The Arrogance Of A "Scientist".........

[leonid]

 

Originally posted by funked:
Sorry Santa, but you don't understand science too well.  It may work as you say the ideal case, but in practice we can not personally verify every "fact" upon which the assumptions for our own work are based.  In order to get anything done, practicing scientists have to accept some things without proof, with the blind faith that others have honestly and correctly confirmed that theory and experiment agree.  In most modern fields of science, there is simply too much information for things to be done any other way.  For us to verify every "fact" that we base our work on, would take a lifetime and then some.

To a degree you're correct, funked.  The gap between macro and micro physics has been an unspoken taboo among the science community, because so far they've found nothing to convincingly bridge it(although superstring theory is lookiing very promising).  Still, each subset of physics, Newtonian or Einsteinian, work quite well as long as you don't try to crossover.  Basically, the overall net effect of micro-physics is quite predictable from a macro level, whereas macro-physics has little influence on micro-physics.

The crux of the matter is that while some assumptions are made in scientific experimentation, it is done so with great reluctance.  Whether assumptions are made or unfair biases creep into a scientific experiment, the bottomline is that physical proof is the criteria that determines valid results.

[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 03-29-2001).]

[funked]

Yeah but who checks on the physical proof?  When is the last time any of you checked on the physical proof of any of the scientific "facts" in which you believe?  Not recently I'd wager.    
Why not?  Because you have... faith... that others have verified these things.  

Now it may not be blind faith as I claimed earlier, because it is possible to check on some of the "facts", some of the "facts" agree with what we can observe in daily life, and some of the "facts" are verified by the correct functioning of technologies based on those areas of science.  But for most scientific "facts", there is no way for the layman to verify them directly, and he can only "know" that they are true if he believes that others have accurately and honestly conducted experiments sufficient to prove them.  (And in the case of things like evolution and global warming, those proofs are often far from complete.  But that's a different issue.)

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-29-2001).]

[Dinger]

Harry Stotle, folks.  A science's principles can only be believed, not proven.  This goes all the way up to the principle of non-contradiction, we cannot prove its necessity, only that, without it, we cannot speak of anything.

Sandman, citing silly cases of Hebrew Bible rules isn't going to get you anywhere with a bunch of Christians (unless they're really wacko).

Ammo, I dunno, the Bible I has says that we're all liars, adulterers, murderers and the rest.  It's not the 10 C that get you, it's how JC interprets them on the mount.  And guess what? You can't reform the world by condemning it.

Finally, how do you KNOW that you're saved by Grace? God is omnipotent; there is nothing you or I can do to constrain him to save us.  If we could, he wouldn't be all-powerful?

Oh and santa:
 

, it must be said that it has been hampered back to the days of Galileo
                         Galilei) by religion, since it has moved in on the

This is a myth.  Sorry, it wasn't that way.  Read my post above.

[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-29-2001).]

[Dowding]

Leonid, there are gaps in scientific theory...

...but without gaps there wouldn't be a need for science in the first place.

Science is there to both fill and create the gaps - there would be no progress without this being true.

I like "inclusive" ideas, and most religions in the world fall far short of that ideal.

[leonid]

Funked,
Again, you're right to a degree.  Yes, we all have faith that Newton and Einstein did their homework, or at least have faith that someone made sure about it.  I think the difference lies in that I have seen the equations, seen the manifestations of those equations in everyday life as well as experiments.  Thus, I can deduce that such a thing as gravity or even relativity exists.  This is quite different from having faith in a metaphysical concept, something that cannot be sensed, except in ways that cannot be measured or recorded.

Science's form of faith is called Probability, which is a weighing of percentages, a statistical analysis.  This really cannot be compared to the type of faith practiced in many religions.

[StSanta]

Sorry Santa, but you don't understand science too well.

Why do I feel insulted? Let's examine why.  

It may work as you say the ideal case, but in practice we can not personally verify every "fact" upon which the assumptions for our own work are based.

This doesn't contradict anything I've said about science.

your claim, that science is the same as faith, is utterly false, Funked. Nothing personal bud  . IF we decide to check it out, we can. You don't have to accept anything as faith, unless you want to. Experiments have been conducted and are *available* for your pleasure, should you feel the need to question or verify.

Such evidence is not available in say the Christian mythology.

In order to get anything done, practicing scientists have to accept some things without proof, with the blind faith that others have
honestly and correctly confirmed that theory and experiment agree.

Not without proof. Without verifying the correctness of whatever it is they base their work on. There's an enormous difference, and it's not only semantics. It's justifiable belief, not faith. For instance, I do not have to know a whole lot about the suns movement to have justifiable belief that it'll come up tomorrow, nor do I have to have an engineering exam to trust a bridge designed by a team of engineers is actually going to support my weight. Talking yer average western road bridge here.

In most modern fields of science, there is simply too much information for things to be done any other way. For us to verify every "fact" that we base our work on, would take a lifetime and then some.8/b9

Agreed. But once again, it is possible to verify, and in that sense, you're not working on blind faith. Someone before you have produced some work that has been verified by others, done according to the scientific methology and been through the peer pressure review.

Compare this to "I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn". The difference is so immense the two aren't even close to being "not that far away".

