I made the point earlier that a dictionary definition of religion wasn’t particularly comprehensive or sophisticated.
Unfortunately, using your definition, science is almost definately a religion.
Myths/creation stories: Big Bang, evolution
Symbols: Mathematical symbols? How about white lab coats? Or “purified spaces,” such as the laboratory or university classroom?
Rituals: How about the experimental method? Statistical research methods? How about the annual conventions and gatherings, the ritualistic presentation of papers and research results?
And as far as religion being a “social function intended to bring like-minded people together for the common good,” what do you call all those scientist doing all of those experiments in their laboratories, anyway?
Besides, the social interpretation of religious functions is only one among many. And honestly, why would you express such profound dissatisfaction over the definition of religion presented in this thread, but rely on such a superficial understanding of science?
Mr. Svinlesha: I guess you are right, I came across a little upset by the situation…
However, you state:
I strongly disagree.
Big Bang, Evolution: Both scientific theories inferred by observable patterns of numerical data. It is neither a myth or a “story”, but rather an hypothesis that has yet to be disproved.
Symbols: While your symbols may be symbolic of scientific activity, they lend nothing to the “faith” or “higher/deeper realities” of human existence, or even the general practice of science. What you listed are tools and resources scientists use in their practice.
Rituals: If you look at the definition of ritual at the link I provided in my previous post, the methods you claim to be ritualistic have a direct “utilitarian” purpose, that is to test hypothesis.
How does science have anything to do with a higher or deeper reality?
I may actually have a superficial understanding of science because I am not a scientist. However science cannot be a religion by definition.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but science is the study of the surrounding nature (all the way out to deep space). If science could be a religion, so could the study of business, the study of music, the study of anything…
Christian origin, Muslim God: possibly not a story. The test is what happens after death.
I am not sure I see the difference offhand.
But do not religious rituals also have a pragmatic end?—to strengthen the faith of the believer?
Now, I am not really one to say offhand that science is a religion… that sounds like a rather strange proposition given most religions, and the idea that many scientists are, themselves, members of one religion or another. But I feel that the scientific framework is one in which, should a religious type wander in to it, would welcome souls with an inclination toward divinity in whatever form the framework dictates.
By laying it open for examination, or dispelling the notion that it exists! In many ways, science and religion seek to teach about the same things. Again, to take this too literally is to misinterpret what I am personally saying here, but the parallels are, I think, pretty easy to draw.
And I think that is a valid point. The ferver with which one regards the worldview one has can have a religious nature; why should “religious” be limited in scope to the existence of a higher power when we come right down to it?
If religion serves a purpose, and one seeks to undermine existing religion, what can one replace it with that is not religion?
Very good point. I would suppose one would fill that empty space with something that fufills the needs that person has. It would be too general to say that whatever that is qualifies as a religion literally.
I’m sure you’re correct that there are many in the scientific community who are mired in tradition, and unwilling to consider new ideas. But isn’t this more a problem of application of the scientific method, rather than an inherent flaw in the concept itself?
I’m sorry, but I didn’t quite follow you on your last example - were you saying that doctors stubbornly insist on treating hyperactive children with medication without considering alternatives, or were you saying that they refuse to consider a significant number of children as having a disorder? In general, it would seem appropriate to demand evidence before enacting a radical change in standard treatment of disease. Laetrile comes to mind as an example of the dangers of using treatments with no scientific backing. Haven’t some things caught on rather quickly, like penicillin, for example? Is it fair to indict the whole scientific method in general, just because there are some grey areas in the treatment of mental disorders? Without the scientific method, do you suppose blood-letting would still be a favored therapy?
Well I’m sure you know more than I do about the subject. It could very well be that the guy I quoted is a “die-hard fan”, as you put it. Maybe you could share some examples of these falsification difficulties you’re talking about?
I agree. Maybe we could say that science is a replacement for religion, but not a religion.
Now I wonder if YOU could explain something to ME. If, as you seem to suggest, science is inherently dogmatic and slow to embrace new ideas, what exactly is the alternative way of deriving knowledge that science is overlooking?
Svinlesha, while I agree to an extent with many of your arguments, overall I couldn’t disagree more. I think your arguments in this discussion, I realize many of them not necessarily your own position, are an excellent example of what happens when philosophers of science are taken too seriously! I bet you really liked that scene in Dead Ringers when one of the twin doctors gets suited up for the operating room–at an altar and in a crimson priestly outfit.
Science is not dogma (in the religious sense), and it certainly is not religion or mythology by any stretch of the imagination. The two are completely opposite in spite of the popular exercise of drawing parallels between them.
I keep saying it on these boards and I apologize for repeating myself, but the difference between opinion and truth could not be more profound. Dogma, religion, mythology, etc., are to the best of our knowledge and evidence the extrapolations of opinion that have assumed the trappings of fact for many people (for many others, they remain simply extrapolated opinion). Science is the search for demonstrable truth using methods that minimize our subjectivity and allow us to contemplate the workings of models of nature as objectively and efficiently as possible while increasing the sum total of knowledge.
I think you are confusing the fact that we are human and therefore fallible and subjective with the more serious possibility that science is a form of religion. The latter possibility is going to require more proof than loosely defined parallels such as “both are ritualistic” or “both have creation myhts” or “both are based on scripture”. IMO these are disingenuous surface similarities that mislead inquirers by pointing in the precisely wrong direction.
If you mean dogma in the sense of principles, tenets, and aphorisms such as “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” or “for every action there is a corresponding equal and opposite reaction” then I’m with you. But that is not dogma in the popular sense of the word, which is “religious opinion taken as fact”. These “truths” rely not on dogma but on demonstrable effects, models, and predictions.
Science is a method, and some people using science may be going about things the wrong way. Don’t blame an entire system of knowledge for the faults of some of its practitioners! Certainly there are those studying science who rely on belief rather than understanding. But the process of science relies on understanding the systems rather than accepting anyone’s word about the systems as fact. Any physics student who refuses to accept, for example, atomic theory is directed to the mountains of evidence, both theoretical and practical, that support the atomic model. The evidence may be cross-checked with other evidence. The student is invited to do the math for himself and verify that the likelihood of atoms existing is so high that it is safe to provide provisional agreement for their existence even though the student may never have seen an atom close up.
Provisional agreement is not faith. I have no faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I am willing to give provisional agreement to such a prediction because an entire system of knowledge independent of but verifiable by my puny self predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow, barring unknowns of course. That’s not faith, that is a prediction that has a very high chance of being realized. And so, ideally, should all scientific predictions be (when they are based on faith or wishful thinking, then you have bad science and the conditions approach a more accurate parallel with dogma).
