Science and Faith

Great Debates
81

I said this:

To clarify, that wasn’t meant to be definitional in nature, but rather to comment along what I should hope to be parallel lines that we cannot seperate calculating from mathematics just like we cannot seperate judgement from science, as if science and math were somehow holy or pure (regardless of whether they spoke truth or spoke at all) but we were flawed in our application of it. Without the calculation and methods of calculation, we couldn’t have math. Without the normative acts of scientists, we couldn’t have science.

82

Human error is always a concern. This is not an inherent problem in science or in mathematics, only in the practice of these things.

Because we make decisions about what to research. Because we are human. It sounds to me like you’re blaming the world for its ever-willingness to present itself with banal tasks to do. That’s a common complaint, but inescapable. If you wish to ask why the world is this way, that’s more a subject for philosophy than science.

You’re conflating the accidents of science with the substance. The scientific community is what confers PhDs. Plenty of scientific endeavor is done by countless minions who do not make profound inroads beyond stepping away from the balance. They do not receive the accolades and PhDs, but they still are doing science.

This just proves my point that it doesn’t matter HOW you do science. We could just as easily do science in a base hex numbering system.

Without quantifying the answer, simply stating that microwaves heat water isn’t science. Measuring how much microwaves heat water is a scientific observation. Saying microwaves heat water is as meaningless as telling a child that “energy makes a bus go.” Without a definition of quantification, these concepts are simply aesthetic or meaningless.

First of all, you have to get beyond human error. We know it exists, and that’s that. If you believe it is impossible to get beyond human error than the discussion is over. We’re all just walking around deluding ourselves. Mathematics is deduced from postulates. This is the way it is done. Science is induced from observation. They are different beasts entirely.

You don’t think we can separate mathematics from calculating. It seems you haven’t talked to many mathematicians then. There are mathematicians that are interested in Applied Mathematics, but there are others which could care less about such things and simply start with postulates and theorems and run with them until their heads get sore. There are also theorists in the scientific community who do the same thing, but they are ultimately held accountable to the observationalists and experimenters as nature itself is the postulate of science.

83

I am not aware of how to do, learn, teach, or exemplify mathematics without observation.

I want to blame anyone who has a concept of science that doesn’t entail what we actually do. For example: “This is not an inherent problem in science or in mathematics, only in the practice of these things.” Yes, good is possible, even though we are born with original sin. Or, knowledge of platonic universals is possible, even though we live in a world of tawdry impressions. Or… shall I go on?

Science doesn’t answer why the curtain flows in when I am taking a shower?

Oh, I agree we could… So long as we all agree to use this system.

HA! I am sorry, but this makes me grin from ear to ear. I can confidently say that I know human error exists, I have seen it, and it fits my conception of reality, the same way I know microwaves heat water, and the same way I know atoms exist, and so on and so forth. But I am not the one claiming that science doesn’t prove anything.

I see your misconcpetion of my phrasing, then. Of course, D[sub]x[/sub]x[sup]2[/sup] = 2x is as much of a calculation as 12 X 12. Which is to say, there is this procedure for this behavior, and so on.

Strange, that. Two questions. First, if it isn’t science, would you permit me to say that you know it? Second, if it isn’t science because of quantification, then we must start to reconsider taxonomy.

And at any rate, the example can easily be remedied to include quantification. Say, that the microwave set to this value of time will heat water some number of degrees. Whatever. I am not interested in the actual experiment demonstrated but rather in the notion of whether I may do science without the notion that science never proves anything.

Because, you know, it is damned irritating to hear people say that in one thread, a thread like this, and then to hear them in another thread demand a demonstration of some crackpot theory. Which is to say: what is that going to prove? I mean, why even ask?

For consider the once-thought-to-be-true proposition that the sun revolves around the earth. Now we say: the earth revolves around the sun. And I am to reject the former an accept the latter. But on what grounds? Of couse, if we can’t prove one proposition is true, then we can’t prove another proposition is false (else science would be proving things all the time, contrary to popular assertsions).

By any conception of “proof” that I have, someone out there has proven that the earth revolves around the sun, and I know that, given the same tools they had, that I would come to the same conclusion. By any conception of “proof” that I have, someone out there has proven that the cardinality of prime numbers is aleph-null, and I know that given the same practice with symbol-manipulation that I would come to the same conclusion (and, in this case, I really have).

