Scientific method/rationalism = faith?

[Ivan Seeking]

No, that still looks like a "yet" to me. Our mental capacity increases via accumulation of knowledge, evolution, and technology.

The only reason that it could be fundamentally impossible to know how the universe works is if the universe does not follow set laws. Ie, if there is a God up there just pulling strings and screwing with us.

That is an assumption, as is the assumption that the universe can be modeled completely with physics and mathematics.

So I don't understand why you would not believe simply that there is order and consistency in the universe.

We assume that there is, but we don't know that there is at the most fundamental level. The distinction is clear.

Why should we leap to a belief? You are stating here that we should make a leap of faith, which is the basic requirement for religious beliefs.

 

[Cyrus]

But what he's saying is not a leap of faith. It is a hypothesis based on the last 3500 years of scientific evidence. It can be true, it can be false. But its not 'faith'. As to why, because its the most logical hypothesis to begin with.

 

[ice109]

But what he's saying is not a leap of faith. It is a hypothesis based on the last 3500 years of scientific evidence. It can be true, it can be false. But its not 'faith'. As to why, because its the most logical hypothesis to begin with.

come on dude you're just asking for it with that one

what a lot of people in this thread are missing is that science and language and math and basically everything anything else we as humans think up is at best only internally consistent. it cannot be otherwise because there are no a priori truths and we cannot discover any.

 

[Cyrus]

And how is religion externally consistent when it was written and recorded by man? What am I 'asking for it' by what I said?

 

[ice109]

And how is religion externally consistent when it was written and recorded by man? What am I 'asking for it' by what I said?

you're asking for a rebuttal. and absolutely no one in this thread is saying religion > science. no one is saying anything about religion so stop brining it up

 

[Cyrus]

Ivan had mentioned religion, so I was responding to what he said.

Also, stop yelling at everyone every time you post something *****in about you didnt ask this, you didnt say that, you didnt post this, stop doing that. Come on man, seriously. Let's act somewhat mature here. You know, the rest of us are not all a bunch of stupid idiots to talk down to constantly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But what he's saying is not a leap of faith. It is a hypothesis based on the last 3500 years of scientific evidence. It can be true, it can be false. But its not 'faith'. As to why, because its the most logical hypothesis to begin with.

The last 3500 years of science has not produced a TOE, and we don't know for a fact that it can. So until you can show me a either a complete theory, or a proof that the universe can be described completely by physics, any belief that a TOE can exist is a faith statement. This is a simple matter of definitions.

The point that seems to be elluding people is that recognizing potential limits is not the same as accepting those limits. No belief is required either way.

We have no fundamental reason to believe that a TOE is not possible, and the evidence that our physics works is very good, but until the fat lady sings... and even then, it will take a very long time [perhaps centuries] to have high confidence in a TOE.

Consider this: What if M Theory is correct, and the landscape problem is fundamentally not solvable?

 

[ice109]

Ivan had mentioned religion, so I was responding to what he said.

Also, stop yelling at everyone every time you post something *****in about you didnt ask this, you didnt say that, you didnt post this, stop doing that. Come on man, seriously. Let's act somewhat mature here. You know, the rest of us are not all a bunch of stupid idiots to talk down to constantly.

i've scanned the last 4 pages and this the first time I've said anything of the sort, unless you count me telling moridin that he misunderstood the topic, and the only reason i said it all is because you've been told before that no one is promoting religion here, that this is not a religion v science debate. so when you come in here and post irrelevant things, in my thread, about a question i wanted to discuss and derail things i think I'm fully justified in telling you to stop.

edit

there is one other mention of religious in this thread outside of your posts and my quotes of your posts and it is this

Why should we leap to a belief? You are stating here that we should make a leap of faith, which is the basic requirement for religious beliefs.

and it has nothing to do with religion.

The last 3500 years of science has not produced a TOE, and we don't know for a fact that it can. So until you can show me a either a complete theory, or a proof that the universe can be described completely by physics, any belief that a TOE can exist is a faith statement. This is a simple matter of definitions.

The point that seems to be elluding people is that recognizing potential limits is not the same as accepting those limits. No belief is required either way.

i don't follow

 

[ice109]

Consider this: What if M Theory is correct, and the landscape problem is fundamentally not solvable?

ooo what's that

 

[Cyrus]

The last 3500 years of science has not produced a TOE, and we don't know for a fact that it can. So until you can show me a either a complete theory, or a proof that the universe can be described completely by physics, any belief that a TOE can exist is a faith statement. This is a simple matter of definitions.

The point that seems to be elluding people is that recognizing potential limits is not the same as accepting those limits. No belief is required either way.

We have no fundamental reason to believe that a TOE is not possible, and the evidence that our physics works is very good, but until the fat lady sings... and even then, it will take a very long time [perhaps centuries] to have high confidence in a TOE.

Consider this: What if M Theory is correct, and the landscape problem is fundamentally not solvable?

Again, that's why I am being careful in using the word hypothesis. Its a hypothesis. It can be right or wrong. A belief is more of an absolute. If I believe in a TOE, then I am closing my eyes and saying yes, it will eventually come no matter what. But I am saying it can come, or it might not. But the evidence and math has to take you to the answer. Therefore, this is no longer a "belief"

 

[ice109]

i can't believe this hasn't been tossed into philosophy somewhere

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But the evidence and math has to take you to the answer.

Prove it.

QED.

 

[Cyrus]

Prove the scientific method? That's what it comes down to.

