# Are many dopers against religion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511 "2003-08-25T13:57:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/141 "2003-08-28T15:55:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scr4 \* > \*\*I did read the darned thing, not that it said anything I didn’t know. And I still stand by my statement that the scientific method is a way by which logic is used to understand the nature of the universe. \*\* You are missing the point. Completely. Repeatedly. The scientific method is a _particular_ way of applying logic, just as a lion is a particular type of cat. It does not follow that the mere use of logic is the same as applying science. You yourself asked, > [@](#): > > Can you explain why it’s important to distinguish between logic and the scientific method? It’s because the two are not the same thing. The scientific method is an application of logic, just as a lion is a type of cat. However, the application of logic is not the scientific method itself, just as a cat is not a type of lion. > [@](#): > > \*\*If you disagree, what do you suggest is a way to gain understanding about this universe using logic but without using the scientific method? \*\* Can you say, with confidence, that A=B implies that B=A? Or that “A implies B” does NOT automatically mean that “B implies A”? If so, then you have already discerned something about the universe WITHOUT resorting to the scientific method! ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/142 "2003-08-28T16:17:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > **Two caveats, though I don’t disagree with the general principle[ol][li]Your thorough observation must be capable of seeing the hypothesized B to begin with.[/li][li]What you’re fully justified in saying is that thorough investigation has produced no instances of B, and that the probability, therefore, is that B doesn’t exist. Since it is always possible that despite your “thorough” investigation, you’ve overlooked something, you’re not justified in saying that B _definitely_ doesn’t exist. You yourself made the earlier statement that one couldn’t prove a negative; here you seem to have said that you’re fully justified in believing that you _have_ proved a negative.[/li][/ol]** Excellent job. Additionally, I’d like to point out that this investigation must _indeed_ be thorough. **Priceguy** ’s experiment, apart from being _fictitious_ and non-scientific, is _far_ from thorough. It only sought to compare religion and science, and only in one specific field of knowledge – the ability to make cool technological toys. Indeed, as both **g8rguy** and I pointed out, this fictitious experiment does not even address the issue at hand – namely, whether science is the only way to gain _knowledge_. So to keep citing the results of this non-existent, non-scientific experiment is truly an exercise in folly. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/143 "2003-08-28T18:32:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > **Your thorough observation must be capable of seeing the hypothesized B to begin with.** Obviously. > [@](#): > > \*\*What you’re fully justified in saying is that thorough investigation has produced no instances of B, and that the probability, therefore, is that B doesn’t exist. Since it is always possible that despite your “thorough” investigation, you’ve overlooked something, you’re not justified in saying that B _definitely_ doesn’t exist. You yourself made the earlier statement that one couldn’t prove a negative; here you seem to have said that you’re fully justified in believing that you _have_ proved a negative. > \*\* No. I’ve never said that I’ve proved a negative; in fact I’ve said that such a thing is impossible. I do however feel fully justified in saying that B doesn’t exist until a shred of evidence appears to say that it does. > [@](#): > > **I’ll presume to speak for JThunder, if I may: we’re arguing about whether science is the only way to get _knowledge_.** And your claim is what, that it isn’t? In that case you should be able to name another way, shouldn’t you? > [@](#): > > \*\* The issue is this: every tree is different. (…) “Right” and “wrong” are not entirely dissimilar; in the case of “tree” we’re categorizing physical objects and in the case of “right” and “wrong” we’re categorizing concepts, but both “tree” and “wrong” are classifications we’ve invented to help us deal with the world around us.\*\* The difference being that the concept of “right” and “wrong” is entirely fictitious and created by humans. Not that this discussion has much to do with the thread anymore. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > **Priceguy’s experiment, apart from being fictitious and non-scientific, is far from thorough. It only sought to compare religion and science, and only in one specific field of knowledge – the ability to make cool technological toys.