Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

[JimL]

The gist of everything you say is perfectly true, but when one is dealing with certain rampaging theists one must be ultra-precise with language out of sheer self-defence. In practical terms the established scientific theories, such as gravity, evolution, quantum and electro-magnetic theory etc., etc. are proven beyond reasonable doubt and make accurate predictions of events and greatly advance knowledge and technology. But theoretically, nothing in science is proved with absolute certainty.

No matter how much evidence there is for some assertion or what kind of evidence it is, it is never logically impossible for the assertion to be false notwithstanding the facts in evidence - as Stephen J. Gould wrote: “In science ‘fact’ can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent”.

I 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.

[Sparko]

I 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.

What 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?

[JimL]

What 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?

The 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.

[Tassman]

I 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.

For all practical purposes you are correct. But ALL scientific Laws (even the most established of them like Gravity) are referred to as “theories”, not proven facts, because in principle they can be falsified. Science cannot prove anything because it must begin with unproven assumptions, such as that the laws and constants of the universe in the future will resemble the past. There’s no reason to think they won’t, but it’s not proven that they will - although it’s a reasonable assumption that they will.

Thus, the speed of light has been accurately measured for many decades and if its speed was not constant this would have been detected. Therefore the constancy of the speed of light is falsifiable in principle. And the same is true of all the constants and laws of the universe. The laws of nature do not appear to change over time and the principle of uniformity has so far been verified and probably always will be. But in principle ALL scientific theories are falsifiable. This is what distinguishes a true scientific theory from pseudo-science like ID.

So, as the adage goes: It can’t be proven that the sun must rise tomorrow, but it can be inferred from observation and induction that it is highly probable the sun will rise tomorrow and it can even be predicted when and where. Science assumes the universe exists, and that our observations of it are accurate. It makes no attempt to prove that. Hence, this being the case, nothing will ever be, strictly speaking, proven.

This doesn't diminish the value of science; its value is there for all to see. But acknowledging where it is coming from pre-empts the anti-science proponents who want to argue that science is “faith-based” just like religion.

[Sparko]

The 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.

No, 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.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Does 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.

This 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.

Tysons point is that science, and only science, can prove the claim to be truth, without science it remains but a 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Same as above. You are really missing the point here.

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.

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.

Thats good, then you agree there is no such thing as the supernatural?

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.

Well, first off you just said there is no such thing as the supernatural, I agree,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Contempt for the other does little in support your argument AP.

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.

[Apologiaphoenix]

So why ask if I had a reason if you had it?

Because I did not see the reason. I saw a claim to a reason but not a reason.

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.

The 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?

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.

Interestingly, this is all philosophical with the philosophical claim that it is just one opinion against another, but why should I treat this claim as anything other than just an opinion? Note to show otherwise, you will have to give a scientific reason why philosophical claims are just claims.

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.

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.

Really? Alvin Plantinga was presenting a form of the ontological argument as recently as 1998. Does he now accept it was faulty?

No, but Plantinga did demonstrate that the logical problem of evil is dead. Even most atheists read his work on the problem and said "Okay. We'd better drop that one." There is still a problem of evil that can be used, but it is not the logical one.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course the existence of God does not depend on opinion. No one is claiming that!

That's right. It depends on the data. That data does not have to be scientific. Metaphysical arguments can be deductive after all.

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.

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.

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?

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.

No it is not. What is?

Philosophy is.

What did Neil DeGrasse Tyson say on these subjects?

I was posting specifically about the claim:

"The good thing about science is that it’s true whether you believe in it or not."

Has he stepped into ethics or theology? Only in as much as he is saying in science we have knowledge, in theology and ethics, we have opinions (and the latter only by implication).

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.

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.

So show the statement is wrong.

So far it looks good to me. Science is different, it is not a matter of opinion. The theory of relativity is true, the existence of God (and so many other questions) is still a matter for debate.

"The good thing about science is that it’s true whether you believe in it or not."

The thing about Christianity is that it may or may not be true, whether you believe in it or not.

Because something is debated, it does not mean that there are no facts behind it and that the truth status of it is different.

[JimL]

No, 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.

Okay, 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.

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.

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.

[JimL]

This 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.

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.

[JimL]

For all practical purposes you are correct. But ALL scientific Laws (even the most established of them like Gravity) are referred to as “theories”, not proven facts, because in principle they can be falsified. Science cannot prove anything because it must begin with unproven assumptions, such as that the laws and constants of the universe in the future will resemble the past. There’s no reason to think they won’t, but it’s not proven that they will - although it’s a reasonable assumption that they will.

