Science- I'm not impressed

Great Debates
41

True… sort of. The assumption at the root of that definition of “parallel” is that we’re talking about Euclidian geometry. Try looking up Riemannian or Lobachevskian geometry (both valid alternatives to Euclid, though generally not “agreed-upon” ones) and see what “parallel” means there. You might be surprised.

Thanks for the links… interesting reading, though none of them were really about what I was trying to say (one was mostly about atheism, with a brief side-trip into science, sort of). While related, my thoughts on the subject have more to do with the underlying assumptions that occur in both science and religion.

If you dig deep enough into any scientific discipline, you find some sort of assumption about the nature of the universe that cannot be reduced or proven… it is only assumed to be true. They’re usually pretty basic stuff. The above comment about which geometric theory we use to define measurements is a great example.

As the saying goes, “Everything is provisional, pending better data.” I think most hard scientists agree with that. Do correct me if I am wrong.

I’m not trying to downplay or trash science, mind you. I love science. I like the process, and I admire those who follow it doggedly. I love reading about it, and if my organizational skills were better, I’m sure I’d love practicing it too. Just suggesting one perspective on science that often seems to be forgetten… that it is a belief that the Universe works a certain way. It is often considered an objective assessment (like religion) of the way things are.

Perhaps “religion” is poor word choice on my part… it connotes too much. Perhaps I should say, instead, that science is a “manifestation of faith.”

You may think my ideas “silly” and “intellectually porous,” but just dropping by and saying so does not make it so. I find a great deal of truth in them. That you don’t see my perspective is either due to prejudice on your part, based on the prior discussions you’ve had with others on the subject, or poor communication on my part… perhaps some measure of both. I suspect, at the least, that the further detail I just provided might help you see how what I’m saying is somewhat different from the threads you linked to. Is there something else I can clarify for you?

Oh wait… I forgot…

Sorry if I offended you by posting my ideas. I guess, since I’m such a “newbie,” I should just take them somewhere else so you don’t have to suffer through reading them? I guess you’re not really interested in discussing things you dislike on this discussion forum. Humblest apologies.

42

I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with saying that, at the end of the day, science rests on certain axioms that cannot be proven or disproven within the system itself. Godel said as much (although, ironically, even accepting Godels theorem rests on accepting certain unproven axioms). I don’t know if I’d call accepting those axioms “faith” in the same way that accepting religious ideas is “faith,” since the axioms of science yield results that are useful; if they didn’t, they would be replaced with ones that did. Religion makes no allowance, within any given system, for such replacement of axioms.

43

[Mathematician socks on]
You’re gonna have to get up pretty early to surprise me. Two lines are parallel iff they never intersect. That definition is valid everywhere, any day of the week. The difference among Euclidean, Riemannian, and Lobachevskian geometries is what version of the parallel postulate they use. The parallel postulate is, given a line l and a fixed point P not on the line, there are so many lines through P parallel to l. In Euclidean geometry, there’s one; in Riemannian geometry, there are infinite number of such lines; and in Lobachevskian geometry, there is some finite number other than one. These are all valid, and all are agreed-upon models of something. Euclidean geometry is great for describing small areas, Riemannian geometry is great for the universe on a large scale, and Lobachevskian geometry is great for the surface of the earth if you take the number of lines to be zero.
[/Mathematician socks off]

btw, Cervaise’s last comment was a joke, not meant to be hostile (unless he says otherwise). He just forgot to include the smiley.

44

You didn’t offend me by posting your ideas. I’ll never be offended by that. No, I felt my nose tweaked when you wrote, “That’ll rile 'em up. smirk” Not good behavior on this message board, as you will eventually learn.

Feel free to offer any subject for analysis you like. Just be advised that this is perhaps the most stable discussion community on the Web (I’ve been here for well over three years, not counting the AOL board before that), and it’s the rare day indeed that sees a totally new, never-before-dissected topic introduced.

But if you think you legitimately do have a new angle on the subject, I am entirely confident that this board will be eternally grateful to you for making it available.

45

:eek:

In my last post, I got Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometries backwards. Honest mistake, could happen to anyone, all that, but still, how embarassing.

46

Very true. I would say that a “belief” in scientific principles is a different sort of faith than religious faith. The nature of the scientist is to always question his or her beliefs and assumptions, and improve upon them if need be. Most (not all) types of religious faith are primarily unquestioning. Excellent point.

By the way, Cervaise, this thread is much closer to what I’m discussing. I just noticed it. If it wouldn’t offend you too much, perhaps I’ll comment over there.

47

One man deserves the credit
One man deserves the blame
and Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevski is his name!

48

Sorry for the cross-posting… and sorry if that was seen as bad behavior. The “rile 'em up” comment was meant as light sarcasm, not a deliberate attempt to stir up anything.

As I hope you will eventually have the chance to learn about me, I tend to avoid confrontation, but often do lace my comments with doses of sarcasm… sometimes heavier than others. I never deliberately try to stir up trouble, though… not in my nature. Sorry for the tweak; it was meant in fun, not seriously.

sigh When will I learn that sarcasm rarely plays well in text?

49

Excellent. grins Most places I talk about Riemann and Lobachevsky I get blank stares. Sorry for assuming you wouldn’t know about it; that’s just the response I usually get. Nice to find a place where people know what the hell I’m talking about. :smiley:

And moreover, they know it better than me. I have to admit, it’s been about eight years since I read about Riemann and Lobachevsky, and it must be getting kind of muddy in my head. Time for a refresher, I think. Thank you for taking the time to explain it more fully.

You do see what I’m saying, though, don’t you? That the assumption of a geometric model affects how parallel lines are defined? Or more specifically, which version of the parallel postulate they use (well said). You worded it much better than I did, but I think my premise remains, even if I said it too simplistically at first. That’ll teach me to make assumptions about my audience…

50

Yep. I do see your point, and it’s completely non-controversial: the assumptions you make determine the conclusions you can reach. The relevant fact here is that the assumption science is based on are open to change. The minute one of them is shown to be false, it will (in theory) be tossed out on its ear.

Now, now, gobear, if you don’t attribute quotes like this, that’s plagiarism. :wink:

51

Well, if I get avalonian’s intent correctly, I will agree with him (or her) that the scientific disciplines do rest on some assumptions: that the universe is knowable, that the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, that there is no problen that does not have an answer.

Now contrast that with the answers I got from a religious believer when I asked about the contradiction inherent in a literal interpretation of Genesis: “God is unknowable.” That, to me, seems to be the fundamental difference between religion and science. To the religious, the universe is arbitrary, unknowable and beset by limits to the intellect. there are questions they may not ask and matters they may not investigate.

To a scientist, the only limits to understanding are produced by the unavailability of evidence, as in what color were the dinosaurs, and what lies within the event horizon of a black hole. But there no boundaries that may not be crossed and no areas of study that are off-limits.

52

Yes, you get my intent, and I agree. I’m finding that using the words “religion” or “religious” by way of direct comparison to the assumptions that underlie science has too many of the connotations you speak of to be very helpful. While in my own experience (with others; I myself do not ascribe to any specific religion) I find that religious faith does not have to mean unquestioning belief… more often than not, it does. Which I find really sad.

I’ve been fortunate enough to have several religious friends who did question their beliefs constantly. They were almost “scientific” about it… I think they found it very affirming to their faith, in the end, that they could examine it closely and question it and still have it remain.

Anyway, I agree with your assessment of science, gobear. There are no limits to what it considers fair game… sometimes to a fault.