Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
X
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI do understand that there exists scientific theory, and that theory alone, though convincing, is not of itself scientific proof, but i think also, correct me if i am wrong, that there are also scientific facts or laws that have been proven without doubt to be facts or laws. I think we do a great injustice to science in concluding that science can prove nothing with absolute certainty and opens the door for the anti-science proponents to excuse those facts, laws, as unproven or wrong due to the imperfect nature of science. Perhaps I am missing something, for instance, perhaps for some reason heliocentrism could be wrong, is not a scientifically proven fact, but i'm just not seeing it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhat if we found out that we were living in a computer simulated universe? Like the matrix? Then would the earth be revolving around the sun, if there wasn't a real earth or sun, just a simulation?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI do understand that there exists scientific theory, and that theory alone, though convincing, is not of itself scientific proof, but i think also, correct me if i am wrong, that there are also scientific facts or laws that have been proven without doubt to be facts or laws. I think we do a great injustice to science in concluding that science can prove nothing with absolute certainty and opens the door for the anti-science proponents to excuse those facts, laws, as unproven or wrong due to the imperfect nature of science. Perhaps I am missing something, for instance, perhaps for some reason heliocentrism could be wrong, is not a scientifically proven fact, but i'm just not seeing it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe simulated earth would still be revolving around the simulated sun and the laws governing that simulation, discovered by the simulated scientists, would be the same laws discovered by real scientists within a real universe. You could argue as to whether the universe is real or just a computer simulation, but science is about uncovering and explaining the laws governing reality, no matter what the ultimate nature of that reality is. That the universe might be a simulation, doesn't negate the reality of the laws governing it. Though they be just simulations, the earth would still be said to revolve around the sun, never the other way around.
My point is, you claim we KNOW something 100% and so it is PROVEN true by science. But in fact, you only believe we know something 100%. Something could come along in 100 years and turn what we "know" on its head.
At one time science KNEW and had proven mathematically that the earth was the center of the universe. After all we could observe everything orbiting us. And we had formulas that accurately predicted where every object would be and how it traveled.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostDoes the moon rotate around the earth and the earth around the sun? Surely you do not dispute that as a fact proven by science. Case closed.
Tysons point is that science, and only science, can prove the claim to be truth, without science it remains but a claim.
Okay, go ahead then and show me an example, as i have just done for you, of any other methodology that has proven a claim to be a fact.
If God exists, then it is true that God exists whether one believes it or not, but belief is not science and is proof of nothing.
Same as above. If God doesn't exist, then it is true that he doesn't exist whether one believes it or not, but again ones belief is not proof of anything.
You seem to be confused AP, Tyson never said that truth was conditional upon ones belief, he said just the opposite, that scientifically proven facts are true regardless of ones belief.
Someone please fetch a small child who can explain this to Jim.
Thats good, then you agree there is no such thing as the supernatural?
Well, first off you just said there is no such thing as the supernatural, I agree,
therefore there could be no such thing as a supernatural claim. So, can science prove a negative claim, no, thats the claimants resposibility to prove and if he can not in any way prove it such as does science, then there is no "reason" to believe the claim.
Science has established that it can prove positive claims to be either true or false. Now anyone is free to believe in the invisible man living beyond the Cosmos if they wish, but without the proof such as is provided by science why should any reasonable thinking person give such a claim a second thought.
"Tysons point is that science, and only science, can prove the claim to be truth, without science it remains but a claim."
If the above claim is not proven by science, then no reasonable thinking person should give it a second thought.
Contempt for the other does little in support your argument AP.
Could it be the mistake you're making is thinking that people here are saying science cannot "prove" anything or is never a valid path of truth? No one is. It's just being said that it's not the only one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostSo why ask if I had a reason if you had it?
Okay, sometimes they are wrong.
The attempt to use scientific methodology to philopsophy to give substance to its claims is dead. Because philosophical claims just cannot be shown to be true. Which is kind of the point.
But by your standards, this claim cannot be shown to be true, so why should I accept it?
But there are still plenty of consistent systems out there. Sure philosophers critique each other, but to what end? Ultimately it is one opinion against another.