Thus, the speed of light has been accurately measured for many decades and if its speed was not constant this would have been detected. Therefore the constancy of the speed of light is falsifiable in principle. And the same is true of all the constants and laws of the universe. The laws of nature do not appear to change over time and the principle of uniformity has so far been verified and probably always will be. But in principle ALL scientific theories are falsifiable. This is what distinguishes a true scientific theory from pseudo-science like ID.

So, as the adage goes: It can’t be proven that the sun must rise tomorrow, but it can be inferred from observation and induction that it is highly probable the sun will rise tomorrow and it can even be predicted when and where. Science assumes the universe exists, and that our observations of it are accurate. It makes no attempt to prove that. Hence, this being the case, nothing will ever be, strictly speaking, proven.

This doesn't diminish the value of science; its value is there for all to see. But acknowledging where it is coming from pre-empts the anti-science proponents who want to argue that science is “faith-based” just like religion.

You make a good case Tass, and you may be right, I'm not sure if I agree or not. Out of respect I would rather think about this a little more before replying.

[Tassman]

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.

Too clever by half. Jim is not trying to prove "claims" true as a concept. He is referring to the substance of the claims, in this instance the earth orbiting the sun - a scientific fact not in serious contention.

Sure. Mathematics has proven Fermot's last theorem.

Not as an absolute truth. There are no absolutely true premises in mathematics other than what we define to be true, e.g. 1+1=2.

Logical conclusions are proven without using science.

Logical conclusions are only proven to be true if the premise of a logical argument is true. And logic is unable to arrive at a true premise on its own. Conversely, science can produce falsifiable facts about the world upon which such logical premises can be based.

Literary understanding can demonstrate how a text can be read.

Certainly “literary understanding” can enhance one’s appreciation of good literature. But this has nothing to do with truth as such. At bottom it's personal opinion.

Understanding of aesthetics shows us the Mona Lisa is beautiful.

It doesn't in fact. It only shows an example of skilled portraiture. "Beauty" is a matter of opinion and fashion. E.g. do you really think the women in Ruben's Three Graces are beautiful according to modern concepts of female beauty? I don't.

http://www.peterpaulrubens.org/The-T...aces-1639.html

Philosophy upholds that murder is wrong.

Based upon what premise? If you are arguing Thomist Natural Law it presupposes God and thus sees morality as a function of the rational human nature that God has given us. But you must establish that God exists before you can argue for a true premise in this argument.

Doing history shows us that Jesus was crucified.

Maybe! But history doesn't show alleged supernatural events such as Jesus resurrecting. At least according to most contemporary historians it doesn't.

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.

Anecdotal accounts of anything, from your reclining wife to miracles, are not established by science. Although in the instance of your wife, it could in principle be established as a reasonable proposition given sufficient details.

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.

You can hold to whatever you like, but if you cannot agree to the meaning of terms as commonly accepted then your idiosyncratic definitions are useless in a debate.

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 “supra-human realities” 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.

The substance of deGrasse Tyson's statement is undeniable, namely that science produces tangible, practical, testable results that make predictions and philosophy doesn't.

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.

Precisely!

[The Pixie]

The 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?

But 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.

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.

Interestingly, this is all philosophical with the philosophical claim that it is just one opinion against another, but why should I treat this claim as anything other than just an opinion? Note to show otherwise, you will have to give a scientific reason why philosophical claims are just claims.

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?

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.

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.

The ontological argument can be shown to be faulty.

Really? Alvin Plantinga was presenting a form of the ontological argument as recently as 1998. Does he now accept it was faulty?

No, but Plantinga did demonstrate that the logical problem of evil is dead. Even most atheists read his work on the problem and said "Okay. We'd better drop that one." There is still a problem of evil that can be used, but it is not the logical one.

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?

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.

In other words, it was a consensus opinion.

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.

Good point.

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.

Of course the existence of God does not depend on opinion. No one is claiming that!

That's right. It depends on the data. That data does not have to be scientific. Metaphysical arguments can be deductive after all.

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.

In science, the arguments convince unbelievers. Evolution was accepted by unbelieving scientists because of the evidence, the theory of relativity was accepted because of the evidence. That is the power of science that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is talking abvout when he says:

"The good thing about science is that it’s true whether you believe in it or not."

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.

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.

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.

I await with interest the word you prefer then.

When you study ethics, science is not the best.

No it is not. What is?

Philosophy is.

And how do we know when philosophy is right with any confidence? We do not.

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.

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.

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.

See, that is the problem.

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.

It means we do not know the truth status.

Unlike in science...

[Sparko]

Okay, lets say that the simulation is the reality,

Um. a simulation is not reality, kinda by definition.