I also have a problem with the idea that scientists have to have faith in order to be men and women of science. I don’t see faith involved anywhere here, but I do see a lot of knowledge and a lot of systems for dealing with that knowledge. Information, data, knowledge, these are required. Faith is not. The statement “nothing with mass may exceed the speed of light” is not an article of faith, even though it is not immediately apparent why such a speed limit ought to be imposed on us. A patient physicist will explain that statement until the model that scientists have built up over a few hundred years becomes clear. There are unknowns along the way, but the entire session will be based on reasoning your way through the problem rather than accepting the speed limit as an article of faith.
EVOLUTION BREAK
As for the theory of evolution, it is indeed falsifiable, contrary to the rubbish put out by those with specific agendas. But evolution is not really the public’s idea of “science”, and the powerful efforts of ignorant Creationists often lead people to overlook the simplicity of the matter. The theory of evolution predicts a number of things, among them transitionary fossils. They were largely unknown in Darwin’s day and their absence caused him and his camp much grief, but we’ve found several of those fossils since then. The persisting absence of transitionary fossils would have begun the falsification process for evolution theory. I say begun because falsifiability requires criteria to reject modifications to theories–it’s not always a quick process. Consider also the inter-connected record present in the genetic matter of all living creatures on Earth; had we observed remarkably different genetic make-ups to the order of a 100% difference, we might have had to consider that perhaps common descent and evolution were not such good ideas. Evolution is falsifiable, as is every other scientific theory. It’s just that evolution is an “experiment” running for so long that the results are not always immediately clear, available, or easily understood by the scientifically ignorant public. END OF EVOLUTION BREAK
By contrast, faith (dogma) has no anti-error mechanisms. Ad hoc rationalizations are common to all faiths, and epitomized by the ardent young creationist who, when confronted with evidence of the real age of the Earth, insists that God simply made it seem that way to test our faith. That is a truly unfalsifiable statement. From an epistemological point of view (and several others) thatn statement is a waste of time, the kind of idiocy that may only result from dogma. Religious apologists manage to come up with some really prize unfalsifiable hypotheses: “God wants you to be saved by following Him, yet he has not given you evidence to make you believe in Him; that is because if you were to receive evidence you might still not follow Him, and therefore would damn yourself. God is being kind by not providing any evidence of his existence.”
Such things do occasionally (rarely) happen in science from time to time, but science is self-correcting by its very nature of requiring confirmation of results. Dogma is no such thing. In addition, faith makes no provisions about acceptable criteria to employ when modifying hypotheses, as science requires in the name of accuracy.
In general, the myth of falsifiability strikes me as one of the recent campaigned attempts to discredit evolution in particular. We’ve heard a lot of this senseless, highly jargonized noise from the Scientific Cretinists (S.C.) and Idiotic Design (I.D.) creation camp and from a few philosophers of science who think they can play fast and loose, but it’s rubbish—like most of these groups’ output.
Both provide answers, but they are not the only ones doing so. Answers are also provided by politicians, TV programs, fiction, works of art, consumer market advertising, the man you quiz in the street, the trees in the forest, the inmates of psychiatric wards, etc. To lump the hard, verifiable work conducted by science into the same group as the “answers” cranked out by other sources, none of which have any sort of “quality control”, is the worst disservice not just to science but also to human knowledge itself. So the issue is not whether science or dogma provide answers to certain questions, because anything and anybody may do that. The issue is the quality of the answers (a point cunningly made by the number 42).
On one hand science allows us to strip the layers from anything we want, from psychology to cosmology, allowing us to gain incredible levels of knowledge about the topic that may then be easily transmitted to others. It may take a long time (centuries), but the results are all verifiable in the event of doubting influences or possible errors. On the other hand, dogma provides little or no significant information and some meaningful guidance based on socially engineered models that may be considered constants for crowded human living (do not kill, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, do not steal) or in some cases outdated relics from a past society (the mores on homosexuality, excessive punishment for crimes, inequality of the sexes).
Most religious dogma I am aware of stems not from some cosmic truth or supernatural being, but from simple human necessities, particularly the necessities of stressed humans forced to live in increasingly bigger tribes and super-tribes. Of course, it is important to keep an open mind in case evidence to the contrary comes along.
I realize I have been quite harsh on religions in general, but I have not discussed here the values of religion, I have merely made a point to demonstrate that certain labels must be applied carefully. Religion, it can be argued, serves an important purpose by providing focus to the individual (like meditation or similar disciplines). It may be a valuable personal tool for many people in need of support, loci of control, determination, patience, etc. Unfortunately that isn’t the topic.
But anyway, I make the claim there is no enduring substance to the popular science-religion parallel.
Thanks for the extensive and well-argued responses. I could write a several long essays in reply to each point you’ve made, but I’ll try to keep myself brief, even at the risk of sounding somewhat incoherent.
As a general response to the OP and my actual position, so that ya’ll know exactly where I’m coming from: I agree that science doesn’t really fit under the category of “religion” as well. But as you may have guessed, I’m fascinated by the history, philosophy, and sociology of science, and this is the first thread I’ve come across that even tangentially refers to these questions, so I’ll just go ahead and hijack it. My background is really in cultural anthropology, so naturally I tend to approach such questions from a more – uh, ahem
postmodern
perspective. Sorry. But anyway, given that, the commonality that I find between religion, myth, and science is that all three, to borrow a phrase from Jurgen Habermas, function as * generalizable historical narratives*; background stories, as it were, that the subject uses to structure his/her worldview and find his/her place within it. I prefer to call science the “myth of the modern world,” or something along those lines, because I feel that scientific theories have more in common with mythic stories than they do with religion (which I tend to understand as a belief system combined with a set of social institutions, rituals, holy texts, and so forth). Certainly, for 95% of the population, there is at least some truth to this, because we’re all laymen. To the extent that I accept the theory (story?) of evolution (which I do, by the way), I accept it in part on faith, and in part because it makes sense to me. But I don’t accept it on the basis of a critical review of the evidence, because it would take me years of study to even begin to be able to assess the evidence. It’s simply impossible for me to initiate an in-depth review of every scientific theory I come across, so for the most part I just accept them.
As for the remaining 5%, that’s another story, but like I said, I’m trying, unsuccessfully, to keep this brief.
blowero:
I’m saying that a particular researcher, Christofer Gillberg by name, has surrounded himself with a group of like-minded psychiatrists and is waging a war of politics to establish his version of these disorders as the only possible interpretation. To be fair, he doesn’t feel that his nosological descriptions are “versions;” he believes they’re really out there.