…

So math is a deductive system. Let us suppose this is so (though I strenuously disagree). How do I learn how to operate with numbers without inductive experience? For example, consider the series:
1, 2, 3, 4, …
Of course, you may formalize this in sigma notation. But will you say you learned how to count from sigma notation, or from recognizing characteristic patterns among several (though not an infinite or in any sense “complete”) number of examples from teachers or parents? Or perhaps you might comment that you didn’t really know this series until the formal presentation of sigma notation after a torturous trip through the axiomatic foundations of math? Let us suppose the latter. Now, I never went through the axiomatic foundations for math (but, by hypothesis, you have). I begin to write the numbers
1, 2, 3, 4
down as you begin to write the numbers
1, 2, 3, 4
down.

Can anyone tell us to stop and declare which one of us knows the series? And what sort of judgement was that? A non-mathematical one? Then why, for instance, should I accept any proof by mathematical induction? Shouldn’t I demand to see the series continued through to infinity?

But of course, given our (only very probable) limited life span, demanding such a thing is impossible. So I am only very sure that the number representing the sequence of partial sums after 10001 is 10002? (the matter is further complicated by the fact that the nth term of the sequence of partial sums is also the answer! I mean, how aren’t we testing the same thing twice by asking someone to write out the sequence of partial sums here? And, even to use sigma notation, *don’t you already have to know how to count???)

On one hand, I can conceive of the possibility that our theories are wrong and thus am told to say that theories are never proven from incomplete induction. On the other hand, I clearly learn how to operate mathematically from incomplete induction, and am told that I can trust mathematics as a deductive system implicitly, barring human error (whatever that means, I don’t care to argue that point). Two cases of incomlete induction, and two entirely dissimilar results.

The matter is only complicated by the intricate link between math and science. And many consider, contrary to you of course, that math is a science. But perhaps not in the sense you propose here, which is still unclear to me.

We may mark our rulers in any way, but we must mark our rulers, and more importantly, we must agree on ruler-markings. And, of course, this means there must be a method for establishing agreement (which, by all rights, is quantifiable) (and though I am not entirely clear on whether all quantifiable concerns can be scientifically investigated, though I would say they may be).

But let this one man, this solitary stranger in a strange land, mark his ruler in some unique fashion, and develop a script in his head that only he can read. Furthermore, though he can speak and understand every language on earth, he refuses to speak in any of them, and will not teach you how to read his script. You seem to have an uncanny ability to tell science apart from non-science, so I am going to introduce you to this unique individual. Furthermore, you’ve mentioned that all this prescriptive behavior is not necessary. Can you describe what this man could do that would cause you to say, “There. He has done some real science there and is not just some crackpot.” Of course, such a comment cannot be a scientific one (to you) since there is no quantification. But still, you have, over this debate, given several particular examples of an ability to detect science from non-science, and you have asserted that the prescriptive qualities we so often find are not necessary for science. So here is our strange man you cannot communicate with because he refuses to do so.

From the top:

But not their creation?

Well, shall we say, “…beyond those small scientific endeavors after making a non-scientific decision to step away from the balance.”

Could we scientifically investigate, assign probability, as to when a person should step away from a balance to achieve a specific statistical tolerance for error? But doesn’t “error” require a standard on which to judge? And if those standards aren’t science, then science isn’t even axiomatic, arbitrary… it isn’t anything.

If science is a behavior, a method, then of course it doesn’t matter what I believe. And I feel comfortable believing that science proves things until it finds otherwise, in which case I believe that science has disproven the previous theory (or, proven that it was false to be perfectly clear). But then, couldn’t we all run around and say that science proved such-and-such? Well, imagine we all did say that, every last one of us. The entire human race: wrong. Of course this hypothetical human race has to be wrong, because science can’t prove anything, and that isn’t changed merely by saying otherwise.

So then, perhaps the question, “Then how do we know the opposite?” has meaning? by which I mean, “How do we know that science doesn’t prove anything?” Of course that can’t be a scientific observation. Which is to say, “Perhaps all of science is up for grabs, except this proposition [that science never proves anything].” But of course, the truth and falsity of a proposition isn’t a measurement along some quantifiable axis like a ruler or thermometer, so no surprise.

Can I infer from the modified microwave experiment above (where specific measurements are theorized and tested) that a microwave does, in fact (or is very likely to be a fact), heat water, but that science doesn’t allow this inference? Or is it that science doesn’t allow any inference? But that last question can’t be “yes” because you’ve said, “Science is induced from observation.” So there are rules for inference?

84

:Sigh: Science doesn’t prove that there is human error. Why we make mistakes is an interesting subject, but ultimately the measurements that are made have to be meticulously qaulified. You paint with too wide a brush, my friend. You are trying to get me to contradict myself, I guess. I’m about ready to drop this game.