** Incorrect. It didn’t specifically seek to compare religion and science. In fact, I look at the world and see _no_ results produced by _any_ nonscientific method. Ever. Also, Newton’s Laws, evolution and relativity aren’t technological toys by any stretch of the imagination. My point, **JThunder** , though I despair of you ever grasping it, is that no matter how you twist it, we’ve already seen what science can do, and what every other method can do, which is nothing. The problem seems to be that you believe that the scientific method is everything there is to science, and that science didn’t exist prior to the formal formulation of the scientific method. The scientific method, as I have explained, is merely the best way to do science. It’s a set of rules. That is _it_. It’s a marvellous set of rules that has done immensely much good for mankind, but it’s still just a set of rules. Once again: Either tell me a nonscientific method that has proved able to gain results/facts/truth/knowledge/enlightenment, or acknowledge that we have no reason to believe one exists. Note that logic, no matter what you believe, is not nonscientific but in fact a very important part of science. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/144 "2003-08-28T18:46:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > \*\*Certainly it’s correct that if one chooses to define “truth” as in essence, “that which can be found by observation,” and “science” as “that which we do when we observe,” we’ve established that you can find truth by science. We’ve not established that we can’t find truth elsewhere, note, unless you change “truth” to mean “that which we can only find by observation.” So yes, it’s possible to define the debate out of existence. Grand. \*\* That isn’t quite what I meant. “Truth” is that which accurately describes or represents the world, and the world is what can be observed (even if we can’t observe it at this present time). A more accurate statement of the idea might be that truth is an accurate description of those things that interact with us. > [@](#): > > \*\*Of course, I rather expect that you’ll offer these as the correct definitions of all the terms, but I hope you recognize that not everyone agrees with your definitions. \*\* I’d like them to at least _offer_ their alternate definitions so I could offer my opinions on them. So far, I’ve only heard people say “that’s not what truth is!” > [@](#): > > \*\* I think I’m missing something here. As I understand it, you’ve established to your satisfaction the following:[ol] > [li]Truth can only be reached by science.[/li][li]Science cannot lead to certain things.[/li][li]These things are subsets of scientific truth.[/li][/ol]Of course, as subsets of scientific truth, they’d darn well better be reachable by science after all, hadn’t they? So either I’m misunderstanding you, which is entirely possible, or there’s an inconsistency present. \*\* Um, not quite. Truth is that which accurately describes or represents the world. A statement is true (or not-true) no matter how it is reached. But for something to be _known_ to be true, it must be derived from observations of the world. I might get a true answer to a yes-or-no question by asking a Magic 8-ball, but the available evidence indicates that the responses of said 8-balls bear no relationship to the truth. Now, we can demonstrate that there are things which cannot be true: specifically, concepts. This knowing is within the bounds of science; the things we’re knowing about are not. In short, science can and does show us where its boundaries are. > [@](#): > > \*\*On preview, **TVAA** , you do realize that this: “How can a definition be considered ‘true’ or ‘false’?” jibes rather poorly with the concept that your definition of truth is correct? \*\* Not really. There’s a difference between correct and true. Admittedly, we’re splitting a very fine semantic hair, here. Allow me to rephrase myself: definitions can be valid or invalid. No invalid things can be true, but valid things are not necessarily true. (Actually, I’m not even completely sure of the last part. If we’re considering the Ultimate Nature of Reality, everything valid in it _would_ be true. But that’s a whole 'nother ballgame.) ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/145 "2003-08-28T20:56:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > No. I’ve never said that I’ve proved a negative; in fact I’ve said that such a thing is impossible. I do however feel fully justified in saying that B doesn’t exist until a shred of evidence appears to say that it does. And my response is that this is a claim that, scientifically, you _cannot make_. You are perfectly justified in saying that your experiments do not support the existence of B. You are perfectly justified in saying that there isn’t a shred of evidence that B exists. You are perfectly justified in saying that all available information leads you to believe that B does not exist. Grand, and I agree to this point. What you’re _not_ justified in saying, I would argue, is that B does not exist, period. Because there’s always the chance you missed something. There’s always another experiment. We may quite happily _believe_ that B does not exist; we do not _know_ that B does not exist, and we hence cannot make the claim that it does not. > [@](#): > > And your claim is what, that it isn’t? In that