How much of science is faith based?

[Sorry!]

I'd love to see evidence that supports this claim. :-)

It's not that I choose not to accept it. It's the fact that it has no basis and no explanatory or prediction power in reality. Religion is there to give people solace and a false sense of entitlement.

hmph?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Imagine in a religious discussion, someone claims that he has evidence that the story of Noah's Ark is a myth. Then the elders scold him because he what he was calling 'evidence' should be called 'scientific evidence' which is of course very different from ACTUAL evidence (in the religious discussion).

This is a meaningless equivocation. Scientific evidence is based on observations in reality. Religious evidence is based on imaginary beliefs. Scientific evidence is ACTUAL evidence.

Another example is my faith in the proposition 'I have 5 fingers on my right hand'. You might think I have evidence for this claim, such as my past memories or the ability to look at my hand with my vision and count the fingers. But couldn't I just as well use the fingers on my hand to check my vision? And suppose my memory disagreed and suggested 4 fingers only on that right hand, or my vision suggested 8 fingers, then I would declare these faculties to be in error! Evidence which contradicts our faith is automatically suspect.

You do realize there are mental/physical deficiencies diagnosed. Even people who are diagnosed as colorblind REALLY ARE colorblind. We know the exact wavelengths that each color gives off so we can verify this.

People also have hallucinations that distort reality for them. Does a distortion of reality necessairly make that reality a reality?

 

[LightbulbSun]

hmph?

Sorry, then show me a religious claim that's a fact. Show me what's true about religion.

 

[Sorry!]

dude I've ALREADY said I'm atheist.

You DO know faith and religion ARE NOT interchangable words... they DO carry different meanings.

The meaning of faith as I understand it is 'confidence in something' or 'to strictly abide by the 'guidelines' set out'

1) I have faith in science.
2) I am faithful to the scientific method.

In the Qu'ran speaks of Earth existing PRIOR to life. It ALSO speaks of an atom being the smallest particles. It recognizes that the EARTH is perfectly suited for life because of 3 factors. They knew that the Earth was ROUND not flat like the europeans. It recognizes that the Earth spins and that it's spin is required. It points out all living things are made of mostly water as well as the orbits the planets have etc. They RECOGNIZED OUR UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING CONTINUOUSLY...

I don't know of any 'factual' information in the CHRISTIAN bible but i am CERTAIN there exist some stuff... any 'scripture' for that matter.

Dude a lot of our 'scientific findings' were made CENTURIES earlier by the muslims lol... a lot is actually already in the Qu'ran. Think about when this was written dude. late 7th century? early 8th?
nice.

 

[LightbulbSun]

dude I've ALREADY said I'm atheist.

You don't sound like one.

You DO know faith and religion ARE NOT interchangable words... they DO carry different meanings.

Religion is based on faith.

The meaning of faith as I understand it is 'confidence in something' or 'to strictly abide by the 'guidelines' set out'

1) I have faith in science.
2) I am faithful to the scientific method.

There's two definitions you can go by with 'faith.'

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

Religion 'faith' would fall under the second definition.

In the Qu'ran speaks of Earth existing PRIOR to life. It ALSO speaks of an atom being the smallest particles. It recognizes that the EARTH is perfectly suited for life because of 3 factors. They knew that the Earth was ROUND not flat like the europeans. It recognizes that the Earth spins and that it's spin is required. It points out all living things are made of mostly water as well as the orbits the planets have etc. They RECOGNIZED OUR UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING CONTINUOUSLY...

I don't know of any 'factual' information in the CHRISTIAN bible but i am CERTAIN there exist some stuff... any 'scripture' for that matter.

Dude a lot of our 'scientific findings' were made CENTURIES earlier by the muslims lol... a lot is actually already in the Qu'ran. Think about when this was written dude. late 7th century? early 8th?
nice.

Where are your sources on this?

http://octopus.gma.org/space1/nav_map.html"

"People knew the Earth was round 2500 years ago. They just forgot.

Because Earth-bound observers could only view a small section of the globe at a time, it wasn't possible to tell from direct observation whether the Earth was a flat disk or a sphere. The Greeks were the first to theorize that the Earth was round. Scholars like Pythagoras in 500 BC based their belief on observations about the way the altitudes of stars varied at different places on Earth and how ships appeared on the horizon."