Now you’re getting it! These are both fabulous questions. What we know and what is observed are different things. It is one of the fundamental questions of philosophy. Furthermore, there are any number of scientists who will tell you that the more scientific an endeavor is, the more it becomes quantifiable. “There are two kinds of sciences,” it is said, “physics and stamp collecting.”

In a very real sense, taxonomy is quantifiable (despite the fact that it hasn’t been done very well.) We are just now, in the last 20 years, becoming able to describe HOW exactly it is quantifiable using computers. It is funny that we can intuit things that are obvious to us but not easy to teach a computer to recognize. Taxonomy is the same thing. At its heart it is quantifiable. Now, don’t ask me WHY the universe is this way. I’ll be candid and tell you I just don’t know.

Ouch. I guess I deserve that, but the “Is Physics Terrifically Wrong Thread” is not about science, per se, as it is more about the Scientific Community. I have made this distinction before, and I will continue to make it here. While I may act like an angry despot when it comes to physics, I am very conservative when it comes to what pure science actually is. Others may disagree with me, that’s their wager. I think, though, I have demonstrated my case well enough in this thread.

Simply on an appeal to the way induction works. You can be a geocentricist if you wish, but you are standing on falsified evidence. This is the way science proves itself, by maintaining a theory that stands up to all previous observations.

Which is a sequence, not a series, but in any case…

It isn’t formalized using notation, it is formalized by appealing to logical rigour. Formalization is exactly what made Bertrand Russel swoon. Teaching and learning are important because they help us to communicate with each other and share commonality. We can go into Wolf-Shapiro hypotheses, and the like, but what’s the point? You seem to be convinced that there is something arbitrary about science. That’s fine, it very well may be exceedingly arbitrary. Nevertheless, it still set up to be internally consistent. As for knowledge, no body knows what the hell that is. Plato did an okay job defining it as “justified, true belief…” but no one has come up with anything better than that rather toothless definition. I have a feeling that Ramanujan knew a whole lot of mathematics without ever having been taught it. That’s pretty weird, if you ask me. I don’t know how “knowledge” is supposed to be measured, so I don’t know at what point someone knows anything. I can tell you what the uncertainties are on the measured age of the universe.

Utter baloney. Mathematics uses deductive logic, End of story. You can look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me. Mathematical induction is actually deduction. It is not scientific induction in the least. It works because of the axiomatic description of discrete mathematics. You no more need to see the continuation than one needs to see every possible real number multiplied by zero is zero. Mathematics starts with postulates and moves logically from them. That is what mathematical proof means. It is NOT the same as scientific proof which relies of trials, observation, and experimentation.

In some sort of hierarchical scheme, some have said that mathematics is the most rigorous of the sciences. Certainly Platonists have argued mathematics is a science because they believe that mathematics is an actual part of nature and not (as opposing viewpoints would have it) a game. If it is a science, it is not a science in the sense of the scientific method (which is how I define science).

It is not the case that only certain folk can do science. EVERYONE can do science. If this guy wants to go out and make observations and come to a viable theory that I cannot falsify using my own observations then the guy has done science plain and simple. Of course, you seem to have the cards stacked against me as I probably will not be able to communicate with him. Perhaps I wouldn’t be able to say anything because I wouldn’t be able to understand him. That’s not the first time such a thing has happened. It was said in 1947 that there were only 12 people in the world who understood general relativity.

Indeed, when we talk about the creation of the body of observations or the body of mathematics we are talking about something which has theoretically had the human error removed from it to the best it can be removed. If there is still human error abounding, then we are, as I said before, living in a deluded world in any case and the discussion is over.

I didn’t intend to make my comment sound that way. What I was trying to say was that people do science sometimes very mundanely and NEVER GET THE OPPORTUNITY to step away from the balance. The decision to “step away from the balance” is one that is made by the individual (or the individual’s boss) and is not strictly a scientific one. However, it may be a productive one.

ABSOLUTELY! We can assign probability and uncertainty to these endeavors. “Error” itself requires no standard, because it is axiomatic that nature follows statisical and mathematical laws. We still don’t know why this is the case, but that’s what we go on.

You’re going to have to define proof before we can make any headway in this area.

And you demonstrate in this statement why “proof” is such a tenuous thing to identify. Well done.

