The God of Science

[786]

Alternative: your argument is flawed (re: testability etc) since the "faith" placed in the misunderstanding is about as deep and well-considered as that placed in the bus/ train time-table.
It seems to work but if it doesn't so what, there'll be another along soon.

It's not "faith", it's not "science". It's a laissez-faire "don't really know, don't particularly care" attitude of no more more consequence (or maybe less) than who should be playing in the team now the "star player" has pulled a hamstring.

You seem to suggest that I am trying to prove them wrong in some way or form but it is simply to show that these people have "faith" but don't admit to this fact while they point at religion as being based on "faith". The point was to show that their understanding of science is actually also "faith" and it seems I've already had 2 admittance of this And better yet it would be better that they understood science more properly.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

You seem to suggest that I am trying to prove them wrong in some way or form but it is simply to show that these people have "faith" but don't admit to this fact while they point at religion as being based on "faith".

No.
For a start: which "people"?
Give specific examples, otherwise you're talking merely about "an average guy", who doesn't give much thought at all to the question.
You might as well accuse a man carrying an umbrella of having "faith" in the TV forecast.

The point was to show that their understanding of science is actually also "faith"

Again: NO.
You're holding a misinformed half-understood (and unspecific group) of people to a semantic/ scientific rigour they don't, can't and have no intent to adhere to.

 

[786]

No.
For a start: which "people"?
Give specific examples, otherwise you're talking merely about "an average guy", who doesn't give much thought at all to the question.
You might as well accuse a man carrying an umbrella of having "faith" in the TV forecast.

Hmm... I used (Q) as an example but I was talking about major philosophies in general, for example materialism... It is a philosophy and many people adhere to it.

Again: NO.
You're holding a misinformed half-understood (and unspecific group) of people to a semantic/ scientific rigour they don't, can't and have no intent to adhere to.

Again you are failing to understanding that "science" has become a source of many philosophies and they need to be addressed in the context of what they believe in.

I'm sorry science had to be used this way but it has been, deal with it. :bawl:

Your repeated remarks leads me to believe you don't understand or have no knowledge of philosophies that are based off of science.

Or are you claiming that there is no philosophy in existence that is based off of science. Sure, it may not be science but its based off of it as a foundation- the fact they still call it science is their choice- you need to talk to them and tell them to stop defaming science but that is not my problem. I know who I am targeting with this post (philosophies NOT science- this is a PHILOSOPHY forum), but you on the other hand don't understand the context (philosophy vs science) and are rather in denial that science has lead to development of philosophies :bawl:

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

Hmm... I used (Q) as an example but I was talking about major philosophies in general, for example materialism... It is a philosophy and manner people adhere to it.

Again: who specifically uses the term "random" (in the sense you gave) AND actually uses/ knows science?
Otherwise you're merely conflating ignorance/ blind "what does it really matter?" acceptance as "faith".

Again you are failing to understanding that "science" has become a source of many philosophies and they need to be addressed in the context of what they believe in.

And once more: if the science isn't understood than anything arising from that misunderstanding is of NO CONSEQUENCE whatsoever.

Your repeated remarks leads me to believe you don't understand or have no knowledge of philosophies that are based off of science.

Beside the point: anything based on a flawed understanding doesn't deserve rigour.

Or are you claiming that there is no philosophy in existence that is based off of science.

I have no interest in philosophies "based on science".

Sure, it may not be science but its based off of it as a foundation- the fact they still call it science is their choice- you need to talk to them and say that stop defaming science but that is not my problem. I know who I am targeting with this post, but you on the other hand don't understand the context and are rather in denial that science has lead to developed of philosophies :bawl:

And one more time: if it's based on a flawed/ incomplete understanding it's not relevant to anything since no particular thought has been put into it.
It's a worthy of praise and/ or criticism as "my green shirt brings me luck when I go on the pull".

 

[786]

Beside the point: anything based on a flawed understanding doesn't deserve rigour.

Unless it becomes a major argument against another philosophy (i.e religions). Also not everyone may be of the same opinion as you so let the others discuss rather than you, in essence, trying to stop this discussion only because you think it "doesn't deserve rigour". I don't know how many times I have to say this is a philosophy forum, go to the science section if you want to discuss the serious matters in science that "deserve rigour"

I have no interest in philosophies "based on science".

Why are you participating in this thread, it has nothing to do with science but only philosophies. There is a science section on Sciforums as well.. I recommend you enjoy yourself there. Nobody is forcing you to reply to this thread.

And one more time: if it's based on a flawed/ incomplete understanding it's not relevant to anything since no particular thought has been put into it.
It's a worthy of praise and/ or criticism as "my green shirt brings me luck when I go on the pull".

I'm glad you feel this way.... but they feel that they are being very thoughtful and so they developed their philosophies.

As for the rest of your comments.... I feel no need to continuously repeat myself.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

Unless it becomes a major argument against another philosophy (i.e religions).

Yet to be demonstrated.

