Liberty on a mission

[Guisslapp]

I don't think epistemology is within the province of science. ALL knowledge is fundamentally based on observation. You can say it is an assumption that we believe our observations, but you have to take observations a priori or nothing is knowable - even the logic that the counter argument (nothing is knowable) is based on is based on observation, so it is contradiction to argue against it.

Regarding the reliability of our senses, their limitations can be appreciated based on the same observational evidence they provide. When we "observe" something that we later determine to have been false, was it really failure of our sense organ or the faculty that assembled and interpreted the data? In most cases, I would say it is the latter.

[Bearpaw]

I don't think epistemology is within the province of science. ALL knowledge is fundamentally based on observation. You can say it is an assumption that we believe our observations, but you have to take observations a priori or nothing is knowable - even the logic that the counter argument (nothing is knowable) is based on is based on observation, so it is contradiction to argue against it.

Regarding the reliability of our senses, their limitations can be appreciated based on the same observational evidence they provide. When we "observe" something that we later determine to have been false, was it really failure of our sense organ or the faculty that assembled and interpreted the data? In most cases, I would say it is the latter.

Epistemology, one of the three types of Philosophy, is the foundations of science: https://www.marxists.org/reference/a.../ch01-s04.html

To have knowledge, you have to believe, or take for granted, those 5 tenets I gave. You agree the 5 tenets must be a given, that must mean you believe those 5 tenets. It is quite possible that one of our 5 tenets used for science are objectively false. You can observe something, and the observation may have been correct, but the interpretation was wrong. Or the other way around, or both. Statistically, it is more likely that both are incorrect, to some degree.

I will also disagree with your statement: "ALL knowledge is fundamentally based on observation". That statement is fallible, because to know something, you have to sense it (observe it as you say; tenet 1), but you also have to think about it (interpret it; tenet 2), you have to have remembered it (tenet 4), and it has to have occurred in the order you remember (tenet 3). Further, if you observe someone else's testimony (video, discussion, book, etc.) you have to believe that it has occurred in the way they tell you (tenet 5).

Regarding the "later determine to be false" the question you have to ask yourself is where was the fallacy made. Were my senses impaired, did I not process/interpret it correctly, did my memory fail me, or did someone else convince me using their tenets 1-4 (and 5 if their knowledge/observation comes from someone else; that person may have either lied/misled, or had some error in their tenets). I will state that statistically, no observation is objectively false, but statistically subjectively more likely to be right or wrong according to science.

As for your earlier statements on quantum mechanics, you said that it makes it more easy to understand how a universe could spring from nothing. If you have actually taken the course, you would know that 75%-90% of the course is statistics, the rest is theory. We can theorize that the big bang occurred, but we can never know, because no one actually observed it occur. We can theorize that the 5 tenets are true, but we cannot objectively state that they are. Christian believes there is an objectivity in the universe, and there is a reason we call Him the one truth, because with scientific knowledge you will find that nothing we can understand is objective, but subjective. As do many religions. Christians also believe there is an objective answer for what occurs to your conscience/soul after death, science can only offer subjective interpretations, mostly saying you disappear/become nothing.

[Bearpaw]

Now, let's consider the scientific method http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...appendixe.html, and compare it with the tenets:


I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. (here you use tenet 1 to sense a phenomenon, and tenet 2 to interpret it)
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. (this relies heavily on tenet 2, but also upon tenet 5)
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations (use tenet 2 and tenet 5 are used).
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments (use tenets 1 and 2 to evaluate/experiment; tenet 5 to determine independent validity).

And further, when such hypotheses have been repeatedly validated, they become laws:
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Such tests/experiments invariably employ statistics, in that only a sample of data is tested. 6 billion people can test gravity on earth, but they only test an infinitesimally small fraction of the space, and so cannot objectively validate something occurs similarly/the same in all places, and all times. Further, as seen from above, such laws are only validated through both repeated experiments, and the subjective viewpoints of "the scientific community." They are shown to be statistically more likely than not; they do not say that they are objectively true interpretations.

These laws and theories are then held to be the "controls" which scientists use to support further experiments. Thus, the fallacy of the scientific method and understanding of the world is based upon the five tenets. We observe things, and we interpret them. We use prior observation and interpretation to perform further interpretations, and so on. If there is an objective error in our original observations due to subjectivity, that error will be compounded in the future observations. However, we must understand that such knowledge, based on these 5 tenets, is subjective, and may be statistically more likely than not, but is never objectively right. Unless some objective being tells us so, which many atheist scientists do not believe is possible.

[Guisslapp]

Your attempt to refute the statement that all knowledge is fundamentally based on observation, itself, relies on observation. Logic, itself, derives from the observation of the law of identity. You can argue against it all you want, but in doing so you still must rely on the truth of the statement.