Again, science doesn’t allow or disallow anything. You are free to make whatever inferences you wish. You are free to scientifically test the consequences of believing in such. That’s, of course, circular reasoning. Science is pretty much wholly self-contained in that way. There’s really nothing more to be said about it. If you want to ask me, “Do I think inferred conclusions from science describes the world accurately?” I would have to say yes. But ultimately, the justification for this affirmation comes from my belief in evidence and methodology. I have no real objective way of approaching the matter. Nevertheless, it still moves.

85

It’s an amazing thing to categorically declare mathematics to be a deductive process when the whole of its foundation is the Induction Axiom.

86

Isn’t this the part where someone mentions Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem?

87

eris, Oh, c’mon. It is pretty clear that I am not saying that religious individuals are irrational. I am saying that they can be rational people who are religious for rational reasons (I count myself here, BTW), or irrational people who are religious for irrational reasons … and that it is irrelevant to whether or not the belief qualifies as “religion” … for science such is not the case. Reason … rationality … is a defining feature of science.

And as I’ve never found you to be dumb, I am surprised to find you dumbfounded. When we investigate reality with science we are not saying that it tells us anything about what should be morally right or wrong, we are not providing a basis for morality, for values … just providing explanatory power. “The selfish gene” doesn’t say anything about right and wrong … just how things work and the mechanics of how it came to be.

perspective, Whose common values? Why those members of the federation of societies that accept the axioms of secular society, of course. And axioms they are. “We hold these truths to be self evident …”, human rights, the rights of POWs, and so on. Of course they have been influenced by Judeo-Christianity! But one isn’t going into India to today and arguing that untouchables deserve basic human rights because of the Christian Bible, one appeals to this now more neutral secular mindset. And more and more of the world is agreeeing to accept the axioms that are its basis. Without accepting any particular religion. How they set the balance in each situation, where the fulcrum is placed, is influenced by a variety of factors … individual faith, culture, etc … but the axioms are being accepted not because God said so, but because we all seem to agree.

Still looking for a defintion of religion, I am. Is democracy a religion?

As to the places of induction and of deduction within Mathematics, well, in Mathematics induction is kept within its neat box. The basic postulates are generally (not always) based on induction … but all that follows is deductive (usually). And exciting areas of Mathematics are based upon deductively following out from axioms that do not follow inductive observations. In the rest of science induction and deduction have a constant interplay in the formation of knowledge.

88

Secular or no, it’s a culturally specific historical accident. Science has nothing to do with it.

We hold these truths to be self evident? Could you invoke faith any more obviously? The declaration of independence mentions god doesn’t it?

89

Webster’s Third New International Dictionar, Unabridged

Definition of “religion” 7 a: a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith : a value held to be of supreme importance <by making democracy our ~ and by practicing as well as preaching its doctrines–W.O.Douglas><Marxism was his ~><he has made a ~ of pleasure, and it is a brave thing to do these days–Gerald Sykes>
Please note that I never said anyone trusting in any scientific principles had to be a radically religious scientist, any more than everyone who take a bit of Christianity is a hard-core fundamentalist. Mixing and matching religions is all the rage. But I think everybody has a set of rules or principles or whatever that they simply will not believe is wrong. That is the core of their religion. Often it is science that people choose to accept as right, and they bend their other faiths to fit the proclamations of science.

No, science does not say you should not jump off the cliff. But, when it comes down to it, nobody says you shouldn’t burn in hell. . .

My complaint is not so much against direct observations as it is indirect ones, of which there are too many to count. To simply state what you have observed does not seem to me to be religious; to say why it happended is to tread upon dangerous ground. And to take your collection of observations with the relationships you assume exist between them and infer this as the totality of all involved factors upon processes which you have not directly witnessed nor have fully reproduced. . .
Debating things here is lots of fun, but it is way too addicting.

90

perspective, please reread the post that you are commenting on. I never said that science provides the values basis for society, quite the opposite. Secular values, “culturally specific historical accident” though it may be, provides that basis. Religion, OTOH, historically provided explanatory power, a basis for values and thus laws, and more. (It is increasingly being left with that “more” only.) The point of the comment is to draw distinctions between the role and functions of science and religion. To help compare and contrast the nature and purpose of “faith” in religion vs. in science and both vs. secular societal values. The faith that we have in the axioms that justify values is fairly absolute, whether it is from religion or from the secular system. The faith in the axioms of science is not absolute.

kabloomie chooses dictionary defintion #7a as his choice of a definition. By that selection any belief system, means of knowledge production, or cause, can be considered a religion. Cecil practices StraightDopism, committed to combatting ignorance. Communism, democracy, PETA, and many others are “religions” to any who feel strongly about it. (And, interestingly, Christianity is not, if you really don’t care.) The definition is so broad as to have no utility.

