Epistemology is the key

[djeter]

I must tell you Mr. Daneel, I was expecting more of a thoughtful answer, not the insult game. Do you really think someone as well published and knowledgeable as Dr. Kreeft is “an idiot?” If you dealt with the ideas and not the ad hominem, it would make for a more meaningful exchange. But as it is, I still have no idea what you are advocating here (outside of Dr. Kreeft being an idiot and me soft in the head for having admired his essay) I take it you maintained your pristine level of advanced knowledge by not bothering with reading it.

Well how many here would not read the following and recognize you as one of those “Asking the Wrong Question?”

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/10/the-question-of-an-isolated-mind/

dj

 

[The_Exodus]

RD
When science eventually gets around to delving into the mechanism that operates at the ground of reality it will find the impetus for the dynamics in the Mind of God. And non-believers will be shocked to find that God’s mechanism driving material reality is the same as the one that gets you out of bed each morning. Every phenomenon that is described by modern science is merely a manifestation of a mechanism operating at a deeper level of reality. God operates the cosmos and physical reality; the spirit of God within each of us operates our own body, mind and soul.

I offered one possible and plausible mechanism that might work at the ground of reality in my thread “God exists, but how?” without anyone understanding the larger import of such a thesis. It can explain most of the observed phenomena in a very comprehensive way. The methodology that I use, namely to explain how God operates without conflicting modern science, might be called, metascience.
Yppop

Excellent post.

Have you read anything by Hans urs von Bathasar? He operates under a similar paradigm - though you seem more mathematically oriented and he is more literature/philosophy.

He has a similar conclusion about the workings of reality (including, as you mention, the physical workings of the cosmos) that all function as a result of God’s Being or Essence being imposed on them in some way. This is, in a certain way of speaking, a manifestation of God’s immortal and incomprehensible “love” (that word requires a lot of refining, which I haven’t the time or probably the ability to do, in order to give the meaning he is intending it to have). That is why, as is one of the titles of his books proclaims, “love alone is credible” because love alone explains the reason for the universes being/existence.

 

[R_Daneel]

Assume, for a moment, that God exists. Would it be possible for Him to give us evidence for His existence? Preliminarily, it seems like it would. Would any of this evidence be properly empirical? No.

Hold it right here. Why would it not be empirical? According to the Bible, God walked among us, talked to us, he displayed his existence for everyone in an empirically verifyable manner. What is wrong with that method?

Inferring to the existence of God is an ontological inference. Scientists make ontological inferences all the time, although many philosophers of science dislike the idea. Van Frassen, for example, says that we should not infer the *existence *of electrons, but rather infer that some objects *which have the effects that electrons have *exist.

Well, as far as I am concerned, a rose by any other name is a rose. The nomenclature does not matter.

Are we justified in inferring to the existence of God? This enters the realm of “inference to the best explanation”, broadly construed, which is precisely how we have “evidence” of objects like trees and donuts. The existence of these objects best explains our experience. What is the best explanation for the laws of nature, however, or the fact that human life is possible? “Intelligent design”, in my estimation.

What is the best explanation? That is a very important question. An explanation should be accurate (here comes the process of verification) it should give insight into the essential part of the question (model forming), and based upon the model it should give the ability for prediction. What is the use of any theory if it cannot be used? How does one measure the accuracy of the model if there is no way to verify it?

From a purely scientific standpoint, however, superpowerful is not all-powerful. It could be that our universe is the product of a science experiment in another universe, and this scientist who created us is not “all-powerful”, but merely quite potent, relatively speaking.

Up until this point you have my agreement.

But why does he exist? It seems like at some meta-level of the universe, the “limit” of superpower must be reached, and we call this God.

I don’t understand the “why”? Utlimately you reach a level, where the “why” is answered by “just exists”. This is what you say about God. God has no need for explanation, God “simply” exists. It is the precise equivalent of what I am saying: the universe “simply exists”. It needs no explanantion, it needs no external cause, it just exists. And with this stance there is no magical entity, who simply “wills” stuff into existence - which is the ultimate non-explanation, the invocation of unexplainable magic.

