

[Unqualified]

I don’t get it. It is just a personality conflict. @Gottservant doesn’t want to debate with you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don’t get it. It is just a personality conflict. @Gottservant doesn’t want to debate with you.

Then he should post elsewhere.

 

[sjastro]

@Gottservant I understand what you are saying and it seems like what scientists are doing. They have come up with imaginary unknowns like dark energy to mimic the designer. It has stopped being science and honest. Anything to avoid God who they also can’t understand.

science also follows a multi disciplinary approach. They collaborate with philosophy, like you are saying to make rules of the game. The disciplines have their place but overlap. The philosophical rules they have made since the acceptance of intelligent design have changed to help their great need to explain the unexplainable, to keep pace will religion and creation science. The interdisciplinary approach feeds their imaginations to make a philosophical view of the universe into a scientific finding which they can’t prove yet.

Wow what an unqualified account about science here.
Science falls into three broad categories; phenomenological which explains the effect, non-phenomenological explaining the cause and somewhere in between.
Dark energy is an example of phenomenological science the effects of which are shown up in supernova light curves and structures in the cosmological microwave background.

This leads me to Isaac Newton who was profoundly religious albeit holding some heretical views involving Arianism, when asked about what caused gravity gave the following response.

Newton was too good a scientist to give a cause to his phenomenological theory of gravity namely “God did it” or ID as it excludes the fundamental objective of science to explain the “how” and not the “why”.

 

[AV1611VET]

Newton was too good a scientist to give a cause to his phenomenological theory of gravity namely “God did it” or ID as it excludes the fundamental objective of science to explain the “how” and not the “why”.

Wow -- modern science in a nutshell.

"I'm too good to ascribe anything to God, as it might taint science's reputation."

Incidentally, will it include (and therefore violate) science's "fundamental objective" to answer the question:

Why does paper burn?

 

[sjastro]

Wow -- modern science in a nutshell.

"I'm too good to ascribe anything to God, as it might taint science's reputation."

Incidentally, will it include (and therefore violate) science's "fundamental objective" to answer the question:

Why does paper burn?

Go ask a primary school kid for the answer.

Newton made the quote in the late 17th century so it is hardly modern science.
In fact Newton expressed an opinion which goes back to the 6th century BC to the Father of Science, the mathematician Thales of Miletus, who proposed naturalistic theories and hypotheses to provide explanations instead of a reliance on the supernatural.