You dislike religion. We get it. You really ought to start that groundbreaking thread.
My question, for those who are paying attention, is an epistemological one: for a layman, not proficient in the math, what can be known and how is it known, especially regarding the bigger scientific theories on where did we come from and why are we here? Are they known in a way that’s any different than how people come to believe the non-science-based questions? And does it make a difference?
I care not a whit to be drawn into an argument over the society-wide merits of science vs. religion and whether it’s a false dilemma to begin with; it has absolute fuck-all to do with what I’m asking. Clear enough?
I guess in practical effect one reason I ask is this: Why, in this world of scientific wonders where everything around us is perfectly explained by [thomas dolby] SCIENCE! [/tb], why does nonsense like the “law of attraction” or anti-vaccination activism, or, fine, religion itself, still gain traction? It may be obvious to those proficient in science that the latter stuff is all BS, but from the layman’s perspective, are they all legimately accepted as possibly valid? Is it possible to tell Joe Schmoe that he’s wrong in any other terms except “accept my authority and not theirs”?
Another thing is: as math and science education gets progressively worse, and the boundaries of scientific discovery become progressively more occult (can any non-physicist really explain to me what’s going on with quantum mechanics?), it really seems like we’re approaching the point where sufficiently advanced technology becomes indistinguishable from magic. From a layman’s perspective, who’s to say it’s not magic, practically speaking, and what’s the implication of that??
I do get where you are coming from, Koxinga. To an extent we put trust in someone or something, but people might be reluctant to allow it to be put in those terms because of the facile “science is just another kind of religion,” dogma espoused by the religion-religious. And in a way the trust we put in quantum theory is more like the trust we put in historical events that happened before we were born, i.e., we are putting trust in primary documents and expert sources because it makes far more sense than believing there was a vast conspiracy to deceive us by manufacturing those records and lying to us. You did not confuse rational trust with blind faith, as people often do, so I think it’s a dead horse nobody needs to beat.
Expert opinion is not always fallacy. In fact, there are specific conditions where the appeal to authority is fallacious – when the expert is not really an expert, when there are far more experts who disagree, when the expert is not disinterested, or when the facts contradict what the expert is saying. Citing a known climatologist who’s a professor at Stanford and has made a life’s work studying global warming is fine. Citing a guy who’s actually a lawyer, bankrolled by energy companies, and denies even that there is measurable indications that the planet is getting hotter – because he’s written a book “debunking” global warming - is an appeal to authority.
The fallacy should really be called “an appeal to false authority.”
The OP is fascinating and challenging. On a personal level, depending on what you mean by “prove”, it could be very difficult or impossible to prove many things one believes.
I think, though, there is more than just appeal to authority. There is a framework in society of interdependent thoughts and memes and traditions. It is implausible that so many people work with ideas and principles that incorporate Einsteinian relativity and that such relativity is flat out wrong; you would hear about it if that were the case.
Lots of us have had the experience of learning something about the supernatural, and trying it, and having it not work right. Generally, as far as I have chased any of those failed supernatural ideas, I haven’t gotten down to a core that works right.
Whereas, lots of us have had the experience of learning something about the sciences, and trying it, and having it work. Of course, often they don’t work, too - or at least they seem not to. In my experience when I chase after them they eventually work or I eventually find out I’m doing it wrong because of some misunderstanding. I don’t have any captive missing pieces, by which I mean I can’t demonstrate to myself or anybody else a claim made by one of the sciences that simply fails.
You can get as far as you want with these things, as others point out. I actually did study physics and work through the math behind Einstein’s special relativity (which is simpler than general relativity). Doing so was a splendid experience that made me love him and the way he thought about the problem, but it didn’t change my world view in the ways we are discussing, it just reaffirmed them the umpteenth time. What I can hang my hat on is that all my experiences and conversations with others are consistent with a framework in which generally the sciences are right, or, much more accurately, the sciences are “onto something”. The theories are NEVER really right all the way through, they are steppingstones, but they do keep getting at deeper and deeper things, and they are more right than their predecessors.
Yes, but how many people understand those tests? You’ve just added another layer of authority, from “Is Einstein right?” to “Are those who did the tests right?” Also, how many non-scientists really understand the nature of scientific tests?
Perhaps that’s what a layman *could *do, but that’s rarely what a layman actually does. More important, though: Why *would *he do that? On what basis has he determined that falsifiability is even relevant? And, more basic: On what basis does a layman determine that the experiment verified the theory?
Seems like that’s evidence of what’s required to win a Nobel Prize …
But, whether you think it’s a joke is not scientific evidence of whether there’s any truth to it, right?
And, just to be clear, I do not have religious beliefs and I accept modern science, as do many others. But I don’t have an ironclad argument about why I should accept one belief and dismiss the other.
Possibly. In any case, the accepting or rejecting of a scientific proposition is based on accepting some philosophical propositions and rejecting others.
The Science in question was cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the Big Bang. It when it was measured it matched scientific predictions almost exactly. Short of outright 1984ish level deception I think this pretty strong evidence science is on the right track.
Well JP2 told Hawking not to inquire about what happened before the big bang because it was immoral to delve into what is a province of God. Hawking mentions this in “A Brief History of Time” and a recent Discover article.
In addition there have been stirrings from the Catholic Church that the Multiverse hypothesis may be contrary to Catholic doctrine.
How specifically are they falsifiable? And, what are “they”? If you mean “all scientific theories, by definition”, then who determined which theories are scientific? Was it scientists or non-scientists?
At some point, the layman says: I accept what you say because I am convinced that you are an expert.
Your “really” suggests that nobody who knows what they’re talking about disagrees with you. Perhaps Sokal and Bricmont don’t know what they’re talking about:
(Also, who determines whether Wikipedia is correct? ;))
You appear not to understand fallacies. They make no claim about the truth value of a statement just the faulty building blocks to arrive there. Like Ad Hominem, Paris Hilton may indeed be a slut but that isn’t proof she slept with you.
And the evidence I mentioned is exactly the experiments you mention. I wouldn’t consider believing that an experiment was done as described in a peer-reviewed journal article as an appeal to authority. In the same vein I’ll trust translations of the Bible done by reputable experts.
You probably would need a smattering of statistics to understand the results of many experiments - but you need a smattering of history to get the Bible also. You don’t need to understand the proofs, though.
A web comic?