Unlike in science. Yes, there are competing theories and hypotheses, but over time one will win out. The theory of relativity was a winner. It is no longer a matter of opinion. The vast body of knowledge that students are taught in school and college is all those winners.
Really? Alvin Plantinga was presenting a form of the ontological argument as recently as 1998. Does he now accept it was faulty?
Arianism was pronounced false, declared a heresy. No one showed it was wrong, they only showed that it disagreed with church opinion. Similarly for modalism; it is merely the church's opinion that it is wrong. They are false only in that they disagree with church teaching, which is just the established opinion.
By pointing out that no one has ever proved their opinion is right, by showing that competing opinions are still around and still accepted as reasonable.
Of course the existence of God does not depend on opinion. No one is claiming that!
But whether God existences clearly is a matter of opinion. Unlike the theory of relativity. We can present data and critique it, and determine that the theory of relativity is a very good model for the universe.
We can present data and critique it, and some people will conclude the Christian God exists, some that the Muslim God exists, some that the Hindu Gods exists and some that probably no gods exist.
See the difference?
No it is not. What is?
Which is the problem. It is assumed that science deals with facts and anything else does not deal with facts, but if the existence of God or the question of right and wrong are factual questions and not answered by science, then other fields also deal in facts.
Sounds like an opinion to me. You cannot just say, "The Bible expicitly states that ...", can you? In fact, you can use the Bible to show that genocide is right and you can use it to show that genocide is wrong. It is just your opinion for the latter.
The thing about Christianity is that it may or may not be true, whether you believe in it or not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNo, there would not actually BE a sun or earth. A simulation is basically just a model. All we would see is the illusion of the sun, and the illusion of orbiting it. It would just be a graphic model. Just like atoms would not exist either, since they would just be data in a simulation. If we try to do experiments on them, or observe them, then the programmers would just modify the simulation at that point to let us observe what they wanted us to observe. Otherwise they would not even exist. Saves on processing power. Only what someone is observing actually is being modeled. Otherwise it is not even there.
My point is, you claim we KNOW something 100% and so it is PROVEN true by science. But in fact, you only believe we know something 100%. Something could come along in 100 years and turn what we "know" on its head.
At one time science KNEW and had proven mathematically that the earth was the center of the universe. After all we could observe everything orbiting us. And we had formulas that accurately predicted where every object would be and how it traveled.Last edited by JimL; 06-23-2014, 10:33 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostThis does not support your case. To say some claims are proven by science does not mean all claims are. That would be like saying because Jesus was crucified is proven by history, therefore the fact that the sun is 93,000,000 miles from Earth is proven by history. Instead, this is your claim.
If this claim cannot be proven true by science, then it is only a claim and I do not need to accept the claim that only science can prove a claim to be true. Showing a claim that is proven by science does not show that this one is.
Sure. Mathematics has proven Fermot's last theorem. Logical conclusions are proven without using science. Literary understanding can demonstrate how a text can be read. Understanding of aesthetics shows us the Mona Lisa is beautiful. Philosophy upholds that murder is wrong. Doing history shows us that Jesus was crucified. Right now, I see my wife lying on the couch in this room and watching her anime and remember that I married her on JUly 24th, 2010. That is not proven by science.
The claim that a belief is not science is not proven by science and since it is not proven by science, it is but a claim. Note however that it doesn't matter. No one is saying belief is a basis for truth. We're saying that truth is truth regardless of belief.
Same as above. You are really missing the point here.
Good night. I've NEVER disagreed with that. I've said that the problem is that is not unique to science. That is true of a truth claim in any field.
Someone please fetch a small child who can explain this to Jim.
How can I when the word "supernatural" is meaningless to me? The dichotomy makes no sense as there are aspects that do not fit into either. By your argument, I would not believe in anything natural either. I hold that instead there are suprahuman realities.
No. I said I do not hold a natural/supernatural distinction. You created a dichotomy and then base my worldview on my response to your claim and not in response to what I actually believe.
Actually, yes. Science can prove a negative claim. Pasteur proved that maggots do not spontaneously generate on meat. I'm sure someone like Rogue can list several other negatives proven by science, but it's all for naught since you don't even have my original belief right.
What's the standard?
"Tysons point is that science, and only science, can prove the claim to be truth, without science it remains but a claim."