Your answer: Inference to the best explanation, insight, and revelation. The first is the most reliable, the last is the most expansive. Naturally, revelation and insight resist translation into words.

Revelation is dubious. What constitutes a revelation?

This is because God does not desire to be known by those who do not wish to know Him. In one sense, this is a courtesy to them, because humbling yourself before your creator is terribly painful.

Well, since the alleged not-knowledge results in eternal damnation, this “courtesy” sounds strange. No one would knowingly choose eternal damnation instead of a little humbling in the face of a being so awesome and powerful…

 

[R_Daneel]

The trick is this: in paragraph 1 you state that knowledge of the physical world is generated by the inductive method. Then in paragraph 3 you imply that knowledge of the “supernatural” (FYI: this term has a mildly insulting ring - of ghosts and goblins - to we who believe in the “spiritual”) can only be derived by invoking the concept of falsification. I don’t know whether or not you are aware that Karl Popper, who introduced falsification as a criterion for scientific status, introduced it because he found the inductive method lacking a logic foundation for reasons WSP has clearly delineated in this thread. So, if you are knowledgeable about the philosophy of science espoused by Popper then it is trickery to expect those you are challenging to meet a “double standard”. If you insist on falsification as the required element for proof of a theory, then it seems to me that you should also allow the rest of Popper’s argument, namely, that scientific knowledge can be created through a “plausible explanation verified by logical deduction of known facts”.

What kind of “double standard” are you talking about? The method of the natural sciences is uniform. The method of the abstract sciences (mathematics) is not the same, but it is also uniform. They do not deal with the same aspect of reality, so their methods are different.

Never heard of postdictive science? It is that which is explained after the fact of observation!

And how do you know which one of the possible explanations is correct? I am sure you realize that there are more than one possible hypothesized explanations for any natural phenomenon. For example: one can hypothesize that the tectonic plates move because there are some fairies push them around. They are purely magical and cannot be observed directly or by instruments. It cannot be falsified, it gives an explanation. Of course one cannot make predictions based upon it. Please don’t say that it is ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous, that is the question.

A science which is purely descriptive is useless. Biology used to be like that before it started to make predictions. There is a saying which I find very apt: “in every science the amount of science precisely equals the amount of mathematics in it”. In other words, if you cannot calculate it, it is just an opinion.

I believe you are intelligent enough to realize that there is more than one methodology leading to knowledge of physical reality, so I am not going to bother to give examples.

Please go ahead and give me examples. I am not aware of any “alternate methods” for physical sciences.

Instead I will address your basic challenge of describing an epistemological method that yields knowledge of the physical, the abstract, and the spiritual using a single mechanism organized as a plausible explanatory model.

Please do so. This is what I am waiting for. Since the natural world is approached with induction, and the abstract world is described by deduction, I am very curious how do you plan to combine them into a Unified Field Theory (so to speak). To all those who “scorn” the inductive method, I have a challenge: “place you hand into a flame repeatedly, and see how many attempts will be needed before you stop experimenting”. Precious few, I am predicting. And I am willing to bet on it. Is there anyone who is willing pick up the glove?

Now here is challenge to you: Go to page 10 in this forum, look up the thread, “God Exists, But How?” and start reading. In among the flack you will find my thesis, and see if you can refute it and don’t give me argument that it can’t be falsified. What I prefer is a straight forward rebuttal as to why it doesn’t make sense. And if you do decide to take up this challenge take notice how few non-believers responded to my thread. Unfortunately for me, I spent an inordinate amount of time defending my thesis from friendly fire from other believers.

Well, I hope it will be an interesting reading.