Unfortunately for him, this is not an undisputed position, even within the international medical community. But Gillberg does what he can to squash dissenting voices. As for those who speak from a “non-scientific” perspective, well, they’re right out. Recently an associate professor of sociology in Lund published a critique of Gillberg’s work, entitled Hjärnspoken (The Brain Ghosts). Gillberg responded by writing an open letter to the head of the department, the first line of which read: “We have learned through experience not to expect even a modicum of scientific accuracy from the field of sociology, but with the publication of this book you’ve hit a new low-water mark.” (!) He then went on to demand that the director remove Ms. Kärfve from her position. His response in other newspaper editorials and the like has been to cast insinuendo and ad hominem attacks against Kärfve, coupled with an insistence that, because he is an internationally recognized specialist in the field, he shouldn’t have to stoop to answering these sorts of criticisms.
Absolutely. But it’s Gillberg himself, as a representative of the scientific community, who is promoting the enactment of radical change.
The history of this debate would make a very interesting case study about the way science, politics, and the community at large interact. There exists a kind of myth about science operating as an self-correcting, objective, value-neutral field of study. But one cannot escape the fact that in reality, science is a pastime pursued by human beings, in a specific institutional, economic, political, and cultural context. One wonders sometimes if its really even possible to be “objective” under such conditions. Certainly the history of science is canted with institutional power struggles and the like, some of which find expression as differences over theory. For me, the question arises: which picture of science is closer to the truth? Is it really the noble pursuit it claims to be? Or does it move forward by imposing its standards on the community at large? I argue that the historical record shows it to be a bit of both.
I didn’t realize that I had indicted the “whole scientific method in general,” or even a part of the scientific method in particular. Why do you think comparing science to religion or myth is an indictment? It certainly isn’t intended as such, and if I could to choose freely, I’d choose science any day of the week. My position is merely an investigation of the limits of science, maybe even the limits of all human knowledge: when it comes right down to it, we are all subjects. We do not live “in the world;” we live in our subjective interpretation of the world, an interpretation based upon our previous life experiences. I still think that some interpretations make better sense, and are to be preferred above others, even though I can’t escape the fact that my own understanding of these things is biased. Biased, for example, by the fact that I studied several years of cultural anthropology, or that I come from the South, and so on.
Concerning the problems of falsification, as briefly as I can:
Consider the statement I proposed above: “The moon is made of green cheese!” Scientific or not?
Using Popper, I’m afraid we would have to conclude that, at least since 1968, such a claim is scientific. You could view it as a refuted scientific theory. Why is that? Obviously, because it generates falsifiable observation statements, such as, “If I were to eat the moon, it would taste like good Roquefort.” I can try crunching on a moon rock, and if doesn’t taste like cheese, my theory is refuted. Remember, Popper states explicitly that he is not concerned with the truth content of statements, which he considers to be a philosophical “pseudo-problem;” he is only concerned with whether or not a statement can be considered scientific (See his Conjectures and Refutations for a more thorough explanation of this point). Thus, for Popper, any statement that generates falsifiable observation statements falls under the umbrella of science. This leads to the quandary that clearly absurd statements, many of which have no scientific value at all, must be considered scientific. In fact, all I have to do is formulate an astrological statement in this manner, and voila – science.
But consider this: can we claim that the hypothesis, “The moon is made of green cheese!” generated observation statements before we landed on the moon? Okay, I know this is a crude example, but I think you get my drift. Until we have the technological ability to test a theory, can we really claim that it generates observation statements? High-level particle physics: science or not? A lot of these theories don’t generate observation statements, or require a higher level of technology than our own to derive and test their observation statements. Does that make them non-scientific, or is it enough to say that they can, potentially, one day, generate observation statements? The dilemma here is this: if you claim that any statement from which one can potentially derive observation statements is scientific, regardless of whether or not we have the technology to do so currently, then practically any statement can be considered scientific. On the other hand, if you claim that only those statements from which one can immediately derive falsifiable observation statements should be considered scientific, you have the problem that a statement which is not scientific today suddenly is scientific tomorrow. In other words, the status of scientific statements becomes dependent upon the technological development of society at large. What then differentiates scientific statements from non-scientific statements is not their falsifiability per se, but the technological level of the scientific community that makes the statement. I submit that this runs counter to Popper’s own intentions in formulating the falsification criterion.
I would also propose for consideration the possibility that evolutionary theory, strictly speaking, is not falsifiable. Since I consider the theory of evolution to be scientific, it refutes Popper’s thesis IMHO (and not the other way around, abe). However, I’m not to sure about this proposition at the moment, and abe claims that evolution is falsifiable. I am of the understanding that the dilemma posed by the non-falsifiability of evolutionary theory caused Popper to eventually back-peddle and adopt a less strictly falsificationist position; but I’m not completely sure regarding that, since I haven’t located Popper’s discussion of these matters yet. I’m still looking for it. Man wrote, like, a shitload.
Anyway, probably the strongest argument against “falsificationism,” if I may call it that, is the one proffered by Kuhn. He states, quite simply, that if one inspects the historical record, one discovers that science simply doesn’t advance in the manner Popper claims. Falsification comes into play only during periods of “extraordinary science,” periods in which a particular discipline is going through a paradigm shift. Kuhn claims that Popper’s flagship example (the attempt to falsify special relativity by observing the positional shift of stars around the circumference of the sun during a solar eclipse in Argentine in 1919, I think) is just such a period of extraordinary science. In general, argues Kuhn, scientists are involved in the “puzzle-solving” activity of “normal science,” which involves trying to fit observed data into the theoretical framework of an already accepted paradigm. When scientists stumble across a result that “falsifies” a theory, or hypothesis, they don’t immediately abandon their thoeretical paradigm. Instead, they label the result an “anomaly,” and set it on the shelf in the back room, next to the sugar. Eventually, the shelf begins to fill up with these anomalies, and someone comes along to suggest a new interpretation of the data from which the anomalies make sense. That’s when falsification comes into play, according to Kuhn.
This leaves your last couple of points unanswered. Regarding the definition of the scientific method you propose, it risks denying a place for astronomy, a scientific discipline in which it is notoriously difficult to derive “experimental” confirmation of theories. Using the falsification criterion, are Stephen Hawkins theories concerning the behavior of matter and time at the event horizon of a black hole to be considered scientific?
Finally, regarding your last question: I consider the various methodologies of science to be tools. They’re good, very good, at doing what they do. But in some fields of study, I argue that applying scientific methods is the equivalent of using a chainsaw to cut a watermelon. You’ve probably already guessed that I consider the field of human behavior to be one of those fields. I think that the scientific study of humans is, at best, a mixed bag. If you like, I’ll develop this point later.
abe:
Your post deserves a longer response than I’m going to give it. Sorry. This response is too long already.