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.

I would not say nothing exists. The hardware the simulation is run on exists. The software exists, the data exists.

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.

Not sure what you are saying. Are you claiming that the simulated universe would be governed by the same physical laws as the real universe that the simulation is being run in? If so, then no. When you play a video game, are the physical laws necessarily the same as in our universe? They could be modeled after them, or not. Up to the programmers. And the programmers could update things at any time, and we would never know it, if we are just part of the simulation. Tomorrow they might decided it would be cool to have two suns and have them orbit the earth. We would then remember that as though it always was so, if they programmed us to remember it that way. But in any case, neither us nor the "sun" actually exist other than just bits in some computer.

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.

The point is, science claimed it was RIGHT, and if you lived then, you would have accepted them as being right because that is what you do. You accept what scientists tell you is true, and do not have the skill to check it out for yourself. You merely have faith in them. But guess what? They were WRONG. The facts never changed, but what science said was the facts did change. And it can continue to change. In fact, I guarantee it will continue to change. Science is not stagnant. But facts ARE.

[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.

Correct. That's what the problem is with Tyson's claim. He makes it sound like truth in science is true whether you believe it or not which is different from other fields. It's the exact same as in other fields.

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.

Until you prove this claim by science, it is but a claim.

[Apologiaphoenix]

But 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.

I disagree entirely. Some have not accepted some claims to be true, but so what? There are claims in every field not accepted to be true. Philosophy just requires a whole different way of doing the data. Furthermore, philosophy gives me tools like laws of logic, the mode of thinking that I use, and truths of virtue. These in fact are claims I place far more confidence in and find far more relevant.

Let us be clear that science does not prove anything either, but it does give a much higher confidence of being right.

In some cases, sure. In other cases, no. In fact, this is a philosophical claim that the field that supposedly gives us more confidence is the one that we should put our trust in with the idea that fields that earn confidence are those that it is wiser to trust, but that itself is a philosophical claim and not a scientific claim.

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?

Somehow, this is supposed to be relevant to the charge? The problem is that these are not scientific observations but based on knowing through other means, perhaps sociology or personal experience. For all the talk about how science is the most trustworthy system, no one has done any science in the thread. All the debates have been about epistemology ultimately, which is a field of philosophy.

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.

Sure. All of them. Philosophers are constantly reading one another's papers and critiquing them and learning from them and rejecting false systems and taking up new ones.

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?

No philosopher will bat 1,000. I think Plantinga is wrong on the ontological argument, but I did bring out that I think he is right on the logical problem of evil as most of his critics if not all have agreed with.

In other words, it was a consensus opinion.

Or can you find proof that Arianism is wrong?

This still assumes that science deals in matters of fact since it deals with the material and since religion doesn't always, then it doesn't. THis is a philosophical claim and not a scientific claim. Why should I believe it? I could just as well say evolution is based on consensus opinion. You would then point to data to show otherwise.

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.

All of them! It's just a different kind of data. It could rely on our own thoughts, our experience, and it often includes observation of the world around us. It all depends on the field you're arguing in, but all fields use 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.

Oh if God exists there could be some bizarre world He's created where He removes all evidence, but my statement is that the reason for belief in God depends on how one looks at the data and we all do.

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.

THis is false. There are people who look at the arguments from the outside and come to believe just as there are people who look at atheist arguments from the outside and come to disbelieve. If the case is that the data can only convince those who already believe, then I could just as well say your position will only convince people who already believe that you can only convince people who already believe.

In science, the arguments convince unbelievers. Evolution was accepted by unbelieving scientists because of the evidence, the theory of relativity was accepted because of the evidence. That is the power of science that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is talking abvout when he says:

"The good thing about science is that it’s true whether you believe in it or not."

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.

Oh it is fine to say we all have opinions, which can be said in the matter of science as well as there can be disagreements, but there is a problem with saying it's all just opinion. Some opinions are wrong and some are not. If you wish to point to disagreements in philosophy and theology and then say that shows that we all have opinions, then I just ask that you do the same with science.

And how do we know when philosophy is right with any confidence? We do not.

We study them. How else do we know in any other field?

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.

But this is not a scientific statement but a philosophical one. Since it is philosophical, by your standard, I should not put any confidence in it.

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.

I can't help but wonder how much philosophical reading has been done to make statements like this. This is especially so since all you've made so far is philosophical statements that you seem to place great confidence in the answer to the claims, all the while saying we should not put trust in philosophical claims.

It means we do not know the truth status.

Unlike in science...

WHich I could say then is obviously why creation and evolution are no longer debated at all today!

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.