 

[R_Daneel]

I must tell you Mr. Daneel, I was expecting more of a thoughtful answer, not the insult game. Do you really think someone as well published and knowledgeable as Dr. Kreeft is “an idiot?” If you dealt with the ideas and not the ad hominem, it would make for a more meaningful exchange. But as it is, I still have no idea what you are advocating here (outside of Dr. Kreeft being an idiot and me soft in the head for having admired his essay) I take it you maintained your pristine level of advanced knowledge by not bothering with reading it.

I am sorry to have hurt your feelings. I read lots of stuff from Kreeft, and found all of his writing totally without merit. (Is that better?) An opinion is not ad-hominem, it is just my personal opinion. By the way, I am definitely not interested in going through Kreeft’s writing and give a detailed critique of his works. I don’t have the time to do that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

i wonder R Daneel. do you intend to reply to post #49?

anbd to answer a question for you.

the objective standard of metaphysical claims is logic

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hold it right here. Why would it not be empirical? According to the Bible, God walked among us, talked to us, he displayed his existence for everyone in an empirically verifyable manner. What is wrong with that method?

Yes, but one can believe that Jesus walked among, and still doubt that Jesus was God. Even if Jesus appeared in the clouds with angels descending in pomp and circumstance, the question whether he was divine would still be asked. But I agree that this would certainly constitute significant evidence. But it would not be testable, repeatable, etc.

Of course, *most *things that we know aren’t empirically verifiable.

What is the best explanation? That is a very important question. An explanation should be accurate (here comes the process of verification) it should give insight into the essential part of the question (model forming), and based upon the model it should give the ability for prediction. What is the use of any theory if it cannot be used? How does one measure the accuracy of the model if there is no way to verify it?

But religious beliefs are not scientific theories, no more than your beliefs about your best friend are scientific theories. Religious beliefs are certainly useful, however, and this is hardly controversial. And they do make predictions: that prayers will be answered, that the strength to resist sin and power to love those around you will be available at all times. These are meaningful predictions. It is no coincidence that 12-step programs involve believing in a power greater than oneself; without belief in such power, it is next to impossible to stop compulsive behavior.

I don’t understand the “why”? Utlimately you reach a level, where the “why” is answered by “just exists”. This is what you say about God. God has no need for explanation, God “simply” exists. It is the precise equivalent of what I am saying: the universe “simply exists”. It needs no explanantion, it needs no external cause, it just exists.

But this is not what I say about God. His existence *is *explained. It is explained by the fact that His nonexistence entails a contradiction.

Revelation is dubious. What constitutes a revelation?

I admitted in my post that revelation is subject to error – or rather, that people will claim revelations falsely. We simply have to trust that we can discern such things, like we trust that we can perceive the laws of logic and mathematics. In the end, we could be wrong, but that’s always the case, even with science.

Well, since the alleged not-knowledge results in eternal damnation, this “courtesy” sounds strange. No one would knowingly choose eternal damnation instead of a little humbling in the face of a being so awesome and powerful…

Good – I think this is exactly the right attitude. I don’t myself know what “eternal damnation” consists of, but I imagine it would be equivalent to living without God in this life – no fire and brimstone, just a bit more emptiness than one might like. On some days, you might catch me saying that I think that hell may very well be unpopulated – but, knowing my own sin, I shudder lest I be the only one damned.

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes, but one can believe that Jesus walked among, and still doubt that Jesus was God. Even if Jesus appeared in the clouds with angels descending in pomp and circumstance, the question whether he was divine would still be asked. But I agree that this would certainly constitute significant evidence. But it would not be testable, repeatable, etc.

It is repeatable. Any time one doubts, can ask, and it will be fulfilled, just as Jesus promised (but never kept his promise). But the point is not that. You agree that it is the best type of evidence. Why is it never performed? You say that some people might not “believe” it is not an excuse. Many would, and eventually all would - given a repeated performance. But the point is still not there. I do not believe in Jesus or God, yet I am trying to conduct my life according to the proper standards enumerated in the Bible. Even if I would believe in God, (and God would be as attested by most believers) I would not worship such a being. And most certainly would not “serve” him. One cannot serve a being who has no needs. What is there to serve? (I recall a sign in the kitchen of a very religious co-worker of mine, which said: “In this house we serve God”. I could hardly keep my mouth shut, I wanted to ask him: “how do you serve God? Baked, broiled, stir-fried?”. But of course I kept my silence…)

Of course, *most *things that we know aren’t empirically verifiable.