Foul! Anyway, pragmatic scientists happily rule out philosophical, metaphysical, and epistemological discussions as irrelevant. Its all part of the “dogmatic structure” of science.
(i.e., one good turn deserves another).
When I speak of dogma, I refer to the tendency of science to insist that only its interpretation of events, or its worldview, is reasonable or acceptable. Certainly, science is open to refutations of its basic theorems as long as they are couched in the idiom of science; but it rejects categorically any sort of non-scientific interpretation of the world. My position regarding this is that it has both advantages and disadvantages. In fact, I believe that the good outweighs the bad, at least most of the time. But I still think there is in general far too little appreciation of the bad. (For a better exposition of my position regarding the relationship between science and religion, see my introductory comments, above.)
I don’t. You also touch upon an important point here. At some point along the way, if you study this stuff, you come to the conclusion that sweeping generalizations get in the way of the discussion. “Science” isn’t this one, gigantic, monolithic entity, and within the field there are god knows how many individuals. Some of them, probably most of them, are open-minded, curious, undogmatic individuals sincerely involved in solving whatever research question they are probing into. Some of them aren’t. There’s an inherent fuzziness to the entire structure. I prefer to look at more specific examples.
Concerning evolution, I’m glad you brought that up. I’m hoping you can help me out here, as my knowledge of this question is extremely limited. By the way, I’m neither an I.D. or an S.C., so my views come from a completely different angle.
Falsification implies that one can derive observation statements from a theory such that, should the observations made fail to jive with the theory, the theory can be safely discarded. Popper specifically criticizes psychoanalysis and Marxism because the theories are couched in such vague jargon that it is impossible to derive falsifiable observation statements from them. His example of the drowning child is not well chosen, but I think his argument is nonetheless sound. Any observable human behavior can be explained using psychoanalytic theory, and thus all instances of human behavior confirm it. This shows that behavior can be understood in terms of theory, but goes nowhere in confirming the theory’s validity.
I understand, maybe incorrectly, that evolutionary theory falls into the same trap – that is to say, all observable phenomena addressed by the theory can also be explained by the theory. I’ve seen this at work directly; a former girlfriend of mine is a marine biologist who specializes in the study of dinoflagelator (sp?), single-celled organisms that live in the ocean. Algae, basically. Some of them have tails, and some of them don’t, even though they occupy essentially the same ecological niche. She says that the tails have been developed because they are an evolutionary advantage; they allow the dinos to go scooting around after whatever it might be that dino’s scoot after (mates?). But she also says that not having tails is an evolutionary advantage, because the energy used to build and use a tail is instead diverted to other ends, such as reproduction.
These are completely reasonable explanations, so that’s not the problem. However, the fact remains that diametrically opposed observations can be explained on the basis of the same theory, which, Popper would claim, means that theory is unfalsifiable, and hence, unscientific. Evolutionary theory is rife with such explanations; every conceivable environmental adaptation is explained on the basis of its evolutionary advantage, even when the adaptations are completely opposite each other. I’m sure you can think of a handful of examples yourself, if you stop to reflect a moment, so I won’t belabor the point. Anyway, I think it was precisely this dilemma that eventually forced Popper to modify his stance on falsification.
Of course, you are correct: falsification has a number of different nuances. You would be doing me a service if you could explain to me where I’ve got it wrong, or direct me to sources where I can find the info myself, if you know of such. Being the scientist I am, I always seek to falsify my misconceptions.
*Whew! There you go. Ask anybody else, but remember: they’re wrong. Only science can provide us with the answers. Going to any other source is the equivalent of asking a psychiatric inmate, or even worse, a politician. (shudder.) Egads. And do you really think that only science has “quality control?” abe, it’s not that I “reduce” science to the level of other forms of human knowledge; it’s that you “elevate” science to a pristine position of epistemological purity, a perch from which you feel that you can survey the lands around you, secure in the interpretative monopoly established by the scientific community. I also admire the scientific edifice, but come on; it’s not the end all and be all. There are other avenues of knowledge as well, and not all of them are the equivalent of political rhetoric. This is precisely the sort of dogma that I was referring to earlier. At any rate, most of the scientists I’m personally acquainted with, while they of course would dismiss the rantings of yer average politician, don’t just blithely dismiss centuries of non-scientifically produced knowledge with a simple hand-wave. Former girlfriend, for example, is also a practicing Buddhist.
I am of the opinion that reducing the study of psychology to those phenomena that are repeatable and measurable, which are the only phenomena a scientific approach can account for, does a grave disservice to the object of study. Scientific research does have an important place in this field, but it must be complimented by forms of research that I would not consider to be scientific, such as clinical work.
Big Bang, Evolution: Both scientific theories inferred by observable patterns of numerical data. It is neither a myth or a “story”, but rather an hypothesis that has yet to be disproved.
Symbols: While your symbols may be symbolic of scientific activity, they lend nothing to the “faith” or “higher/deeper realities” of human existence, or even the general practice of science. What you listed are tools and resources scientists use in their practice.
Rituals: If you look at the definition of ritual at the link I provided in my previous post, the methods you claim to be ritualistic have a direct “utilitarian” purpose, that is to test hypothesis.
That is silly IMO. The idea of God is certainly a hypothesis based on the idea of creation (freewill) and variable complexity (better way to describe frequency modulation IMO), and a state of critical mass where one body assumes a value transcendant of its peers.
It’s simply an inversion of evolution.
Evolution is (deterministic) also uses variable complexity and assumes a transcendant critical mass in the sense of fitness.
Evolution(ism), (like Creationism and other religions) also happens to be the only science that uses its name as a fact to be believed, claiming domain over feilds ranging from cosmonology to anthropology to genetics to biology to chemistry to psychology… so does Creationism! (unlike the established sciences that are modeled as “a study of”)
Both ideations use unfalsifiable axioms.
I spent two years in T.O. debating in there… those people are a bunch of gang-banging counter-intelligence freaks who are clearly smart enough to parse logic (which is why I call them CI-freaks).