So, I feel insulted because a) you're someone I respect and b) I ain't wrong. In the countless hours I've spent opping #philosophy on the undernet, the discussion about the difference between science and faith or indeed this very discussion about whether science is a religion or like a religion has popped up so many times I have macros  .

You're right in the sense that scientists do not always verify the correctness of the theories upon which they build further work. You're wrong in the sense that they're acting on blind faith.

Hope ya ain't getting angry with me  .

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

[StSanta]

Additional; check out this:
 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html

It deals with the subject and is very well written.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Animal]

I agree with Santa on most things.

Funked, yes, there has to be a degree of faith to believe in science, but like Santa said, I see the results of what scientists have discovered and created on my everyday life.
I dont know exactly how my microwave works, I have faith that someone found out how and was able to make one. I havent checked to see if someone truly conducted experiments about it and all, yet when I want to eat a Hot Pocket, my microwave works flawlessly.

This is a vague example.

I would love to get into this discussions, but its hard for me since it would take me lots of time to try to put my serious words in english, and even if I did, there would be lots of misinterpretations.

[NATEDOG]

Studies show that science causes cancer in rats.  

------------------
Nathan "NATEDOG" Mathieu
Art Director
HiTech Creations
-=HELLFIRE SQUAD=-

".... And on the eighth day, God created beer. "

[StSanta]

ROFL Nate  

Touché

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Dinger]

--Santa, that site is full of toejam.  Sorry.  I dislike creationists, and I believe they're sorely mistaken, but this explanation is sorely lacking.
 

This distaste stems from the excesses of the medieval Scholastics, whose often empty formalism was applied to Aquinas' theology based on Aristotle's metaphysics. Early science arose in part from the rejection of this vapid quibbling

Not only is every sentence in here a lie, but every phrase is as well.

 

Philosophers of science mostly conclude that science is metaphysics neutral, following the Catholic physicist Pierre Duhem [1914]. Science functions
    the same way for Hindus as for Catholics, for Frenchmen as for Americans, for communists as for democrats, allowing for localised variations that are[
    ironed out after a while. However, science does indeed rule out various religious etiological myths (origin stories), and often forces the revision of
    historical and medical stories used in the mythology of a religion. And when cosmologies are given in ancient scriptures that involve solid heavens,
    elephants and scarab beetles, science shows them to be unqualifiedly false as descriptions of the physical world as it is observed.

Nope, nope and nope.
Pierre Duhem was a good, well meaning guy, but he's no longer a major force in the philosophy of science.  He was a devout Catholic and a Newtonian physicist who found himself in the middle of the "Battle between Religion and Science" of the early 20th century, and sought to find a way to reconcile the two, in part by showing as bald-faced lies the historical roadkill our author cites earlier.
That science is "metaphysics neutral" is roadkill.  In order for us to make sense out of modern, experimental science, we have to make assumptions about how the world functions, Epistemology, and what consitutes believable proof.  Guess what? That's metaphysics.
Evolution is not a "fact" the same way my drinking coffee right now is a fact.  Evolution we believe only because we accept certain standards for proof, such as the physical universe functions the same now as then; what is most probable is what happened.
HEll, any scientist can tell you that it is entirely possible that the universe was created yesterday, but it ain't bloody likely.
These standards are metaphysical assumptions, and to call them something else is to belittle science and expose the position we should be defending to ridicule.
 

   themselves metaphysical claims. For example, the claim that the world is flat (if made by a religious text) is a matter of experiment and research, not
    first principles and revelation. If "by their fruits shall ye know them", false factual claims are evidence of bad science, not good religion.

And I just get my panties all bunched up when someone even suggests that Christians at any point (outside of a handful of crackpots) maintained the Earth was flat.  As Duhem could and did point out, only until the recent wave of Bible-thumpin' creationist nuts did any Christian organize challenge reasonable scientific conclusions.

[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-29-2001).]

[funked]

Santa and Animal, read my last post, it's more in line with what you are saying.  No you are not offending me at all.

Leonid:
 

. I think the difference lies in that I have seen the equations, seen the manifestations of those equations in everyday life as well as experiments. Thus, I can deduce that such a thing as gravity or even relativity exists.

But for so many fields of science, you (or I) have not seen the equations, and the predictions of the scientific "facts" are not readily visible in everyday life.  But that doesn't stop you or I from believing that they are true, or at least reasonably accurate.  And of course the definition of "reasonably accurate" is completely subjective, and very important, because there is always some error between theory and experiment in most fields.  

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-29-2001).]

[Dowding]

Funked - One of the key tenets of science is that an experiment must be repeatable, for the results (and therefore the hypothesis) to be correct.

If science was based on faith like you say funked, then Fleishman's Cold Fusion experiment would be taken as being valid by the scientific community.

It couldn't be repeated by anyone anywhere in the world, and hence is considered bogus.

Contrastingly, if I said I had just seen the Virgin Mary and she said that AH was a holy pursuit and I should build a towering cathedral to house all devotees of AH (complete with ADSL connections), you couldn't say I was wrong.

[Eagler]

Science will explain religion as religion will explain science, one day, when we are ready.

"You can't handle the truth" ... Jack Nicholson "A Few Good Men"

we can't yet, to full of ourselves...

Science of Religion http://www.srfpublishers.org/index.cgi/1151?KWwVJx59;;35

Eagler

[funked]

Good point Dowding.  Of course I have never argued that science and religion are identical.