[Guisslapp]

The rest of your missive seems to overconcern itself with the problem of boundary conditions and domains for which a given set of laws or validated observations may be applicable. Knowledge based on science can deal with that - knowledge that is based on religion requires intellectual dishonesty, whether in the form of cognitive dissonance or ostriching, to deal with new information. Science is far more reliable. Believing in an ancient book of tales partly because everyone else you know does is not reliable. Have you ever considered how geography/culture influences the adoption of a specific religion. If you would have been born in an Islamic state - you would probably reject the Bible. Same thing is true growing up in a Jewish culture or any other country where another religion dominates. It is all about social conditioning - these cultures are aware of the Bible and Christianity. Religious beliefs are of the lowest reliability due to this social conditioning effect.

[Bearpaw]

The rest of your missive seems to overconcern itself with the problem of boundary conditions and domains for which a given set of laws or validated observations may be applicable. Knowledge based on science can deal with that - knowledge that is based on religion requires intellectual dishonesty, whether in the form of cognitive dissonance or ostriching, to deal with new information. Science is far more reliable. Believing in an ancient book of tales partly because everyone else you know does is not reliable. Have you ever considered how geography/culture influences the adoption of a specific religion. If you would have been born in an Islamic state - you would probably reject the Bible. Same thing is true growing up in a Jewish culture or any other country where another religion dominates. It is all about social conditioning - these cultures are aware of the Bible and Christianity. Religious beliefs are of the lowest reliability due to this social conditioning effect.

And how much of your relationship to science is due to this so-called "conditioning effect"? Just because everyone else is forced to learn science in school, doesn't mean its the only knowledge available. And Christians understand the Bible may be flawed: it's an interpretation of God's objective message through subjective awareness. The fact you cannot question the fallibility of science shows you do not understand the "intellectual dishonesty" of taking these 5 tenets as objective fact. Science, may be reliable, but it is flawed, because as subjective beings, we are flawed. We live in a universe which we attempt to understand it, whether through religion, which usually holds an objective truth to stay us, or by science, which holds a subjective view.

Regarding your first statement, I agree, my statements are based on observation, but also interpretation and thinking. As a scientist, I understand that these 5 tenets are the reality, and that my knowledge of these scientific principles are subjective truths. I understand that science is flawed. I also understand that those who either do not know, or refuse to consider, that science is flawed and attempt to say that science holds objective truths because a scientist, or a group of scientists, holds an interpretations of common experiments and observations to be one "theory" of how things are, is in fact incorrect. Theories are only theories based on flawed interpretations. While they may logically make sense, they are not objectively correct. Those who believe so, and believe science is the objective truth in the universe, or multiverse, seem to hold science to be their religion. And those people, seem to have been actively trying to "convert" others into this realm of thinking, and often persecute those who do not share the same beliefs. The same occurs for Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. However, to be a true scientist, you must understand that science can only bring subjective, not objective truth.

[Guisslapp]

I think you are conflating knowledge and truth - epistimology and metaphysics. The former deals with our consciousness's relationship with the latter. I agree with the disciplined approach to undertanding truth and the scientific method does that. The method is rigorous and when done properly maintains the contextual nature of the observation.

Religion is a subjective guess at truth, based on the extremely limited knowledge of the pre-enlightened writer. Just because it is not malleable does not render it objective.

You are also conflating the scientific method with scientific knowledge. The former is a means for acquiring the latter. Lack of rigor in the application of the former can lead to problems with the latter, and that includes failure to consider the breadth of a data set (domain), boundary conditions, abilities and limitations of the observational tool, etc. Thus, if a scientist improperly accepts this knowledge without understanding its context (domain, boundary conditions, limitations, etc), the scientist could misapply it. This is not a problem with science (I.e., the rigorous method) but with the particulars of the knowledge the scientist has formed. But even if the scientist improperly shortcuts, rigorous application of the method - particularly when contradictory observations or laws/theories from other domains are learned - allows a scientist to correct its error and improve.

[Bearpaw]

I think you are conflating knowledge and truth - epistimology and metaphysics. The former deals with our consciousness's relationship with the latter. I agree with the disciplined approach to undertanding truth and the scientific method does that. The method is rigorous and when done properly maintains the contextual nature of the observation.

Religion is a subjective guess at truth, based on the extremely limited knowledge of the pre-enlightened writer. Just because it is not malleable does not render it objective.

You are also conflating the scientific method with scientific knowledge. The former is a means for acquiring the latter. Lack of rigor in the application of the former can lead to problems with the latter, and that includes failure to consider the breadth of a data set (domain), boundary conditions, abilities and limitations of the observational tool, etc. Thus, if a scientist improperly accepts this knowledge without understanding its context (domain, boundary conditions, limitations, etc), the scientist could misapply it. This is not a problem with science (I.e., the rigorous method) but with the particulars of the knowledge the scientist has formed. But even if the scientist improperly shortcuts, rigorous application of the method - particularly when contradictory observations or laws/theories from other domains are learned - allows a scientist to correct its error and improve.