This is how a debate will go in T.O.:
You can always corner them about the variable complexity utilized in the term ‘fitness’ (which has a religious mechanism when used as a verb, thus exposing a center of dogmatic corruptability (I don’t address them with this type of detail))… anyways; they will discard fitness poof
You can corner them about punk-eek, and all sorts of mechanisms used to validate evolution as a ‘fact’. It’s ironic that the very argument they go the greatest lengths in supporting actually labels the endevour as a religion. More than anything, they will not let the idea that Evolution is not a fact go unpunished! =)
Evolution must be a fact, it is a fact, it is what seperates evolution from religion (aparently they’re not very familiar with religion). So once they get cornered… the ol’ fact comes out…
Typical response created on the fly:
“Well, whatever… you’re a moron… those things like fitness and punctuated equillibrium are theories of evolution, not pertinant to the_ known_ FACT of evolution! Evolution is the change in alelle frequency over time ™!” ToE vs. FoE.
Another tactic used is posting a thesis as a rebuttle which spans grandmaster expertise in 7 different sciences to scarecly even interpret or comprehend (cut and pasted together from sites all over the web – imagine knowing nothing about computers and having code cut and pasted as proof, and you’ll get an idea), Steven Hawkings himself couldn’t possibly comment on all the points! This is used to intimidate with acadamia and mathematical wizardry… this technique has intimidated and frustrated myself personally, because I like to be able to comment on things generally, and I get admittedly overwhelmed with this tactic.
You have to love this! (I do shrug) To make a long story short… that definition, when broken down, describes every process of progressive change (progressive in the non-religious sense of time frames observed moving from backwards to forwards). You see, instead of meteorology being the study of weather patterns… they could make a religion out of meteorology (using the system the Evolutionists use); by defining meteorology as change in the frequency of ‘moisture pressure’ over time (it helps to call your science ‘evolution’; the very word used in the dictionary to describe this!; instead of the standard allotted to real sciences (the study of…).
Nobody will argue that clouds move, but this has nothing to do with a transcendant fitness of cloud species, or cloud evolution into life (abiogenesis)… evolutionists also adamantly claim that logical regression does not apply to them, and that even concieving of abiogenesis and evolution in the same breath (even though Darwin’s book title (standard source bible) refers to the origin of species (not what happened ‘after they were already there’). But wait, it gets funnier…
Like creationists people will ask you in public if you are an evolutionist… nobody asks you if you’re a mathemetician or a physicist or a paleontologist. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that you have three degree’s as an evolutionist; they will be amazed by a chem-bio combo, but people don’t buy Dr. of Evolution =P While many people engage in mathematics, they will not call themselves mathemeticians… there are people in the web who know the Bible better than most scholars (speak several languages and have the entire text and apocrapha memorized; go to an inerrancy group) who have no formal training in Biblical scholarship. These people would never consider themselves theologians… yet, like creationists, people without any formal education whatsoever feel more than free to declare being an evolutionist (note that creationists don’t refer to themselves as theologians – the study of: (most of whom are atheists)
Another twist is the evolution of primates to man, the logic goes like this:
Primates exist
People exist
Primates turning into people is the process of evolution
Evolution is a fact (read: change is a fact)
Therefor: Primates turning into people is a fact.
It’s as clever as the means used to tout evolution (and incidentally its theories) itself as a fact.
If you respond with:
But that doesn’t mean primates actually evolved into people, it only means that if they did, that process would be described as evolution (progressive change).
You get: Silence if you’re lucky =)
The arguments just go in circles and circles… genetics validates evolution, archeology, anthrolpology, psychology, physiology, mathematics… well yeah, ok; I’ve seen some astounding articles by creationists; which to me only shows that harmonizing a religion to a science has become a modern artform that is almost emerging in its golden age. That still doesn’t make Evolution a science, even though incidentally, universities are starting to hand out degrees in it (suprise, suprise).
Evolution entered schools through the backdoor, and i see no evidence that they have gathered enough, even to this date to walk in through the front door. Not a single achievment or invention has come as a result of the science of evolution; except an internal doctrine for the validity of pursuing science with a vigor. It added a religious vigor in a time where God is basically dead, and it added a sense of evidence for a ‘fitness’ mandate from nature itself. It serves much of the same purpose as the old theism did, without actually providing science in and of itself; but rather, the motivation to pursue.
I do not totally follow you, but still this does not address the fact that science (including evolution) is based from observable data and patterns in data. Religion is not.
This thread is talk about science as a religion, not religion as a science. Also, evolution is not a science, it is a scientific theory.
Man, overall, I got lost halfway through your post.
Nitpick: evolution is a scientfic theory that encompasses many fields of science – geology, chemistry, biology, and physics, to name but four.
Don’t make the Creationist mistake of saying that the word “theory” in the name means it’s without merit – strictly speaking, gravity is also a theory, yet you don’t see anyone challenging that…
Yes, gravity is a theory that is not currently being challenged, but that is only because it is a very strong, and very well supported theory. Part of the reason evolution is opposed so much is that it goes against societal religious norms (creation stories). I have nmo cite here, but that seems to make sense.
However, gravity would be challenged if there was some other explanation for all the facts we have that our supported by the gravity theory.
Mr. Svinlesha, I enjoyed reading your last post; I thought it was very well written. I’m also looking forward to seeing Abe’s response.
That’s a very good point. It seems to me that a main function of the human mind is to “make sense” of our surroundings. Both religion and science serve this function; I just think science does it in a more sophisticated way. Obviously, the layman is taking most of science on faith. BUT, I do have a sense that, if I had the inclination to devote a substantial portion of my life to studying a particular scientific discipline, I COULD prove any given proposition to my own satisfaction (or develop my own alternate theory in the process). I do not get that sense with any religion. In fact, all religions encourage one to ignore empirical observations in favor of focusing on feelings and subjective beliefs. This is, I’m sure, very helpful in improving one’s state of mind, but not too useful in gaining real knowledge about the universe.
The point I was trying to make is that I think you are blurring the distinction between the concept of using the scientific method, and the human failings of scientists who apply the method. I agree that egos and politics often get in the way of objectivity, but I don’t believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE to perform a scientific experiment objectively.
I think your point about quantum physics is well-taken, and that’s probably why there is still debate on the issue. That stuff is way beyond my comprehension, so I have no way of knowing if it’s good science or not. I personally don’t understand how they get from “we can’t know the exact state of a particle at any given time” to “it doesn’t have an exact state at any given time”, but I suspect that it may just be my own lack of understanding. Perhaps someone will come up with a theory that satisfactorily explains everything. It seems too early to tell.
But yes, I think it’s enough to say that a theory MAY be falsified. Falsifying ANY theory is a matter of concocting a properly controlled experiment. Our ability to set up the experiment may take 5 minutes, or it may take hundreds of years to develop the technology. Bear in mind that a theory is just that - we do not need to have immediate proof. It remains an unproven theory until we do.