Sounds cute, but simply not true.

But religious beliefs are not scientific theories, no more than your beliefs about your best friend are scientific theories. Religious beliefs are certainly useful, however, and this is hardly controversial.

Can be useful, at best. Also can be very detrimental.

And they do make predictions: that prayers will be answered, that the strength to resist sin and power to love those around you will be available at all times. These are meaningful predictions. It is no coincidence that 12-step programs involve believing in a power greater than oneself; without belief in such power, it is next to impossible to stop compulsive behavior.

There are quite a few similar programs, equally successful. And prayers do not work. There is no statistical evidence that they do.

But this is not what I say about God. His existence *is *explained. It is explained by the fact that His nonexistence entails a contradiction.

You are walking on very thin ice. What contradiction are you talking about?

I admitted in my post that revelation is subject to error – or rather, that people will claim revelations falsely. We simply have to trust that we can discern such things, like we trust that we can perceive the laws of logic and mathematics. In the end, we could be wrong, but that’s always the case, even with science.

I am not talking about falsely claimed revelations. I am talking about contradicting revelations. How can anyone discern which alleged revelation is true, and which one is not? That is the the purpose of this tread.

Good – I think this is exactly the right attitude. I don’t myself know what “eternal damnation” consists of, but I imagine it would be equivalent to living without God in this life – no fire and brimstone, just a bit more emptiness than one might like. On some days, you might catch me saying that I think that hell may very well be unpopulated – but, knowing my own sin, I shudder lest I be the only one damned.

It only shows that you are a nice person. But your concept is that of a very small minority. The fire-and-brimstone people “out-vote” you by a large margin. And the questions is again the same: who is right? And on what grounds can you say that your are right and they are wrong? The topic of this thread raises its head again…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is repeatable. Any time one doubts, can ask, and it will be fulfilled, just as Jesus promised (but never kept his promise).

which promise are you saying that Jesus didnt keep?

But the point is not that. You agree that it is the best type of evidence. Why is it never performed? You say that some people might not “believe” it is not an excuse. Many would, and eventually all would - given a repeated performance.

in another place you argue that for free will to be free, choices must be rationally available. how rationally available would a choice about belief in G-d be. if one were confronted with His Glory?

But the point is still not there. I do not believe in Jesus or God, yet I am trying to conduct my life according to the proper standards enumerated in the Bible.

whatever for? thats not rational at all. i dont believe in buddha, therefore i dont seek to live my life by buddhist ideals.

so you admire us you just dont believe us? you admire people that to you must seem either misguded or liars?

critical thinking skills?

Even if I would believe in God, (and God would be as attested by most believers) I would not worship such a being. And most certainly would not “serve” him. One cannot serve a being who has no needs. What is there to serve? (I recall a sign in the kitchen of a very religious co-worker of mine, which said: “In this house we serve God”. I could hardly keep my mouth shut, I wanted to ask him: “how do you serve God? Baked, broiled, stir-fried?”. But of course I kept my silence…)

you were so busy planning that real zinger that it didnt hit you that needs arent the only basis for service. maybe He has desires…?

critical thinking skills?

Sounds cute, but simply not true.

the "abstract sciences, as you call them, mathematics, metaphysics, various types of logicians, ethicists, etc know a whole lot. on what basis can you say that mere attempts to divide being only into physical parts can know nore than studies of being on higher scales?

prove it.

Can be useful, at best. Also can be very detrimental.

yeah, that science is so much more moral. those very moral nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. yeah

There are quite a few similar programs, equally successful.
And prayers do not work. There is no statistical evidence that they do.

your empirical evidence fotr either assertion?