Which would match up with this explanation:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/bible_koran.html"

"Much of the fundamentalist's evidence for this alleged miracle is actually moot, since it represents scientific knowledge that had been known in both the Mediterranean and Middle East for centuries before the Koran was written. Things like this have proven hard to explain to fanatics who are more practiced at pious denials than in actual historical research. For what follows, I am repeating common knowledge in the field of medieval history, and I refer doubters to the bibliography at the end of this essay.

The works of the Greeks were known in the Arab and North African world for a thousand years before Islam, and Islam began translating Greek texts into Arabic within a century of its military conquests." -http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/islam.html"

 

[Moridin]

I generally agree that there is quite a lot of appeal to the fallacy of equivocation when it comes to the term faith.

 

[octelcogopod]

Apologize if this has been said before but I didn't read the entire thread.

This is to the OP.

I think everything works in degrees, like science.
The general goal of science is to not trust anything to belief, but rather observation and theory applied to it.
In general most humans must put a lot of faith into everything, there's no inherent absolution in anything, including science.

When I go to bed at night I expect to wake up, and when I drink my water I expect it to not run off and fly to the sky, or even when I drive my car I expect a meteorite to not hit my head from above.
Most people are happy enough having a general understanding of the things that matter to them.
In essence everything humans do is science, we observe something, our brain processes, we see the effects in reality, then we gain knowledge.
This is any type of learning that humans do daily.

Science is the same way only on a much deeper and critical level.
It goes beyond what is needed for the subjective individual, because the individual has set a goal for himself to do so.
This means that a person can do many months of math calculation without it really having an effect on him beyond his own desires related to what he's doing.
Which is exactly the same as anything else, we learn how to eat, walk, communicate because it is our want.

Hope I understood your question though because it was a bit archaic in nature.

 

[russ_watters]

No. I am saying that "Does scripture say X?" is an objective criterion, just like "Is X the result of an experiment?" and "Is X the conclusion of a logical argument?"

I can't understand why you would think that that is an objective criterion. It is logically [illogically] equivalent to asking "Does Tom Clancy say X?" and worshiping Jack Ryan. The reason why it is arbitrary/illogical is easily seen in asking why one chooses that criteria. What is the goal/purpose of this study and the criteria that drives it? Remember what the issue is here: the issue is about choosing a way of looking at the world that works.

In another thread, we have a a religious anti-relativity crackpot going on about the speed of light not being constant. If he were right, GPS wouldn't work. The Catholic church struggles against its own failures to accpet what is known about the natural world - it pardoned Galileo in the 80s and now accepts the Big Bang. But if "Does scripture say X" is an objective criteria, why the changes in view? The scripture hasn't changed*. The Earth's central position in the cosmos was such a strong, central belief it was worth killing people over. And now they accept that it was wrong? How is that possible?

*That's another part of the arbitrary-ness of religion. There are different versions of scripture and these versions were choosen by people hundreds of years ago and are not up for debate. That's why the Protestant bible is different from the Catholic one. So the "Does scripture say X" criterion isn't even really right. The criterion really is: "Does the current Pope say scripture says x"?

I don't know. Nor do I know what makes a person choose to accept empiricism, to accept rationalism, or to reject any evidence that is not an empiricial, rationalist...

It's pretty simple: one system works, the others don't. There can be no other reason for choosing a way of approaching the search for knowledge! You pick the method that acutally results in finding knowledge!

Btw Buddhism doesn't really fit there - it doesn't require one to drop empericism. That's actually a useful point, and something worth noting here in general. In another thread, there is a poll about the relationship between science and religion. I choose the "Separate World Model". The point being that it is fine to search for the answers to questions that are outside the realm of science through religion. There could be a God - science won't deny that. But when religion trys to explain how the natural world works, it typically fails. And it fails because it's method for searching for knowledge about the natural world is wrong.

I'll even go further than this - the Scientific Method isn't just a method chosen from other methods, it is a discovery just like gravity. Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter and he discovered the correct method for searching for knowledge about the natural world.

No; logic is simply one of the primary tools of philosophers, and is only usable if we presuppose rationalism.

"Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy

That's a smokescreen anyway, Hurkyl - I'm reasonably certain that people who strictly follow religion at the expense of science would still claim to be logical.

 

[russ_watters]

There is another problem with the religious approach to the search for knowledge that didn't quite fit above, so I'm putting it in another post...

The religious approach to the search for knowledge requires hypocrisy to live in the modern world. 500 years ago, when we didn't know much, science was relatively harmless. It didn't matter that Galileo was right, his ideas had no impact on people's day to day lives, so it was easy to deny him and persecute him. Today, it takes enormous effort and sacrifice to avoid science and technology - and few actually try to. That anti-relativity crackpot may never buy himself a GPS receiver, but his hosue uses nuclear power and the radio station that tells him he's late for work gets the time from an atomic clock. He can't close his eyes and make Relativity go away - he's immersed in it. Only by making an almost conscious decision to be a hypocrite can someone choose that belief.

 

[Hurkyl]

I can't understand why you would think that that is an objective criterion. It is logically [illogically] equivalent to asking "Does Tom Clancy say X?" and worshiping Jack Ryan. The reason why it is arbitrary/illogical is easily seen in asking why one chooses that criteria. What is the goal/purpose of this study and the criteria that drives it? Remember what the issue is here: the issue is about choosing a way of looking at the world that works.

The reason and the purpose for using any criterion has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the criterion itself is objective.

But if "Does scripture say X" is an objective criteria, why the changes in view? The scripture hasn't changed*. The Earth's central position in the cosmos was such a strong, central belief it was worth killing people over. And now they accept that it was wrong? How is that possible?

You have no problem with the claims of science changing over time as scientific evidence becomes better understood. Why do you have a problem with the claims of Catholocism changing over time as scriptural evidence becomes better understood?

It's pretty simple: one system works, the others don't.

Isn't a belief in empiricism a prerequisite for that argument?

Btw Buddhism doesn't really fit there - it doesn't require one to drop empericism.

Nor does any other religion I'm familiar with. While Buddhism doesn't require one to drop empiricism, surely one can adopt the position of accepting only Buddhist evidence and nothing else?

"Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/philosophy

Philosophy ... 2c ... an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs​

Yay, referring to dictionaries is fun! Actually, even your link has this definition:

the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge​

Of course, the way I was actually using the word was as:

the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group​

 

[russ_watters]

But don't I accept on faith that I am writing words in English whose meaning I know? For I don't know what proposition I am more sure of then that one, that I may take as evidence for it.

I can't imagine why you would think such a thing. If you have any doubts that you are speaking English, check your dictionary.

Another example is my faith in the proposition 'I have 5 fingers on my right hand'. You might think I have evidence for this claim, such as my past memories or the ability to look at my hand with my vision and count the fingers. But couldn't I just as well use the fingers on my hand to check my vision? And suppose my memory disagreed and suggested 4 fingers only on that right hand, or my vision suggested 8 fingers, then I would declare these faculties to be in error! Evidence which contradicts our faith is automatically suspect.

None of that is correct. I think your problem here is that you quite simply don't know what it means to not have faith! To you, everything is faith. I don't need faith to know how many fingers I have. I can count.

 

[Hurkyl]

I can't imagine why you would think such a thing. If you have any doubts that you are speaking English, check your dictionary.

That's not a method. That's an object.

 

[russ_watters]

The reason and the purpose for using any criterion has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the criterion itself is objective.

I disagree. The religious criterion is choosen because it is biased. It is self-reinforcing, which is what enables it to persist despite its flaws.

And I choose the scientific criteria because it works, but it works largely because it is unbiased. Inherrent contradictions, such as the examples in my previous post, cause error in the religious model.

You have no problem with the claims of science changing over time as scientific evidence becomes better understood. Why do you have a problem with the claims of Catholocism changing over time as scriptural evidence becomes better understood?

It's pretty simple: science accepts new evidence and Catholicism doesn't. So Catholicism should already have all the answers. And, in fact, they do claim to have all the answers, despite changing them every now and then (which is obviously contradictory).

Isn't a belief in empiricism a prerequisite for that argument?

Only if it also make people who follow the religious view hypocrites for claiming their view is correct.

Nor does any other religion I'm familiar with.