Take, on the other hand, a truly unfalsifiable statement like “God exists outside the laws of our universe”. This statement implies not only that we currently do not possess the technology to falsify it, but also that it is impossible to ever possess such technology.
But most religious tenets are specifically designed NOT to generate observation statements. Consider:
God is love, or Jesus died for our sins
Isn’t that the difference between falsifiable and unfalsifiable? “The moon is made of green cheese” may be a silly statement, but it certainly can be proven false. (And I don’t mean to pick on Christianity, it just happens to be the religion I’m most familiar with).
And I think abe did a pretty good job of it. I know you’re trying to be brief, but I think you should address his points, because I think he was right on.
But again, that merely shows that scientists are conservative, which I think we agree is a good thing. How does this qualify scientific theories as “myths”?
Did you mean cosmology rather than astronomy? Because astronomy is very closely tied to direct observation. Didn’t Tycho Brahe spend hours and hours peering into his telescope? Astronomy is what allowed us to discard the Earth-centered model of the universe, and it was accomplished through direct observation of the motion of the stars. I don’t think you get much more “experimental confirmation” than that. As for black holes, from what I understand, the jury is still out. But are black holes truly non-falsifiable? Haven’t experiments been done in which the bending of light rays around the suspected position of a black hole is measured? Does all observation have to be direct? In a sense, observation is never direct. When we look at an object, we are only noting the direction and energy state of photons bouncing off of it.
I don’t see any disadvantage to rejecting non-scientific interpretations of the world. And despite what some people believe, that is not a “cold” view of the world. Things like love and beauty can be explained scientifically - they are not ruled out by such a view.
How are tails/no tails diametrically opposed? Aren’t they just two different successful adaptations? I suspect you are succumbing to the myth that evolution is some sort of elimination contest leading to a pinnacle, like the person who asks, “If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?” The answer, of course, is that both species are able to survive. One successful adaptation does not necessarily have to be at the expense of another.
I think Abe gave some pretty good examples of how evolution COULD be falsified. It is not sufficient to point out only one possible method of falsification, as you did, and then proclaim “See, it can’t be done”, while ignoring the very real examples given to you.
But I don’t believe psychotherapy should be immune to the scientific method, lest you get this kind of “Freud is God” mentality that there is only one right way to do it. It certainly seems possible to me to apply the scientific method to psychology. For example, you could compare a group who have undergone therapy to a control group who, say for example, talked about sports or whatever. Devise a set of criteria for measuring their ability to function in society, and there’s your study. Now, you have probably already found a million things wrong with this experiment I just concocted off the top of my head, but I would assume somebody HAS done such an experiment, and probably came up with some good controls for it, right? If not, someone should do so.
As for “other avenues of knowledge”, they need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, science does not apply to EVERY facet of our lives at every moment. I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that you do a study to determine what kind of hairstyle to ask for when you go to the barber. But I don’t believe that so-called “alternate means of knowledge” have any validity for the most part. Let’s take your example of Buddhism. It seems like a fascinating pursuit to me, and no doubt can be very effective in achieving a particular desired state of mind, but I would not trust it to tell me anything objective about how the universe works. One particular “alternate avenue of knowledge” really irks me, namely Astrology. I don’t know how many arguments I’ve had where I point out the complete lack of scientific basis for it, to which I always get a reply to the effect of “well, you can’t know everything”. It’s this sort of “anything is valid” mentality that accounts for sales of ridiculous products like magic copper bracelets, “smart drinks”, and lucky rabbit’s feet.
Does Science function as a Religion to parts of the public at large?
And if so, is this part of the problem? Both in the way that Science is misunderstood and in the way that some scientistists present their conclusions?
2)Can something be definitely true and yet unfalsifiable? If so, is it “unscientific”?
For example, “There is more information than is knowable.”? (Information inside black holes, at infinities, so on …)
Or even, is the unfalsifiable unscientific? A dangerous statement if made, since the basic postulates are always considered unfalsifiable, even they later turn out not to be true, and since an epistemology can never be used to prove itself.
First off, I’ve just noticed by virtue of your low post count that you are relatively new to the boards, so I want to pause (somewhat sheepishly) and say welcome! In case you’ve not been officially welcomed by anyone yet. I hope your visit here will be as enjoyable as mine has!
Now then, let’s get down to brass tacks.
I’m not sure I can see the difference between this “sense” you have, and the religious faith of a believer. In fact, I would argue that you are engaged in precisely the process I originally described, to wit, utilizing the natural sciences as a kind of “background narrative” with which you structure your worldview.
That’s a pretty broad statement, and I have to disagree with it. Certainly its true for some religions. It’s definitely not true for all religions. Buddhism, for example, actively encourages critical thought, and does not compel its followers to accept the word of Buddha on faith.
It is all too often forgotten that the “New Learning” of the 1600s, which eventually evolved into what we now call modern science, was originally promulgated by religious mystics. It never occurred to Bacon, or any of the early hermeneutic natural philosophers, that it would ever be possible to comprehend the fundament of Nature without reference to a Supreme Deity. Therefore, they understood scientific research and religious illumination to be opposite sides of the same coin, as necessary compliments to each other. It was not until the early 1800s, with the advent of positivism as articulated by Comte, that it began to be possible to construct a worldview without reference to the “supernatural.” Therein lies a complicated historical process that I’ve shamelessly simplified.
The secularization of the scientific project was accelerated by the fact that geological research began to produce results that ran counter to a literal interpretation of the Christian Biblical creation myth. In other words, the geological record indicated that the earth was much older than 6000 years, and couldn’t possibly have been created in 6 days. By the way, this is an example of a theory, generate by a religion, that has proven falsifiable.
Regarding this:
We seem to be at cross-purposes, for I hold that actually, I’m not “blurring” a “distinction;” rather, I claim that you are creating an artificial distinction between method and subject, one that doesn’t hold up to a detailed inspection of the historical record. Given that, I agree that it is possible to perform scientific experiments objectively.
Returning now, once again, to the topic of falsifiability:
I’m not sure what you intend with this. If God existed outside the laws of our universe, why would that necessarily imply that we could not, perhaps at some point in the unforeseeably distant future, develop the technology to detect him? Worse still, if you grant that it might someday be possible to develop that technology, then by your own standards, the statement above is scientific.
On the other hand, there are of course statements that are non-falsifiable by virtue of their very nature – at least, I argue that your point concerning this is essentially correct. I didn’t mention that wrinkle in my last post mainly because I felt it would require an incredibly long and intricate digression, just on its own. It’s unfair, however, to compare a statement such as “God is love” with an empirical statement about the functioning of Nature. To borrow from another postmodern thinker, namely Paul Ricoeur, the statement “God is love,” does not belong to the domain of force, which is the field of the natural sciences. Rather, it belongs to the domain of meaning, which is the field of existential hermeneutics and the like. Statements referring to the domain of force are qualitatively different from statements referring to the domain of meaning (or at least Ricoeur claims this to be the case, and I’m inclined to agree with him).