If the above claim is not proven by science, then no reasonable thinking person should give it a second thought.
It's not contempt. It's observation. You read a motive that isn't there.
Could it be the mistake you're making is thinking that people here are saying science cannot "prove" anything or is never a valid path of truth? No one is. It's just being said that it's not the only one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostIf this claim cannot be proven true by science, then it is only a claim and I do not need to accept the claim that only science can prove a claim to be true. Showing a claim that is proven by science does not show that this one is.
Sure. Mathematics has proven Fermot's last theorem.
Logical conclusions are proven without using science.
Literary understanding can demonstrate how a text can be read.Understanding of aesthetics shows us the Mona Lisa is beautiful.
http://www.peterpaulrubens.org/The-T...aces-1639.html
Philosophy upholds that murder is wrong.
Doing history shows us that Jesus was crucified.
Right now, I see my wife lying on the couch in this room and watching her anime and remember that I married her on JUly 24th, 2010. That is not proven by science.
How can I when the word "supernatural" is meaningless to me? The dichotomy makes no sense as there are aspects that do not fit into either. By your argument, I would not believe in anything natural either. I hold that instead there are suprahuman realities.
No. I said I do not hold a natural/supernatural distinction. You created a dichotomy and then base my worldview on my response to your claim and not in response to what I actually believe.
By common agreement "Natural" is defined as:
1. The material world and its phenomena.
AND:
"Supernatural":
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
There IS a dichotomy whether you like it or not. Attempting to hand-wave it away doesn't make it go away. And your so-called refers to "much greater powers that are above and beyond that of a normal human" and in actuality amounts to "supernatural .
What's the standard?
"Tysons point is that science, and only science, can prove the claim to be truth, without science it remains but a claim."
If the above claim is not proven by science, then no reasonable thinking person should give it a second thought.
Originally posted by JimL View Post
To Apologiaphoenix
AP, it seems that you have only 2 points to make and they are 1) that "truth is truth regardless of whether one believes it or not. No kidding. And 2) that other methodologies, other than science, can prove a thing to be true. You mention philosophy, aesthetics, logic, history, etc., but none of these are proof of anything.Last edited by Tassman; 06-24-2014, 12:11 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostThe claim that philosophical claims cannot be shown to be true is a claim about the nature of knowledge, which is epistemology. This is a branch of philosophy. Therefore, you are making the philosophical claim that philosophical claims cannot be shown to be true.
But by your standards, this claim cannot be shown to be true, so why should I accept it?
Let us be clear that science does not prove anything either, but it does give a much higher confidence of being right.
But there are still plenty of consistent systems out there. Sure philosophers critique each other, but to what end? Ultimately it is one opinion against another.
Do you disagree with that observation?
Do you disagree with the conclusion that those systems have not been shown to be true with any confidence?
And for all we know, eventually it could lose out. The accepted science of one day could be eliminated the next. It is more unlikely with some cases, but not unheard of. For other areas, it is likely more difficult because the subject matter is more difficult and more abstract.
But that is still better than philosophy; it does give us a high level of confidence in some areas (and we know what areas) and it is self-correcting, self-improving.
Suggest a philosophy that does that.
The ontological argument can be shown to be faulty.
No. There wasn't a fiat decision. There were instead arguments that were made and then a decision was reached after the arguments were made.
Or can you find proof that Arianism is wrong?
This doesn't show something is just opinion. There are nonsense opinions held the world over in many fields. There are opinions that have more credibility than other and some opinions have more data behind them than others. THe data is what matters.
Science is driven by data. Show me a philosophy that rests on data.
It doesn't refute a position to say it is an opinion. You can say it's my opinion that God exists. I can say it's yours that He doesn't. Does that mean His existence is opinion entirely? No. He either exists or He doesn't. What do we do to make our case? We present data and critique it.No. Things that are a matter of opinion are matters that do not have a certain truth behind them, such as which ice cream flavor is best. WHat is a matter of fact are things that can be studied even if they can't be studied right now. It was a fact the Earth went around the sun even before we had the means to study it.
What do you want to call this thing where I think one thing is true and you think another is true? I know of no better word than opinion, but I am open to suggestions.