Truth, is the knowledge of something's validity, or correctness or rightness. Knowledge, as I stated in the original post, is the belief that a fact/experience is true. According to Google: a fact or belief that is accepted as true. knowledge is defined as: awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. The acceptance of knowledge/facts is the belief that it is true. Thus, truth and knowledge are inexorably linked. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. However, that knowledge is subjective and fallible; it does not hold valid truth, i.e. it cannot produce objective truth in first principles. Religion is the Belief in an objective truth; belief may be subjective, but the belief in an objective truth does not leave the objective truth hoped for/believed in to be objectively wrong. Science does not produce any objective facts or objective evidence, nor objective knowledge. Science only provides subjective knowledge which is taken to be true with enough common experiments confirming the previously applied subjective knowledge. Just as two wrongs don't make a right, two (or more) subjective truths do not make an objective truth.

A scientist may be able to "correct" a previous error, but the correction and the interpretation of that correction is still statistically in doubt. It is not 100% an error, nor is the "fix" or correction 100% a correct or true solution. Rigorous application of a flawed pursuit of truth does not leave science to be objectively true. Nor does the rigorous pursuit of religion make religious teaches to be objectively true. The only thing which can make knowledge and truth objectively valid, correct, and/or true, is the presence of an objective thing/reality/person, and the objective truths that objective t/r/p can impart to us. This reasoning is why I am comfortable believing in my God, and still call myself a scientist. I understand that the interpretations of reality is flawed, and believe in an objective truth.

And I'm curious, why have you not replied to my rebuttal on the "indoctrination" principle of science in the modern western world? Are you perhaps unwilling to consider that possibility?

[Cool Hand Clyde]

Y'all cut Guiss some slack.

[Guisslapp]

Not interested in getting into a line by line rebuttal. No one learns anything here.

Science may have originated with the Greeks, but it has found widespread acceptance mostly because the application of its concepts in the applied sciences and engineering have fueled new discoveries and technological progress. The only places it does it flourish are places where governments seek to suppress it or, through corruption, usurp resources needed to proliferate scientific education to the masses.

[techman05]

I am learning a ton, thanks

[techman05]

Bear paw is smart

[HogDawg]

I'm fine with your proposals, but I'm still confused what D80 was trying to make a point of saying.

If Christianity is a problem, they should also kick out TCU, Notre Dame, Duke, Boston College, etc. Or is it the not playing on Sundays thing? And I think NCAA's position on North Carolina will soften if Texas pushes those laws through. Texas is too big...

I agree with your last sentence. I recently told my wife that all these asshole entertainers --including Bruce Springsteen, the NBA, the NCAA, the ACC conference, etc...-- who refuse to perform (concerts, tournaments, etc...) in the state of North Carolina because of the political "bathroom bill" are gonna feel the financial pinch themselves if more states follow suit. For example, I know Texas will take a similar stand. Let's see how profitable a performers concert tour is when he can no longer perform in Dallas, Ft Worth, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. That will take a pretty big bite out of their pie. It could literally cost 'em millions.

[HogDawg]

Y'all cut Guiss some slack.

Why? He's a dick who believes everyone around him is nuts for believing in a savior. And he spends far too much time trying to convince people he's smart. That's pretty pathetic.

Now on the other hand, Bearpaw.....now that guys sounds like he really is smart.

[Bearpaw]

Not interested in getting into a line by line rebuttal. No one learns anything here.

Science may have originated with the Greeks, but it has found widespread acceptance mostly because the application of its concepts in the applied sciences and engineering have fueled new discoveries and technological progress. The only places it does it flourish are places where governments seek to suppress it or, through corruption, usurp resources needed to proliferate scientific education to the masses.

Ah, but I'm interested in your response to that single rebuttal. If you, and many in the world today, were not taught the principles of science from the age of 6-7, would you be so passionate to believe the knowledge gained through science?

In the same way, people who were brought up with religion believe that those teachings were beneficial to the people, you feel the same about science. Christianity in the least offers hope and peace to those dealing with struggles that there is something better waiting in the next life, and some objective truth is looking out for them. Science offers you understanding why you are dealing with a struggle, and possible solutions for how to overcome that problem. Christianity, if not taken to extremes, offers mental relief, and offers morals which are beneficial to western civilization, and have helped form our laws. Science has helped enforce our laws, improved our ability to physically and mentally help people, but also improved our ability to do harm, and possibly allowed for a corruption of our laws and morals (e.g. proof for a case of murder by a person who successfully tampered with video evidence [video recording provided by scientific inventions]; wrong person gets convicted or guilty goes free).

Science also has become entrenched in our secular societies, where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state; church referring to religion. Many governments believe that science offers objective truth. Thus, the "church of science" has become united with the actions of the state. The divided scientific community's decisions on certain aspects, abortion (is a fetus legally a human or are humans human after birth), how to determine when someone has died (brain death, heart death), climate change (human interference or natural phenomena, or both), scientific testimony being excepted in court (see above), etc.... define the political climate and have recently begun to define our law. I'm not saying that these features have not helped society, because in many ways they have, but just as science is not completely, objectively 100% true, nor has its total indoctrination in western law and governance been objectively helpful. I'm 75% for, 25% against.

I do believe, however, that the limits of scientific knowledge should be included in the education of scientific knowledge, so that non-scientists can understand its limits, and that every truth is open to "correction" and doubt.