In other words, of course the statement “God is love” is not falsifiable; it isn’t meant to be. Why hold such statements to a standard that is fundamentally alien to them?
Hmmm…again I suspect we are talking at cross-purposes here, but I don’t seem to be able to locate the misunderstanding.
Regarding evolution:
I can’t really address Abe’s points yet, unless he helps me out a bit with a little more info. Anyway, I responded to the issue of falsification vs. evolution by laying out, as clearly as I could, my understanding of the dilemma evolution posed for Popper. I did this in the hope that Abe might be able to point out the flaws in my reasoning, not to be argumentative.
To be sure, even if we have discovered “transitional fossils,” and leaving aside the question of exactly how we determine that a fossil actually is transitional, the point nevertheless remains that during the 50s and 60s, during the time Popper was at the height of career, such fossils had not been discovered. So at the very least, he was forced to find a means of squaring his falsification criteria with the intransigent epistemological difficulties posed by evolution theory. I’m referring specifically to the biological theory here, by the way, based on the law of “survival of the fittest.” There was at that point no guarantee that such fossils would ever be discovered, but evolution was nevertheless an accepted scientific theory. How long should one wait for falsification of the kind referred to by Abe? 5 years? 20? 200?
?
My point here is not to argue against evolutionary theory, blowero. The fact remains that, even given the formulation you present above, your theory doesn’t generate falsifiable observation statements. Mutually exclusive patterns of adaptation can be easily explained by the theory. The argument that, “One successful adaptation does not necessarily have to be at the expense of another,” is precisely what inoculates evolutionary theory from falsification. Understood from this perspective, all we can ascertain is that any possible observation of species diversity can be explained in terms of the theory. It was on this same basis that Popper condemned psychoanalysis as a “pseudo-science.”
Clearly, the problem here is that, should my analysis prove correct, one must either discard evolution as non-scientific, or falsification as a demarcation criteria. Given the choice, I’d discard falsification, me. Anyway, that’s but one of several arguments I’ve presented against the falsification criteria, and there are others I’ve not presented as well. I’m not dedicated in any sense to proving the proposition that evolution is unfalsifiable; I just need to know where I’ve gone astray.
Again, if we follow Popper, the discovery of transitional fossils doesn’t get us very far in confirming evolution. One can never confirm a theory; a theory can only be falsified.
Concerning science and psychology: well, countless studies have been done on all aspects of psychoanalytic theory. The specific sort of study you refer to is known as an outcome study. God only knows how many such studies have been conducted. However, due to the difficulties in establishing a controlled environment, or a control group, they’ve been totally inconclusive. Sometimes they prove that therapy is effective; sometimes they indicate that its a complete waste of time.
People don’t fit very well into the conceptual boxes of the natural sciences.
** DSeid **:
Ahhh…now that’s the question. How does Popper address the possibility that some truths, even empirical truths, are potentially resistant to falsification?
So evolution gets picked on because it contradicts a number of unverified folk tales, and offends the sensibilities of folks who can’t separate fact from fiction? Pardon me if I don’t sign up. :rolleyes:
This may also be a result of the fact that evolutional theory is relatively new, and a theory that would take millions of years to fully understand, appreciate and “see with your own eyes” (in humans, at least).
Also because these “folk tales” are like 2,000 years old and engrained into the daily lives of millions of children every day of their lives.
(not really related to your quote)
By nature I think people are smart, creative and innovative. The fact that there are hundreds of millions of people on earth who believe in one religion or another is astounding to me. That fact alone seems to me like a valid point in support of religion, “How could a hundred million go wrong?”.
By being poorly informed? And oh, look, being poorly informed seems, almost coincidentally, to be an integral part of the human condition.
The notion that 100 million people could not be wrong is foolish, because being right or wrong does not depend on numerical superiority (or the age of a position) but on verifying one’s claims. You appear to be falling into any number of fallacies, including reliance on authority and confusions of the argument; please decide what your objections to evolution are, and also remember that attacking one position does not necessarily prove anything about another position (the either-or fallacy).
Evolution is not a bastard child of science as some (uninformed) people claim, it is actually a very accepted theory and the one that satisfies the most requirements of existing scientific models. Perhaps it is not quite as accepted as the theory of gravitation, but it’s not that far off!
Svinlesha, I’m going to fire off a response very quickly because the lull I had been experiencing at work is over and this is a discussion that requires time.
First off, evolution IS falsifiable, in spite of Popper’s oscillations on the subject of falsifiability and the contributions of various loudmouths who influence public opinion through false/fallacious assertions rather than facts. I have provided the necessary arguments in my previous post, but if you want more (or if my paragprah on evolution did not cut it) I have googled around and the citations that address the matter directly and simply usually come from talkorigins.org, an excellent site on the topic–and I couldn’t believe the sheer numbers of shit-for-brains dogmatic “dog ate my argument” anti-evolution sites out there. Seeing these people spreading this kind of rubbish is enough to make one choke on bile.
Evidence for macroevolution A lot on phylogenetics, way too much material to quote, but makes for a very interesting read emphasizing especially how science builds increasingly coherent models as it obtains information about the subject studied (science is not a pristine source of knowledge as you accuse me of claiming, it is a method of distilling reliable, testable knowledge. And, most importantly, it is self-correcting).
Evolution theory and falsifiability this is the motherlode for you, as it addresses many of the philosophical points you mentioned in your posts.
I said earlier that you seem to be placing too much reliance on philosophers of science, and I think your posts back me up on this. The way you keep coming back to Popper’s arguments (some of them abstruse), for example, suggests a certain faith in central philosophical authorities. In fact scientists do not like this behaviour (philosophers of science do!) because it often degrades to reliance on authority rather than evidence-supported conclusions. A scientific theory fares according to how effectively it is supported by the facts, not according to who formulated it or who popularized it.
The structure of scientific epistemology, still using the evolution theory discussion, can be described as acknowledging the following, in this order:
General Concepts (evolution)
Specific Models (continuity in the fossil record or phylogenetic tree)
Observations (of the fossil record and phylogenetic tree)
If a predicted observation is not found, then either the Specific Model and/or the General Concept need to be examined for errors. Many times the model can be made to work by changing the specific model and keeping the general concept intact. That is why ignorant critics accuse science of being unreliable, because they lack the basic brainpower to understand that the predictions of (let’s say) gradual evolution might have to be substituted with the predictions of punctuated (in bursts) evolution. Some of the details may change, but the General Concept meat remains.