case you should be able to name another way, shouldn’t you? Deductive reasoning/mathematical proof. Intuition. Divine revelation. I’ve more faith in the first than in the second, and I don’t believe in the last at all, but so what? Because you see, whether I can name another way or not isn’t relevant to the question of whether science is or is not the only way; it may be the only way that person X can think of, but that’s a limitation of person X. It’s really getting back to what **JThunder** was going on (and on, and on… :p) about earlier: a scientist fundamentally cannot make the claim that no other means of gaining knowledge exist. He can make the claim that he can think of no other means of gaining knowledge, he can make the claim that none of the other means he’s tested seem to have worked, he can make the claim that he does not _think_ that there are other ways of gaining knowledge. And the minute he steps beyond this and moves from the realm of scientific explanation to a claim of having reached proof and truth (which would be what he’d have to do when he says that there are definitely no other ways of gaining knowledge), he’s overstepped the bounds of what his science has told him and stated an opinion as fact. > [@](#): > > Not that this discussion has much to do with the thread anymore. It has, I admit, wandered rather far afield, so if you’d prefer, I won’t insist on discussing it further. > [@](#): > > Note that logic, no matter what you believe, is not nonscientific but in fact a very important part of science. Logic, like mathematics, is a tool science uses, but neither are a subcategory of science[sup]1[/sup]. Science is, at heart, inductive. Moving along to **TVAA** now… I’ll buy that we can verify the consequences of certain logical principles, which is a form of science. I’m not sure I buy that this makes logic a subset of science, but rather something which science can examine, to a point. Does that make sense? So let me put down some definitions, and see where we get with those. Anyone is welcome to point out where I’ve said something fundamentally stupid (and I think I probably have, in fact). Truth: The first clause of **TVAA** ’s first definition is pretty close, as far as I’m concerned, except that we ought to substitute “perfectly” for accurately. I’m leary of extending it further than that. I actually like the word “correct,” but **TVAA** , at least, finds a distinction[sup]2[/sup]. Knowledge: We say that we know a thing to be true when we have ruled out all possibility of it being false, and we have done so without the possibility of having been mistaken. Belief: Weaker than knowledge, we believe something to be true when we have little or no reason to do otherwise. That is, if something is _definitely_ true, we have knowledge. If it is _probably_ true, then we have belief. Given this set of definitions, I actually reach the conclusion that science _never_ delivers knowledge; I’ve managed to conflate knowledge and proof, which was not the intent. I feel that they’re akin, and that my definition of belief is okay, but I’m not entirely happy here. [sup]1[/sup]With a nod to **TVAA** , who may end up convincing me otherwise. [sup]2[/sup]Out of sheer curiousity, what distinction do you see? I don’t want to have a debate on this, because it’s rather farther afield than I’m prepared to go, but I am curious. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/146 "2003-08-28T23:17:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > \*\*I’ll buy that we can verify the consequences of certain logical principles, which is a form of science. I’m not sure I buy that this makes logic a subset of science, but rather something which science can examine, to a point. Does that make sense? \*\* I suppose it makes a difference whether you’re a person who thinks that mathematics is a science or not. I think it can be. > [@](#): > > \*\*Truth: The first clause of **TVAA** ’s first definition is pretty close, as far as I’m concerned, except that we ought to substitute “perfectly” for accurately. I’m leary of extending it further than that. I actually like the word “correct,” but **TVAA** , at least, finds a distinction[sup]2[/sup]. \*\* Eh, good enough. > [@](#): > > **Knowledge: We say that we know a thing to be true when we have ruled out all possibility of it being false, and we have done so without the possibility of having been mistaken.** I’m not sure I like this definition, merely because I think we’d then be forced to conclude that knowledge was not possible. Of course, we could just use a different word to refer to the things we know… but that seems rather unnecessary. > [@](#): > > \*\*Belief: Weaker than knowledge, we believe something to be true when we have little or no reason to do otherwise. That is, if something is _definitely_ true, we have knowledge. If it is _probably_ true, then we have belief. \*\* Nah, this isn’t good enough. It requires that belief be contingent on probability, and plenty of the people who believe things don’t have the slightest grasp of probability. > [@](#): > > **Given this set of definitions, I actually reach the conclusion that science _never_ delivers knowledge; I’ve managed to conflate knowledge and proof, which was not the intent. I feel that they’re akin, and that my definition of belief is okay, but I’m not entirely happy here.