Most of them most certainly do. It is a common thread among religions that religious people must ignore evidence when it contradicts with the teachings of the religion, even if that contradicts reality. That's kinda the whole problem being discussed here. And I've given plenty of examples of this.

While Buddhism doesn't require one to drop empiricism, surely one can adopt the position of accepting only Buddhist evidence and nothing else?

People can choose to adopt any position they want. But choosing strict adherence to many religions requires dropping it.

Yay, referring to dictionaries is fun!

Ignoring a definition by citing another one doesn't make it go away any more than ignoring a piece of evidence makes it go away. I mean seriously - are you claiming that most religious people consider themselves and their beliefs to be illogical?

Unless the only "concept" or "principle" is 'none of my concepts and principles mean anything, just organizing them into coherent thoughts makes them logical. It's a catch-22 perhaps, but that's tough: that's the way our brains work and how thought itself works.

 

[Hurkyl]

I disagree. The religious criterion is choosen because it is biased. It is self-reinforcing, which is what enables it to persist despite its flaws.

Wait, you were talking about objectivity before, and now you're talking about bias? Either way, your argument has the same flaw -- you're confusing the criterion with the reason one adopts the criterion for some purpose.

I've repeatedly pressed you on the topic -- and every time you have argued that the reason for adopting the criterion was not objective, and you have not once attempted to argue that the criterion itself is not objective.

Either stop asserting the criterion is subjective/biased/whatever, or start arguing for that assertion. Or, you can continue playing the broken record, I suppose; but I have no interest in listening yet again to this red herring.

It's pretty simple: science accepts new evidence and Catholicism doesn't. So Catholicism should already have all the answers.

Two flaws:

(1) Even in science, the interpretation of old data gets revised as things are better understood.

(2) Catholocism doesn't reject logical and empirical evidence. While it considers the scriptures to be absolute, other forms of evidence are still useful in situations where the scriptures have nothing to say, or for deciding between different ways to interpret them.

Only if it also make people who follow the religious view hypocrites for claiming their view is correct.

Huh? My point is that your argument form is an invalid one; once upon a time, you accused the belief in scripture to be an arbitrary one, with the clear implication that that was supposed to somehow invalidate it.

But you cannot justify an a priori belief in empiricism either; if your argument form was a valid one, you should also be rejecting the scientific method.

Of course, I expected you to respond with "I accept science it works" -- an empirical argument justifying the acceptance of empiricism. How is that different than a scriptural argument justifying the acceptance of scripture?

It is a common thread among religions that religious people must ignore evidence when it contradicts with the teachings of the religion, even if that contradicts reality.

Evidence on its own has little to no power to contradict anything. It's the conclusion you draw from the evidence that has that power. If a person who holds certain religious scriptures to be incontravertible faces data whose naive interpretation suggests the scriptures are wrong, he simply has to seek an alternative way to interpret the data.

If you go to a magic show and see a magician pull a rabbit out of his hat, you now have a piece of empirical evidence. Does that evidence contradict science?

Ignoring a definition by citing another one doesn't make it go away any more than ignoring a piece of evidence makes it go away. I mean seriously - are you claiming that most religious people consider themselves and their beliefs to be illogical?

They should. And so should the scientist. Only a strict rationalist has any chance of his beliefs being completely logical.

 

[Moridin]

To be honest, I do not think that the reason that the religion mentioned above accepts evolution or a heliocentric solar system is because the scripture says so, but because of the scientific evidence. In fact, certain parts of religious scripture emphasize the immutability of species and a geocentric / anthropocentric view of the Universe.

(1) Even in science, the interpretation of old data gets revised as things are better understood.

Indeed, but in modern times, valid explanatory principles do not get discarded as newer models must make the same prediction in areas where they both apply (provided I makes valid predictions). We still use Newtonian Mechanics and Darwinian evolution to explain easy principles, even though mechanics are much more than Newton knew and evolution is much more than Darwin ever imagined.

Of course, I expected you to respond with "I accept science it works" -- an empirical argument justifying the acceptance of empiricism. How is that different than a scriptural argument justifying the acceptance of scripture?

I would say that it is an empirical argument justifying the theoretical models of science. Moreover, science need not be based on strict realism; instrumentalism works just as well - where the validity of a scientific theory is judged on how much it can explain and the success of its predictions, rather than some obscure reference to 'truth'.