This is an absolutely crucial point, because science does not usually test directly General Concepts that have proved sturdy. Instead, it often tests Specific Models, which have a greater chance of containing errors owing to their specificity. So, while the General Concept of evolution may not be falsifiable according to some philosophers, that tends to be because the General Concepts are normally not the objects of direct scientific inquiry (unless evidence comes along to turn a general Concept on its head, which happens very rarely). However the Specific Models of evolution are tested by science (as discussed above) and these need to be falsifiable. And they are.
Now, remember that incorrect use of Specific Models may support just about any General Concept. This is similar to saying that when you start with false premises, it is possible to use logic to prove anything at all. Well, the difference between science and dogma on this issue is that adherents of dogma have no problem modifying Models and Concepts using multiplication of unknowns in order to fit their scientifically erroneous dogma.
To give an example, the dogmatic General Concept of “God created the earth”, which is pure doctrine (dogma), contains a number of Specific Models, such as “God created the Earth as it is today 10,000 years ago” (again, pure doctrine). Yet this Specific Model is easily falsified by observations in all the other branches of science (from geology to biology to cosmology). Since these observations exist, and since the adherents of dogma would have to go about redefining dozens of scientific disciplines to fit their ridiculous dogma, it is much easier for them to introduce unknowns into the equation. So, even though reliable dating techniques place the age of the Earth at over 4 billion years, adherents of dogma cheerfully introduce into the equation “neutron fluxes” or “radiation bursts” or any other unknown factor that may force the equation to make sense (by supposedly mimicking the Earth’s ageing process). This is the deliberately criminal modification of Specific Models, driven by an agenda of dogma and not inquiry.
Mind you, this has happened in science too from time to time. The most famous example is probably Einstein’s Cosmological Constant, which he invented to balance out his application of general relativity to the universe. At the time, Einstein thought that the Universe was static. But, since matter and energy both gravitate, a reason was needed to account for the universe’s failure to collapse on itself. Einstein suggested an extra term for his equations of general relativity that he called the Comological Constant. This term represents the possibility that there is a density and pressure associated with “empty” space. Of course, at the time Edwin Hubble had not yet figured out that the universe is expanding (not static) and therefore an extra term to balance out the equations was not striclty needed. Einstein went on to call the Cosmological Constant his “greatest blunder”.
I have never heard anything similarly self-correcting from adherents of doctrinal dogma, because doctrine is typically immutable where science is innately self-correcting. By the way, in recent years some cosmologists have announced they may have a use for the Cosmological Constant, so it is not completely ruled out yet–another advantage of science, which stands ready to consider all possibilities based on their merits, over doctrinal dogma, which considers acceptable only that which matches the dogma/doctrine itself.
I would love to go on because I see these as the two most different concepts possible, but I am running low on time. A couple final points:
I know you said this in jest, but look at the inherent contradictions in the language itself: pragmatism (favouring concrete results as opposed to sophistry; induction) vs. dogma (doctrinal; a priori).
That’s what psychology is, and it does deal with testable, repeatable, and measurable effects. Last century psychology matured and left behind such nonsense as the psychoanlytical rubbish of Freud and the sciamachy of Jung, and has adopted more rigorous scientific principles. Psychology is still an evolving body of knowledge and there are gaps in the system, but it is a science nonetheless (not quite as hard as its sister neuroscience perhaps).
I would consider clinical work to fall under the heading of scientific, since the knowledge (Observations) collected under scientific standards is frequently used to develop further the field (increase accuracy of Specific Models). Why wouldn’t you consider clinical work a part of the scientific process?
Concerning your other specific questions, sorry, no time to address them but if you re-post what you consider to have gone unanswered I’ll give it a shot during my next break.
Thanks. Actually, though, I think it started counting my posts when the board came back after crashing. I’m relatively new, but not THAT new.
Really? That’s odd. You seem to be well-educated; I think you would know the difference. Religion teaches faith as an end unto itself. One is encouraged to have faith in God in spite of the lack of any objective evidence. Your own personal feelings, without reference to any external events, are considered to be sufficient proof of God’s existence. This belief without evidence is not only tolerated, it is in fact encouraged. The faithful have a belief in God, but it is not based on any experimental evidence. Please note that I say these things not to denigrate religion, but only to characterize what I observe it to be.
In constrast, my “sense” is based on a knowledge of how science works, and a basic, albeit not complete, knowledge of how certain experimental evidence was obtained. Now, nobody has ever “seen” an atom, but I have read what the model of an atom is, and how this model was derived through indirect observation. It’s true that I am taking quite a bit on faith. Since I didn’t perform these experiments myself, I must assume that there is not a vast conspiracy of scientists who are deceiving me and managed to get false accounts published in every science book or paper I have ever read. Then, if I so desired, I could study at a university for many years, and perform the experiments myself. Again, this is somewhat of a leap of faith, since I haven’t actually taken such classes. But I see these things as much LESS of a leap of faith than simply believing in God. Are you honestly saying you don’t see a difference?
I absolutely agree. Is that the only point you are trying to make?
Could you please provide examples of how Buddhism encourages knowledge through emperical observation and critical thought? I thought it was mainly about meditation and achieving inner spiritual enlightenment, but you obviously know something about it that I do not.
Well, maybe that’s a bad example, because admittedly it requires one to define “universe” as everything within our experience, in which case being “outside” the universe literally means “undetectable”, since if a thing could be observed, it would therefore be in the universe, by definition. However, if you listen to Christian rhetoric, I believe that is precisely what they ARE saying - that it is in fact impossible for us to observe God scientifically. In fact, I frequently hear Christians boast that “you can’t disprove God”, as if reveling in this non-falsifiability. Do you disagree with my assessment?
Why unfair? I submit that that is precisely the difference between science and religion; religion is lacking in such emperical statements. But if you care to submit some religious emperical statements about the functioning of Nature, perhaps we could analyze them.
Bingo! - that’s the difference between religion and science. Religious tenets are not designed to be held to such a standard. I don’t understand why so many people insist that they are.
As for the falsifiability of evolution, I guess I’ll have to plead no contest. I just don’t know enough about the subject. It seems to me that if, after unlocking the secret of DNA, we had susequently discovered that the DNA of each difference species was completely different, that would have killed the theory. But that didn’t happen - it turned out to be strikingly similar between species. But I’m no expert, so I’m just not qualified to argue it.
Could it be that in the studies where it was shown to be a waste of time, they simply had an ineffective therapist?
