If we discovered a contradiction in mathematics, we could use math to disprove itself.
Let’s see here: valid.
Well grounded; just.
Producing the desired results.
Having legal force.
In logic: containing premises from which the conclusion can be derived; correctly inferred or deduced from a premise or premises.
If we experimentally show that uncontrollable fluctuations in the conditions of our experiments result in significant variance in the results, we’ve shown that old-style, highly simplified science is invalid.
If the universe suddenly began acting in ways that we were utterly unable to explain, and no amount of rationality and scientific reasoning would allow us to derive useful concepts and predictions, then we could discard science without a problem.
The real point here, I think, is that we can only demonstrate that something is invalid if it is invalid. If science itself is valid, it can’t disprove itself necessarily.
Lastly, your claim that reasoning relies on the “truth of God” seems rather like a position once held by C.S. Lewis. It might be informative for you to read some rebuttals of his reasoning by philosophers and logicians.
Of course, there are rebuttals to the rebuttals as well.
But Robert is right. Science is based on falsification, which distinguishes it from pseudoscience. And there is no theory of falsification that can itself be falsified. Accepting the validity of science (or logic, for that matter) is an act of faith.
There’s no theory of falsification that’s scientific, either.
Accepting science is not an act of faith. It gives the best results of any philosophy or method yet attempted, which allows us to learn more about the world.
Quite frankly, science is systematized honesty.
It doesn’t require any more faith than accepting the reality of the world does, and since the world is what we mean by real, this is a very small amount indeed.
Because entropy is never at 100%, for one thing. :rolleyes:
If we consider the universe to exist in only four dimensions, then everything that exists in time is a cross-section of a four-dimensional shape. This shape is timeless: it neither begins nor ends, as there aren’t any beginnings or endings.
Somehow, I knew that when I refreshed again, you would have responded. I was right.
But he’s wrong about you, isn’t he? “Because entropy is never at 100%, for one thing.” “If we consider the universe to exist in only four dimensions, then everything that exists in time is a cross-section of a four-dimensional shape. This shape is timeless: it neither begins nor ends, as there aren’t any beginnings or endings.” “Atemporally, everything is eternal. The space-time manifold has no beginning or end.”
No one understands what the cause of entropy is, or what its consequences are.
Nevertheless, the statistical definition of entropy makes it impossible for it to ever reach 100%. The universe asymptotically approaches complete disorder, but never reaches it. (This is even assuming that entropy will always increase; it’s not at all clear that this is true on a universal level. The Second Law is one of the very few basic scientific principles that can actually be violated.
Here’s an idea, Libertarian: Go find some high-quality introductory texts to science and cosmology. Even better, go back to college. Read up on the definition of entropy.
Ah, and one last thing: I should you should refresh your understanding of the word “if”.
What do you mean by ‘best’? Science gives us the largest body of scientifically verifiable information, yes. Faith-based belief systems, on the other hand, give us large bodies of faith-based knowledge. Since you can’t really compare either system to reality without using faith/reason/etc., you can’t demonstrate objectively that one system is better than another.
You can, on the other hand, point out that whenever a technologically advanced society met a spiritually advanced one, the spiritually-advanced society usually died off right quick. In more or less every system of knowledge, being stronger counts for something.
Having faith that faith is valid is just as self-referential as reasoning that reason is valid. And you tell me: how can you process the results of an experiment that is testing ways of processing results?
I’m being God’s advocate here, FTR. I do believe that science is closer to the way the universe works then any religion encountered so far. But, there is no objective way of showing this without invoking science, invalidating the experiment.
** If the process known as “reasoning” didn’t give useful results, it wouldn’t be used. Something that did give useful results would be used instead, and it would probably be called “reason”.
By looking at the world and seeing if those results work. Is that science? If you argue that it is, then I can only conclude that everything is inherently scientific.
There’s no way of demonstrating this to another person without resorting to some kind of shared theories or assumptions about the way the world works. However, we don’t need to convince the universe of how it should be. The world itself is always objective.
Science looks at the territory and attempts to create a useful map of it. Religion looks at the map alone; if the territory is even acknowledged, it’s criticized for not matching the map.
Just because something is believed does not mean it has anything to do with the way the world works. In terms of what we can justify ourselves, one belief is as good as another. Faith and logic are equally valid. But that’s only the case when they’re considered without referencing the world. If the world operated on fundamentally different principles, “logic” would be whatever form of thought was useful in predicting and adapting to it.
[sub]How many different directions can you hijack a thread?[/sub]
Vorlon wrote:
Is it unreasonable that different people might find different things useful? How to set a bear trap is of no use to me at all, but might be essential knowledge for someone else. If a person believes he is created in God’s image, might not faith be useful to him?
The beliefs of people about what is useful do not trump the workings of the world.
If I choose to believe that there’s a bridge over a chasm because I’d have no way to cross it otherwise, and I walk out into the chasm, I’m going to fall.
If a person’s beliefs about the way the world works don’t match the way the world actually works, then sooner or later that person won’t be able to achieve his or her goals.
Wanting and searching for the truth are necessarily the most useful possible strategies.
In my world, how to set a bear trap is useless knowledge. In someone else’s world, it might be essential knowledge.
Of course, if you are the objective declarator of what is THE world, then I hope you don’t die so that everyone else does not get lost. In fact, I don’t know how anyone made it until you came.