 

[ice109]

Prove the scientific method?

yes, that is the crux of the debate

 

[Cyrus]

I don't have to prove it, you only have to disprove it and it fails always. So, *you* disprove it. There are libraries of books that prove it works up until now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Prove the scientific method? That's what it comes down to.

Prove that the scientific method can produce a TOE that completely models the universe. And as you know, arm waiving doesn't count.

 

[ice109]

I don't have to prove it, you only have to disprove it and it fails always. So, *you* disprove it.

no the burden of proof is on you not me; that's logic 101

ahh this has gotten way to nebulous someone please lock

 

[Cyrus]

Thats a bogus claim to make. Unless you can live for the next 100, 1,000 or 10k years to see someone possibly prove or disprove it.


I could have made the same claims your are making right now about some process we now understand today that would have been inconceivable in their day.

 

[Cyrus]

no the burden of proof is on you not me; that's logic 101

ahh this has gotten way to nebulous someone please lock

I don't have to prove anything to you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't have to prove it, you only have to disprove it and it fails always So, *you* disprove it.

No one is saying that it can be proven that a TOE can't exist.

The burden is on you since we don't have a model - we can show where physics fails - but you assert that a TOE can exist. Prove it.

There are libraries of books that prove it works up until now.

You are using induction improperly here. And it doesn't all work, which is why physicists are working to find a TOE.

 

[Cyrus]

No, you improperly said that I assert that a TOE exists. I said, on the other hand, that it can be proven or disproven. Someday, in the future, the math may say it can be solved, or that it can't be solved. If you want me to predict the future, then that's absurd. Are there other formulas you want me to solve while were at it? Should I solve the Navier Stokes equations too? Is everything faith until someone has to come along and show you how it works?

 

[Evo]

Cyrus is right, people have been putting words into his mouth.

Cyrus never said a TOE or GUT would be proven he said

You can't expect the answers to GUT overnight. It might happen a thousand years from now, but eventually it will happen - provided we don't kill ourselves first.

Which as he clarified, the answer could prove or disprove it. How many times does he have to say that?

Again, that's why I am being careful in using the word hypothesis. Its a hypothesis. It can be right or wrong. A belief is more of an absolute. If I believe in a TOE, then I am closing my eyes and saying yes, it will eventually come no matter what. But I am saying it can come, or it might not. But the evidence and math has to take you to the answer. Therefore, this is no longer a "belief"

 

[hypnagogue]

Proof that the scientific method can provide a TOE would require demonstration of such a TOE, experimentally verified of course. Such a demonstration is not on offer since such a TOE does not exist at the moment. Therefore, the claim that the scientific method will eventually produce a TOE is a matter of assumption or faith, since there is no definitive proof on which to base such a claim.

If you approach the matter in terms of a provisional hypothesis that does not commit to the truth value of the claim one way or the other, then you are talking about something else altogether. The issue of "faith" only comes in once you have committed to the stance that the scientific method will provide a TOE. If you make no strong commitment to this stance, then of course the issue of faith does not arise.

 

[Cyrus]

I like how you said that second paragraph.

Also, I don't see why one needs a TOE to understand what's going on. The Navier Stokes equations have no solution, does that mean we don't know anything about the study of fluid flow? It means we don't have an exact closed form solution. But we still understand the physics very well.

What I am saying is that given enough time, money, and effort, a solution is highly *probable. If you want to bark at me "show me a solution, your wrong until I see a solution on my monitor RIGHT NOW!" then you're being unreasonable here.

 

[hypnagogue]

If you want to bark at me "show me a solution, your wrong until I see a solution on my monitor RIGHT NOW!" then you're being unreasonable here.

No one is barking at you like that. Most people here probably agree that ultimately the universe is explicable by scientific inquiry. The point is not to challenge the claim that it is likely that the scientific method can describe the universe completely. Rather it is to recognize the mere possibility that it cannot.

 

[ice109]

tractatus or philosophical investigations, take your pick. i pick the latter

 

[Moridin]

This might be a -huge- bump, but I recently discovered something and it relates to the earlier post I made in this topic here. I avoided addressing the point which would have been number 3 in the list. The argument is frequently used by various supernaturalists to try and discredit science and say that it is faith-based, just like their religion. Anyways, the argument goes like this:

"I have faith in the information I collect about my various type of supernaturalism. You have faith in much the same way about the scientific information you read."

or

"I have faith / believe in my type of supernaturalism and you have faith / believe in science".

So the question is if the scientific information you have learned that is not based on experiments performed by yourself is faith-based, just like supernaturalism. The answer is again, a solid no.

As it turns out, this argument is both a formal and informal logical fallacy called an equivocal fallacy. It is about using a specific word that has multiple definitions in situations where one context uses one definition and another context uses another one and then attempting to equate the two. I'll give an example of the equivocal fallacy:

"Either we hang together [cooperate], or we will hang separate [executed]"

The word 'belief' is one such word. The term is used to describe what a person's conviction is; what he or she is willing to bet on. Another meaning of it is that one assumes something is correct, but without the ability to know. Another example to illustrate the difference:

"I believe in democracy"
"I believe in supernaturalism"

The first one is defined with what one is willing to bet on; the other is one what one assumes to be true, but cannot motivate or know.

The key difference is that, generally, you either have a good reason to believe the things you do believe (evidence, reason etc.) or you don't (laking evidence, reason etc.).

There is good reason to be willing to bet on Science, whereas this does not apply to the supernatural (supernatural would fall under the assume to be true, but cannot know).

Score. I should write a book.