** Yeah, that’s a problem. > [@](#): > > \*\*[sup]2[/sup]Out of sheer curiousity, what distinction do you see? I don’t want to have a debate on this, because it’s rather farther afield than I’m prepared to go, but I am curious. \*\* A logical conclusion may be correct, but not right or “true”. Truth depends on reality, while correctness has more to do with drawing conclusions from necessarily limited data. In fields where “absolute” knowledge is possible, such as mathematics, correctness and truth are identical. In most cases, though, correctness is a weaker concept. Here’s an example: you’re shown two boxes, one of which contains $50 and the other of which is empty. You’re told (truthfully) that Box A has a 60% chance of having the money, and Box B has a 40% chance. You choose Box A, which is empty. Your guess, that “Box A has the money”, isn’t true, but it was the correct guess to make. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/147 "2003-08-29T00:25:13Z")
> [@](#): > > I suppose it makes a difference whether you’re a person who thinks that mathematics is a science or not. I think it can be. One presumes it’s fairly obvious that I take a somewhat different view, essentially equivalent to my above statement about logic: that mathematics makes predictions which can be examined for truth, that it is in invaluable tool for scientific purposes, but that it transcends science to an extent in that not everything which you can get at mathematically lends itself to observational testing. Re: truth vs correctness. I see what you’re getting at, then. Thanks for clearing that up. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/148 "2003-08-29T01:50:11Z")
Ah, but that’s the rub: how can you “do” mathematics without having a system to observe? ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/149 "2003-08-29T03:16:21Z")
I would think a lot of scientists and mathematicians do that every day, really. We spend lots of time going on about complex numbers and contour integrations and bizarre ways of representing numbers and whether it’s possible to find closed forms for certain expressions and whatnot. A lot of these are the sort of thing you can’t find answers for observationally, right? Instead, we start with a set of definitions and postulates (and here observation probably has a role) and start working our way up. We deduce the consequences of our postulates, and while some of those consequences can be tested observationally, some of them surely can’t. How do I test observationally that [symbol]p[/symbol] is transcendental, for example? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/150 "2003-08-29T07:09:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > \*\*And my response is that this is a claim that, scientifically, you _cannot make_. You are perfectly justified in saying that your experiments do not support the existence of B. You are perfectly justified in saying that there isn’t a shred of evidence that B exists. You are perfectly justified in saying that all available information leads you to believe that B does not exist. Grand, and I agree to this point. > > What you’re _not_ justified in saying, I would argue, is that B does not exist, period. Because there’s always the chance you missed something. There’s always another experiment. We may quite happily _believe_ that B does not exist; we do not _know_ that B does not exist, and we hence cannot make the claim that it does not.\*\* So every time a child is going to find out that there is no Santa, the parent has to say “We haven’t managed, through properly controlled scientific experiments, to produce conclusive evidence that Santa exists”? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/151 "2003-08-29T11:33:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > \*\*I would think a lot of scientists and mathematicians do that every day, really. We spend lots of time going on about complex numbers and contour integrations and bizarre ways of representing numbers and whether it’s possible to find closed forms for certain expressions and whatnot. A lot of these are the sort of thing you can’t find answers for observationally, right? \*\* Not at all. How do you think we solve problems using those numbers? We observe the behavior of systems designed to represent them. > [@](#): > > \*\*Instead, we start with a set of definitions and postulates (and here observation probably has a role) and start working our way up. \*\* Yes, but _how_ do we work our way up? How do we evaluate mathematical statements? > [@](#): > > \*\*We deduce the consequences of our postulates, and while some of those consequences can be tested observationally, some of them surely can’t. How do I test observationally that [symbol]p[/symbol] is transcendental, for example? \*\* Easy. Find the proof that [symbol]p[/symbol] is transcendental, allow your brain to evaluate it, and observe its output. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/152 "2003-08-29T14:39:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > \*\*So every time a child is going to find out that there is no Santa, the parent has to say “We haven’t managed, through properly controlled scientific experiments, to produce conclusive evidence that Santa exists”? \*\* That’s about the size of it, if you want to be (a) a strict scientist and (b) intellectually honest. Mind you, I’d phrase it differentlyl I’d say, rather, that we have no evidence whatseover that Santa exists, that his existence would require all sorts of things that we don’t believe are possible, and that we hence have no reason to believe he exists. But we haven’t proven his nonexistence. Science doesn’t provide proof of anything, after all. Now, _I’m_ perfectly happy to say that Santa does not exist, that he’s a figment purely of human imagination, _etc_. And all this means is that I do not adhere strictly to science. Since you’ve seemed to argue that this isn’t something one can do, you don’t have the same luxuries that I do, even if it makes you more consistent. > [@](#): > > We observe the behavior of systems designed to represent them. But how does one go about doing this? It’s easy, for example, to observe the behavior of a system designed to represent addition; not so easy to observe the behavior of a system designed to represent taking square roots, and I’m not sure one can design a system at all to test whether the square root of 2 is irrational. I guess I’m not understanding your point with some of this; let’s say I’ve come up with a deductive proof that [symbol]p[/symbol] is transcendental. How do I “allow my brain to evaluate it, and observe its output?” ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/153 "2003-08-29T18:23:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > \*\*But how does one go about doing this? It’s easy, for example, to observe the behavior of a system designed to represent addition; not so easy to observe the behavior of a system designed to represent taking square roots, and I’m not sure one can design a system at all to test whether the square root of 2 is irrational. \*\* Sure you can – just build one that follows the rules of symbolic logic. > [@](#): > > \*\*I guess I’m not understanding your point with some of this; let’s say I’ve come up with a deductive proof that [symbol]p[/symbol] is transcendental. How do I “allow my brain to evaluate it, and observe its output?” \*\* Mathematical arguments consist of a series of statements that, when evaluated according to certain rules, lead to conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/154 "2003-08-29T19:15:54Z")
I think you are all missing a big difference between mathematics (and logic) and science. Both proceed from a set of assumptions and axioms. Science is continually checking its assumptions against observations of the world. Theorems in mathematics do not check their assumptions, but proceed from them For example, both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are correct. Which one of these matches reality is totally irrelevant when viewed in terms of pure mathematics. (It matters when applied in physics, of course.) A disembodied brain, cut off from the rest of the universe, could, in principle, come up with all of mathematics. Now if you want to say this brain observes the output of its thought processes that’s fine, but I submit this is different in kind from the type of observation of the world we do in science. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/155 "2003-08-29T20:02:58Z")
**Voyager** , just for what it’s worth, on this point, I do agree with you; it’s what I mean when I say that science is inductive and mathematics is deductive. **TVAA** does have a point that we can test certain mathematical conclusions by observation, but I think we probably diverge from there. **TVAA** , I’m still not getting. So let’s say that I’ve managed to evaluate the series of statements that lead me to conclude that sqrt(2) is irrational. What do I do next? I would argue that I stop; given my assumptions and definitions, I’m done. Do you disagree? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/156 "2003-08-29T20:11:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Voyager \* > **A disembodied brain, cut off from the rest of the universe, could, in principle, come up with all of mathematics.** Well, given our current knowledge and a bit of extrapolation, the brain would probably die. More precisely: the _mind_ would die, as it wouldn’t have access to data. > [@](#): > > \*\*Now if you want to say this brain observes the output of its thought processes that’s fine, but I submit this is different in kind from the type of observation of the world we do in science. \*\* I’m not at all sure. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2003, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511/157 "2003-08-30T09:55:41Z")
So basically we agree on everything but semantics. Great. That’s a shitload of typing I’ll never get back. Have a good life, everyone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-many-dopers-against-religion/197511.md?page=7)