 

[fleem]

All science is based on completely unproven assumptions (postulates, axioms). So yes, science is a matter of complete faith in those axioms. However, most will agree that the scientific method includes the requirement to find axioms that create the simplest science (Occam's razor). In fact, that is the greatest goal of science (here's to hoping E8 is it!). For this reason we can defend, to some extent, the best axioms we currently have. But we can't defend them completely. For example, Newtonian mechanics worked very well for quite some time and we had lots of faith in it, yet it was proven wrong and we were forced to change some postulates, which resulted in QM and GR--better but not perfect.

Concerning this thread's side discussion over the existence of God, I say:

Occam's razor obliges the atheist to defend his claim that reality has some extra mechanism that precludes the existence of infinite order. (I think we can agree that "infinite order" is one fair definition of "God").

Consider that we cannot claim any currently perceived finite attribute of the universe as a factor that limits order, for all attributes we see must be only facets of order (the universe) rather than bounds within which order exists. This is why every age has seen its perceived limits of the universe expanded.

 

[Moridin]

Science is neither based on unproven assumptions or axioms, because we can verify our assumptions. That is what makes science superior.

Occam's razor obliges the atheist to defend his claim that reality has some extra mechanism that precludes the existence of infinite order. (I think we can agree that "infinite order" is one fair definition of "God").

An atheist makes no claims. Some versions of deities can be disproven scientifically.

 

[Hurkyl]

All science is based on completely unproven assumptions (postulates, axioms).

I don't think you have the right idea.

First off, I would like to point out that postulates are a 'computational' device -- they provide a convenient way to describe and work with a theory. (much like coordinates are a convenient way to work with spatial positions)


Anyways, through the use of deductive logic, the postulates of a theory are used to make predictions. Experiments are performed to test those predictions. If successful, we increase our confidence in the postulates in an amount that varies directly with the specificity of the prediction, our confidence in the experiment, and the solidity of our logic. If the test fails, our confidence decreases in a similar manner.

Then, we can use logic to study the implications of the postulates; our confidence the postulates and the solidity of our logic translates into confidence in the implications.



The part that's 'missing' is why someone decides to use this framework for acquiring knowledge.

 

[Crosson]

This is a meaningless equivocation. Scientific evidence is based on observations in reality. Religious evidence is based on imaginary beliefs. Scientific evidence is ACTUAL evidence.

In the context of the religious discussion it is not meaningless, even an irreligious man can see that. I agree there are different criteria for what counts as evidence in a logical discussion as apposed to a religious one, but the correctness is judged within the discussion itself --- there is no super-discussion from which to judge them against each other. Instead all we have is persuasion, appeal to emotion, claims like "my belief has the best pragmatic/aesthetic value". Calling one belief "imaginary" and another "actual" is an appeal to emotion, these terms lose their meaning when carried outside of their ordinary use.

You do realize there are mental/physical deficiencies diagnosed. Even people who are diagnosed as colorblind REALLY ARE colorblind. We know the exact wavelengths that each color gives off so we can verify this.

"REALLY ARE" etc is just more appeal to emotion, besides pragmatic and aesthetic value another point of persuasion is to argue social value, as in "these doctors agree with me, you REALLY ARE colorblind".

People also have hallucinations that distort reality for them. Does a distortion of reality necessarily make that reality a reality?

Is an X necessarily an X? That is one of the most necessary statements that I know. And if you think I am just picking on your wording, I suggest the problem is deeper then that.

 

[fleem]

Science is neither based on unproven assumptions or axioms, because we can verify our assumptions. That is what makes science superior.

For one example, all science is based on the presumption that the rules of the universe are consistent. For another example, Euclidean geometry is based on the presumption that there are things called "point, line, and plane" that have certain presumed attributes. These things cannot be proven. Wikipedia has some good articles on the role of "axiom" and "postulate" in science. You might also take a look at Goedel's incompleteness theorems--roughly, he said you can't use a given set of rules to prove those rules are consistent. Ironically, Goedel used the rules of the universe to make his proof! So of course, even Goedel's incompleteness theorems really aren't "proven". Likewise nothing is really provable.

An atheist makes no claims.