Also not everyone may be of the same opinion as you so let the others discuss rather than you, in essence, trying to stop this discussion only because you think it "doesn't deserve rigour". I don't know how many times I have to say this is a philosophy forum, go to the science section if you want to discuss the serious matters in science that "deserve rigour"

You misread: I said if that's the case it doesn't deserve rigour.
Again I ask: examples of someone using the definition you gave for "random" and making the claims.

Why are you participating in this thread, it has nothing to do with science but only philosophies. There is a science section on Sciforums as well.. I recommend you enjoy yourself there. Nobody is forcing you to reply to this thread.

Because the thread wasn't about (or didn't state that it was about) philosophy but rather science.
And now I'm waiting for you to actually support your claims, I'm interested in flawed understandings of science (or flawed arguments against it).

I'm glad you feel this way.... but they feel that they are being very thoughtful and so they developed their philosophies.
As for the rest of your comments.... I feel no need to continuously repeat myself.

And you still have to give examples where the meaning is as you have stated and the claims are being made.
Otherwise you're setting up a strawman: you're arguing on a definition YOU have given (and that I have never seen anywhere else) - saying that something is random you are making an assumption that something doesn't exist that is controlling the outcome.

That is, Science is based on a assumption which can't be tested, which itself is unscientific.

STILL haven't eliminated the accusations against science.

 

[786]

Yet to be demonstrated.

Do you believe Materialism is a philosophy that exists?
Hint: Read before answering if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_materialism

STILL haven't eliminated the accusations against science.

In context, as I presented, it would yield their view of science as unscientific- you have yet to understand the post under the context of "understanding of science".

As for me trying to show you where people use the word "random" with my definition. First of all if people thought about the underlying assumption they wouldn't be making the claim would they?

Okay.. lets do an experiment with you then, shall we. Ignore everything for now and just answer these following questions:

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?
Do you believe in Theory of Evolution?

Peace be unto you

 

[kurros]

Ok well now it sounds like you are saying that those who believe in science also have a kind of faith, which I suppose is true. To believe in science we have to have faith that the scientists who are experts in each of their respective fields actually know what they are talking about, since not even the best scientist can personally be an expert in everything. This seems pretty weak though, the fact that scientists in totally different fields are able to rely on the quality of each others work to further their own research is proof enough that the whole system is self consistent. You'd have believe in some fairly crazy conspiracy theories to think otherwise.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Do you believe Materialism is a philosophy that exists?

You missed the point.
Do they use the definition of "random" as you have given it?

In context, as I presented, it would yield their view of science as unscientific

Only IF they define "random" as you have done.

you have yet to understand the post under the context of "understanding of science".

Nope, I'm suggesting that you've possibly misconstrued the definition of "random" and are therefore clutching at straws.

As for me trying to show you where people use the word "random" with my definition. First of all if people thought about the underlying assumption they wouldn't be making the claim would they?

So once again it comes down to people "using" things they haven't actually considered...
So much for it being a "philosophy".

Okay.. lets do an experiment with you then, shall we. Ignore everything for now and just answer these following questions:
Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?
Do you believe in Theory of Evolution?

Depends what you mean by "believe".
Having done some physics I can follow the logic of Big Bang and it appears to provide an answer: in other words it's a working hypothesis with evidence.
It doesn't require "belief".
Likewise for evolution (although my background in biology is far sketchier so I couldn't argue the case).

They're "working hypotheses" - subject to new data.
Should anything come along that shows them to be unworkable then a new theory will be written.
How much "belief" does that require?

 

[786]

you missed the point.
Do they use the definition of "random" as you have given it?

It seems to me this is your main contention. I understand, and I'm getting to that point. I will demonstrate that even you use the same definition as me when you try to understand science.

The only thing I meant by "believe" was that you at least accept it as a working theory. Now my question is about your understanding of Evolution, specifically mutations which are random:

In Evolution there have been many mutations throughout history which are said to be random, I have yet to read anywhere that there are non-random mutations (Humans can cause specific mutations but I'm talking about evolutionary history where smart people like us weren't there), so I take it that all mutations are random. Do you agree?

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

Okay.. lets do an experiment with you then, shall we. Ignore everything for now and just answer these following questions:

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?
Do you believe in Theory of Evolution?

"Believing" in scientific theory isn't the same as believing in cult doctrines. One is demonstrated, the other is not. Faith in seeing the sun rise tomorrow is not the same as faith in a god.

Clearly, you're confused about definitions, which you should probably start with before trying to understand concepts well ahead of that which you're able to fathom.

 

[786]

Ok well now it sounds like you are saying that those who believe in science also have a kind of faith, which I suppose is true. To believe in science we have to have faith that the scientists who are experts in each of their respective fields actually know what they are talking about, since not even the best scientist can personally be an expert in everything. This seems pretty weak though, the fact that scientists in totally different fields are able to rely on the quality of each others work to further their own research is proof enough that the whole system is self consistent. You'd have believe in some fairly crazy conspiracy theories to think otherwise.