Try again.

91

Well, I was taking issue with this point.

Maybe I was reading to much into these two sentences following each other directly. It looked to me that you were saying that science with it’s superior explanatory power in the secular world was helping to provide alternative values to a theocracy.
But looking back at a previous post that I hadn’t responded to:

I can see that we agree on that point.

Still, I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that we share those values. I don’t think they are anymore common than a preference for Rocky Road ice cream. Hardly a basis for ethics in my book. This, to me, raises important ethical questions. But I suppose it isn’t really related that directly to the direction of this thread. So I’ll drop it.

Thanks for the tip.:slight_smile:

92

Well, JS, I didn’t want to imply that you personally made me damned irritated, but only that I really recognize that apparent disparity and I am seeking to clarify it, and for some reason (which I can allow to be a personal flaw) the clarity will not come.

I think we have both said all that we can say. Perhaps you are correct that further debate will not shine any more light on the subject. I am content to let the issue drop for now.

DSied

Well, what can I say but that I do not find this to be the case?

93

Oh, and of course it is a series. Sigma from n=0 to infinity 1. Or, if you don’t prefer “1” there, you oculd of course put n-(n-1). :slight_smile: It is the sequence of partial sums from the series indicated above.

94

Actually, JS, allow me to perhaps make a small point that came to me yesterday as I pondered the topic.

You said that it wasn’t science that allowed or caused the scientist to get up from the balance, but some appeal to other order or efficacy.

But, see, it is the case that when we say a personal opinion was involved in the results of an experiment (or the conclusion drawn from them that has whatever truth-value you care to make up for assignment here) we feel that the experiment was somehow tainted. Which is to say, getting up from the balance at such and such a time doesn’t taint the experiment in the same way other judgements do. Which of course leads me to the apprent conundrum I face.

95

I think you’re on to something, erislover. There is ultimately no rule that tells us in science WHAT to study, measure, or observe. More often than not, the paradigm is what directs scientists in this. For this reason, the paradigmatic aspect of science is extremely interesting from an instructional standpoint. I am a fan of Kuhn (though he’s admittedly not right 100% of the time, who is?) since I believe that there’s a lot that the paradigm itself contributes to the direction of scientific discourse. It may turn out that it’s fair to say that scientists are pretty blind in the arena of deciding what measurements to make. If the paradigm is what prejudicially directs the research, there could conceivably be some areas that are thoroughly unexplored. That’s a pretty exciting concept, if you ask me.

Lib, the Induction Axiom is an inherent property of numbers. Scientific induction is not a recognized method for proof within mathematics. If you wish me to be exact, I would say “mathematics is not based upon the process of induction; it is based on the process of deduction.”

96

erl,

Well, my turn to be dumbfounded. Care to expand? Are you trying to say that induction and statistical correlations are irrational and that only pure deductive proofs are rational?

JS,
Of course the tools available help decide what gets measured just as much as the desire to measure something helps to inspire the tool. And oh, don’t forget the Monte Carlo method before totally dismissing induction from mathematics.

97

Monte Carlo method doesn’t offer proof for anything in mathematics. It is a random walk method, so the (un)certainty threshhold is there.

98

Correction noted. My mistake.Sorry.

99

If reason and rationality was a defining feature of science, I would expect to find a concept of scientific proof there.

Otherwise, I don’t know what you mean by reason and rationality.

100

JS, to be perhaps even more clear, a solid distillation of my opinion: you can’t seperate the scientists from science. Secondly, there are judgments made by scientists in science which are not (it is claimed) scientific but are otherwise standard. This would be a strong scientific proof: it proved, as much as anything can be proved, that this way of looking at things was right (think how often we revise our model of atoms and subatomic particles, but still measure temperature in the same way). And there is some hypothetical work where the theories more or less accord but the exact details are being worked out. This would be a sort of weak proof, but we still “feel” like we’re “on the right track”.

It is of no interest to me whether someone claims science does or does not prove anything. We act like it does, and that is enough for me. If you’d like, I have abot 40 pages of thought devoted roughly to this topic in MS Word format. The document is not complete, but it obviously extends the thoughts farther than they can be extended here. I’d be happy to share it with anyone. Just email me for a request, no need to even be public about it if you don’t want. DSeid, I still owe it to you from some time ago when I made a promise in the universals thread (I think it was there), but it is hard work to try and distill these thoughts.

The math discussion is one I think I want to start a thread on soon, but my Wittgenstein thread is causing me no end of headaches already so I don’t feel prepared to broach another huge topic.