You might be confusing "atheist" with "agnostic". The root words of "atheist" are "no-God-ist"--a person claiming there is no God. An agnostic means "not knowing" (in the context of the existence of God). So an agnostic is a person that makes no claims about whether there is a God or not. FYI, a "theist" is a "God-ist"--a person claiming there is a God. Of course, the definition of "God" can certainly vary!

Some versions of deities can be disproven scientifically.

Not sure what your point is, here.

 

[Sorry!]

how about we all just agree to disagree. Arguments like this usually end up with no greater understanding of both sides and no ground gained or ANYTHING of the sort lol... Religious people believe in crazy stuff sometimes people of the scientific method don't like these illogical conclusions but HEY live with it.

 

[Crosson]

If you have any doubts that you are speaking English, check your dictionary.

What kind of proof would that be?

Any proposition can be logically derived from any other, its just that the additional premises may be weaker then the conclusion:

1. It's the year 2007.
2. The USA has a federal election in December of every year with the digit 7.

Conclusion: The USA will have a federal election this December.

The argument is valid, but it didn't convince you (I suspect) because you don't believe in premise 2. I even suspect that it would be more difficult to convince you of premise 2 then it would be to convince you of the conclusion outright (especially if you were alive in the 1970s).

So it is said that all proofs should proceed a fortiori, literally from the strong to the weak, from the certain to the unexpected. The premise must be at least as certain as the conclusion.

Now think about what premises are involved in reaching for the dictionary, taken together with the conclusion we intend to show. It should be apparent that we do not have a proof, but rather are begging the question.

I think your problem here is that you quite simply don't know what it means to not have faith!

I don't need to have faith in a proposition I can produce grounds for, but for a proposition such as "I am typing English words" I cannot produce grounds (because as I said above, the grounds must be somehow more certain then the conclusion), therefore it is by definition accepted on faith (without evidence).

[/QUOTE]
To you, everything is faith. I don't need faith to know how many fingers I have. I can count.[/QUOTE]

Your ability to count may be the cause of you knowledge of your 5 fingers, but it is not grounds, or evidence for it. You can't give a proof of it, because any premise you used would be no more certain then "I have 5 fingers".

Do I think that "everything is faith"? Let's instead ask, what's my intention: to answer the question posed by the op humbly but carefully in the affirmative, as I quoted Quine in my first post of the thread saying "beliefs about numbers and beliefs about the gods differ in degree, but not in kind".

how about we all just agree to disagree. Arguments like this usually end up with no greater understanding of both sides and no ground gained or ANYTHING of the sort lol... Religious people believe in crazy stuff sometimes people of the scientific method don't like these illogical conclusions but HEY live with it.

In contrast I would like to suggest that arguments like this are very philosophically important for scientists, and it is only the person who quits or never began who fails to gain anything.

 

[LightbulbSun]

In the context of the religious discussion it is not meaningless, even an irreligious man can see that.

Is religious discussion really meaningful?

I agree there are different criteria for what counts as evidence in a logical discussion as apposed to a religious one, but the correctness is judged within the discussion itself --- there is no super-discussion from which to judge them against each other. Instead all we have is persuasion, appeal to emotion, claims like "my belief has the best pragmatic/aesthetic value". Calling one belief "imaginary" and another "actual" is an appeal to emotion, these terms lose their meaning when carried outside of their ordinary use.

Do you even know what an appeal to emotion is?

Appeal to Emotion: X makes me feel good. Therefore X is true.

I don't accept the scientific method based on it feeling good. It's simply currently the best way to accrue accurate knowledge about our universe.

"REALLY ARE" etc is just more appeal to emotion, besides pragmatic and aesthetic value another point of persuasion is to argue social value, as in "these doctors agree with me, you REALLY ARE colorblind".

Again, you cherrypick my quotes and narrow it down to two words and then give it a false label. I was arguing that people who are delusional really can be determined to be delusional, and that colorblind people can be verified as actually colorblind because we know the specific measurements of wavelengths that each color gives off. This does not follow the appeal to emotion fallacy.

Is an X necessarily an X? That is one of the most necessary statements that I know. And if you think I am just picking on your wording, I suggest the problem is deeper then that.

Reality is reality, and you can talk all you want, but that doesn't make your claims true. Facts are what make something true.