I don't think that was the point. I am accepting science is a good method to do all these thing. But the question is about the underlying assumption, none of them have answered it- in that regards its faith. All of their collaborations would still work if we changed the assumption to a controlled one. So again the fact science confirms itself by means of repitition is not the issue, it is the fact the assumption they use can be changed to something else as well, and still things would work. So how they go about understanding science in a all naturalistic manner is faith.

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

I don't think that was the point. I am accepting science is a good method to do all these thing. But the question is about the underlying assumption, none of them have answered it- in that regards its faith.

Once again, you fail to understand definitions. Please try to consult a dictionary before posting threads that run on pointlessly.

 

[786]

Once again, you fail to understand definitions. Please try to consult a dictionary before posting threads that run on pointlessly.

(Q) - we already know that you can't use a dictionary from the other thread. I'll let Kurros tell me if I made a mistake for which I need a dictionary.

And the reason that its going on pointlessly is because some folks refuse to accept that they use the word "random" as I tried to define it, but that should be over with soon enough

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

I'll let Kurros tell me if I made a mistake for which I need a dictionary.

So, you need to have someone else confirm the obvious where one look in a dictionary would solve the problem? :roflmao:

...some folks refuse to accept that they use the word "random" as I tried to define it, but that should be over with soon enough

Yes, the moment you open a dictionary. YOUR personal definitions of words that are already defined is utterly pointless. Do you get it now?

 

[kurros]

I'm just getting confused now, I really am not sure what your point is. If it is that assumptions in science can't be proven, well then you are partial right; it is called an assumption for the very reason that is isn't yet proven. It doesn't mean that somebody in the future won't come along and provide direct evidence someday.
My other theory about what you are trying to say is that some people adhere to a system of beliefs that is in some way based on scientific observation, and that the things these people believe in are actually just assumptions in the scientific sense and so they shouldn't defend them like they are gospel because scientists themselves don't place this degree of belief in them.

If there is some third option you'll have to let me know because I'm out of ideas.

 

[786]

I'm just getting confused now, I really am not sure what your point is. If it is that assumptions in science can't be proven, well then you are partial right; it is called an assumption for the very reason that is isn't yet proven. It doesn't mean that somebody in the future won't come along and provide direct evidence someday.

There is a difference between "yet proven" and "unprovable". An assumption is essentially an untested hypothesis, I already mentioned that in my OP, but to have a full understanding the assumption MUST be testable otherwise you have a untestable untested hypothesis upon which everything lies. The key is untestable, not that it is untested. I know that assumption is untested, but the point I'm making is that for it to be scientific the assumption must be at least "testable". As for someone else coming and proving randomness- if you think about it logically this can not happen and thus unprovable.

Why this can't happen? Because the best anyone can do is use the deterministic view that basically the interactions between the laws that control everything are in essence "controlling" the outcome, which is what they call deterministic and thus randomness is simply a term attributed to our inability to predict it, but the fact is that it is determined and controlled not simply "random".

Why the deterministic view? Because as you said the fundamentals are quantums, but they are studied with the understanding of the Laws that guide them, and thus the more deeper you go the more you see something is controlled but the level of understanding you are at, you would call that "random" until you go deeper, but then the new level of understanding would be called "random". In essence this assumption can never be answered because of infinite levels of depth.

And suppose one has gone on to show the links between all of the laws and energies and what not, the question will still remain about the very first thing that came and "caused" it all- was the initial interaction that made everything- the randomness of which can't be proven. In short you can never answer the question of randomness at the deepest level of understanding. Logic dictates this. Hence the very concept is unprovable. Only thing that can be proved is control not randomness because it would all have to be understood through laws we know, anything we do not know or seems to be an anomaly is only "random" until we prove it is controlled by some law, and if we never reach that level of understanding "randomness" would still not be proven. Randomness is basically used to describe something we don't know how it arises- but all that science has shown is the trend from random --> control. Because what science does is try to explain everything through the laws that run it. If laws run it and under them it can be explained then the aspect shown through science only proves that these Law "control" these things. (This is the deterministic view as well). Anything that at the moment can not be explained by any Laws are 'random' but that is only because we don't know enough- the argument from silence is not proof of randomness. Science works to show 'control' nothing more.

My other theory about what you are trying to say is that some people adhere to a system of beliefs that is in some way based on scientific observation, and that the things these people believe in are actually just assumptions in the scientific sense and so they shouldn't defend them like they are gospel because scientists themselves don't place this degree of belief in them.

Both!

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

In short you can never answer the question of randomness at the deepest level of understanding. Logic dictates this.

Your misunderstanding of how things work does not preclude others understanding. Logic dictates this.

 

[(Q)]

I don't think you can comprehend what was written.

Well, understanding gibberish has never really been my strong point.

Give me one example where science has shown a well documented and studied aspect which people thought was controlled and showed it to be random?

Prayer.

 

[786]

Prayer.

Prayer has never been studied under scientific method, and even if it was, they never came to the conclusion of "control" first and then changed it to random later.

Peace be unto you