And some are right and some are wrong and those wrong are misreading the data. A misreading of the data indicates that we are not dealing with just opinions.
When you study ethics, science is not the best.
Unlike science...
Which is the problem. It is assumed that science deals with facts and anything else does not deal with facts, but if the existence of God or the question of right and wrong are factual questions and not answered by science, then other fields also deal in facts.
Perhaps we can put it like this. Science and philosophy both deal in facts, but only science gives us any confidence as to what those facts actually are.
No. I can instead point to data that helps in dealing with an interpretation. I could be wrong surely, but it is not an opinion. THere is an answer to the question.
In philosphy we know there is an answer, we just do not know what it is.
In science, we can have a high degree of confidence that we do know what it is.
Because something is debated, it does not mean that there are no facts behind it and that the truth status of it is different.
Unlike in science...My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOkay, lets say that the simulation is the reality,
and that because of that nothing really exists, that its all just an illusion, including yourself, that its all just a model set up to let us observe what its programers want us to observe.
Would not the laws that our simulated selves discover be proof as to how the simulated universe is governed in the same way as if the universe were real? If the data were different then we would have discovered different laws, but in either case, no matter which simulated laws we uncover, it wouldn't just be a belief, because they would be the laws that govern the simulation.
But we were just wrong about that because we assumed the earth itself to be stationary, and if it were a simulation, we could have been just as wrong. That had nothing to do with the laws governing the system, they didn't change, our understanding of them changed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAP, it seems that you have only 2 points to make and they are 1) that "truth is truth regardless of whether one believes it or not. No kidding.
And 2) that other methodologies, other than science, can prove a thing to be true. You mention philosophy, aesthetics, logic, history, etc., but none of these are proof of anything.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostBut historically, no philosophical claim has been shown to be true. Okay, I accept that that does not mean no philosophical claim can be, but it is pretty damning, none the less.
Let us be clear that science does not prove anything either, but it does give a much higher confidence of being right.
I would say it is an observation that there are still plenty of consistent systems out there that disagree with each other.
Do you disagree with that observation?
Do you disagree with the conclusion that those systems have not been shown to be true with any confidence?
Sure.
But that is still better than philosophy; it does give us a high level of confidence in some areas (and we know what areas) and it is self-correcting, self-improving.
Suggest a philosophy that does that.
Sorry, I am confused. You claimed "The ontological argument can be shown to be faulty". What has the "logical problem of evil" got to do with that?
In other words, it was a consensus opinion.
Or can you find proof that Arianism is wrong?
Well I'd do the same with Arianism to show that it is false and use the data that is accepted as well be it philosophy or revelation.
Good point.
Science is driven by data. Show me a philosophy that rests on data.
Wrong. Whether God exists or not is a fact of life. Just as his existence is not controlled by opinion, it is also not controlled by data.
I think what you mean is that we can determine if God exists from data (and given that you pulled me up on opinion, I think I get to pull you up here).
And the clear fact is that we cannot, which is why so many people argue about what God exists or whether he exists at all. You may think that you have good arguments, good critiques, good data, but the sad fact is that your arguments convince only those who already believe.
The same is true in any other field. People are convinced by the arguments. That's why someone like Antony Flew abandoned atheism. He said he was following the evidence where it led.
So now we argue semantics.
What do you want to call this thing where I think one thing is true and you think another is true? I know of no better word than opinion, but I am open to suggestions.
I await with interest the word you prefer then.
And how do we know when philosophy is right with any confidence? We do not.
But if they fail to determine those facts, what use are they?
Perhaps we can put it like this. Science and philosophy both deal in facts, but only science gives us any confidence as to what those facts actually are.
In philosphy we know there is an answer, we just do not know what it is.
In science, we can have a high degree of confidence that we do know what it is.
It means we do not know the truth status.
Unlike in science...
Or could it be some people can still disagree even in science and even when both sides think all the data is in?
And no, I don't care which side is right. It's a moot question for me.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-06-2024, 04:30 PM
|
10 responses
64 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
05-11-2024, 07:46 AM
|
||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-01-2024, 09:43 PM
|
4 responses
57 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-14-2024, 09:11 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM
|
0 responses
11 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-09-2024, 09:39 AM
|
28 responses
206 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:42 AM |
Comment