 

[Moridin]

For one example, all science is based on the presumption that the rules of the universe are consistent.

No, they are not blind assumptions, since we can demonstrate that the Universe is somewhat consistent and science is tentative. DaveC426913 posted this in another thread:

No. The difference is that science as a principle welcomes the opportunity to be wrong.

We assume the universe is the same every where merely because it is the best road to more knowledge. The moment some aspect of that assumption turns out to be false, science as a principle is modify its outdated models.

For another example, Euclidean geometry is based on the presumption that there are things called "point, line, and plane" that have certain presumed attributes. These things cannot be proven.

They are not assumptions; they are definitions.

Wikipedia has some good articles on the role of "axiom" and "postulate" in science.

Wikipedia is an invalid source.

You might also take a look at Goedel's incompleteness theorems--roughly, he said you can't use a given set of rules to prove those rules are consistent. Ironically, Goedel used the rules of the universe to make his proof! So of course, even Goedel's incompleteness theorems really aren't "proven".

No, Gödel's incompleteness theorem has been proven and it says that statements exists that are neither 'provable' or 'disprovable'. There are no such things as the rules of the Universe. Laws in science and mathematics are not legislative laws, but generalized descriptions. Furthermore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem only applies within the realms of mathematics and logic and need not apply to the actual world.

Likewise nothing is really provable.

Before trying to make an argument, you need to understand what the term 'proof' and 'provable' is.

 

[Lord Ping]

There are no such things as the rules of the Universe. Laws in science and mathematics are not legislative laws, but generalized descriptions.

Interesting. Can you defend that view? Many philosophers over the years have tried to, assuming that view to be in some sense intuitively favourable, but I'm not at all convinced.

I think that there really is necessity in the universe, laws really do make things happen, and that this intuition permeates real science.

Take this example:
"All gold spheres have a diameter of less than a hundred miles."
It's a universal generalisation, that is, as far as we know, true. Yet somehow we just know that it's not a law. We just know that if we made a gold sphere 99 miles across and added a bit, it wouldn't explode.

But take:
"All plutonium spheres have a diameter of less than a hundred miles."
This time, this is a law, since we know that the instability of plutonium would necessitate its truth in all cases. We just know that if we tried to cram that much plutonium together, it would go wrong.

I'd be interested to know your view - perhaps you think that the gold spheres claim really is a law. It's a murky area.

 

[Moridin]

A law is nothing that forced the Universe to act in a certain way - it is our generalized descriptions. This is the very definition. Take Newton's Laws for instance. We know they are approximations, but they work, because they are generalized descriptions.

All of them are laws - that is, generalized descriptions. None of them are legislative laws. As time goes by, our laws (generalized descriptions) getter better and better.

Investigation at quantum level has shown that even the concept of laws in the macro-world as legislative law is completely nonsense.

 

[Sorry!]

In contrast I would like to suggest that arguments like this are very philosophically important for scientists, and it is only the person who quits or never began who fails to gain anything.

Yes well I'm not saying arguments like this AREN'T very philosophical. All that i am saying is that arguments over religion lead to no gained knowledge. Unless you classify learning that people are ignorant as knowledge?

 

[Hurkyl]

Ugh, would you guys please refrain from talking about Gödel's theorems? You both misunderstand, and I think trying to explain it here would just make this thread even more convoluted.

 

[Moridin]

Ugh, would you guys please refrain from talking about Gödel's theorems? You both misunderstand, and I think trying to explain it here would just make this thread even more convoluted.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

I was attempting to convey the informal explanation.

 

[Crosson]

If the thread is convoluted, it is directly related to the variety of possible interpretations of the original post.

"How much of our science is faith based?"

Theoretical science is based on mathematics, and experimental science is based on observations of the external world. So the theoretical branch of the question is equivalent to:

"How much is mathematics based on faith?"

Mathematics is based on first order logic, and ZF set theory (which is a choice of faith according to incompleteness).

"How much is first order of logic based on faith?"

Logic is based on the principle of non-contradiction, that a quality cannot be both present and absent at the same time in the same sense, i.e. ~(p.~p).

"How much is the principle of non-contradiction based on faith?"

All of it! It forces itself upon us by its extreme aesthetic appeal.