You are walking on very thin ice. What contradiction are you talking about?

if a necessary being, G-d, doesnt exist. no contingent being can exist.

I am not talking about falsely claimed revelations. I am talking about contradicting revelations. How can anyone discern which alleged revelation is true, and which one is not? That is the the purpose of this tread.

by the Magisterium. they have the final word on revelation.

It only shows that you are a nice person. But your concept is that of a very small minority. The fire-and-brimstone people “out-vote” you by a large margin. And the questions is again the same: who is right? And on what grounds can you say that your are right and they are wrong? The topic of this thread raises its head again…

hell is the state of being separated from G-ds love. its not a vote, Matt 16:18 makes it clear, the Magisterium is the interpreter. Jesus Gives Authority to Peter, and thus the Church is born.

 

[yppop]

What kind of “double standard” are you talking about? The method of the natural sciences is uniform. The method of the abstract sciences (mathematics) is not the same, but it is also uniform. They do not deal with the same aspect of reality, so their methods are different.

I believe the double standard was explained in the paragraph to which your answer is addressed, namely there are two main methods by with “empirical” knowledge is created: predictive and postdictive. In predictive science, generally, the explanation is a mathematical equation. Equations are inherently predictive. However, some phenomena occur only once, the creation of the planet earth for example. That doesn’t prevent scientists from explaining how such an event happened, in fact, the most “plausible” theory is the nebular theory. It predicts nothing; it merely explains how such an event happened.

And how do you know which one of the possible explanations is correct? I am sure you realize that there are more than one possible hypothesized explanations for any natural phenomenon. For example: one can hypothesize that the tectonic plates move because there are some fairies push them around. They are purely magical and cannot be observed directly or by instruments. It cannot be falsified, it gives an explanation. Of course one cannot make predictions based upon it. Please don’t say that it is ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous, that is the question…

The operative word in the (Popper’s) suggested postdictive methodology is “plausible”. Your example about fairies ignores that. In a scored debate you would have lost points. Also I don’t think I would have used the word “ridiculous” in any of my posts to you. Doesn’t sound like me, but it could happen. Please point out my inconsideration so I can respond and make amends.

A science which is purely descriptive is useless. Biology used to be like that before it started to make predictions. There is a saying which I find very apt: “in every science the amount of science precisely equals the amount of mathematics in it”. In other words, if you cannot calculate it, it is just an opinion.

And the predictions of biology are? There is no argument that any phenomenon that can be modeled with an equation is most powerfully predictive and by the criteria set by the scientific community is the most scientific; thus we have the “hard” sciences and the “soft” sciences. But are we denying that no empirical knowledge can be created by the soft scientists. Is it your contention that the theory of evolution (just mentioning, not discussing) is nothing but opinion.

Please go ahead and give me examples. I am not aware of any “alternate methods” for physical sciences.

Before I expend any time, tell me which of the sciences you consider to be “physical”? Surely physics; what about chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology??

Please do so. This is what I am waiting for. Since the natural world is approached with induction, and the abstract world is described by deduction, I am very curious how do you plan to combine them into a Unified Field Theory (so to speak). To all those who “scorn” the inductive method, I have a challenge: “place you hand into a flame repeatedly, and see how many attempts will be needed before you stop experimenting”. Precious few, I am predicting. And I am willing to bet on it. Is there anyone who is willing pick up the glove?

Please don’t include me with those who scorn the inductive method, I happen to have a master’s degree in physics and believe in science, but I also believe that there is more than one way to arrive at empirical knowledge. It is true that the predictive method is the most powerful, but it isn’t as powerful as one would think just from studying text books. As a physicist by training and a solid state engineer by profession, I am quite familiar with the accuracy of the physical knowledge generated by scientists; they serve merely to get one in the ball park. For example, when Shockley’s equations for the properties of a bipolar transistor were derived from the solution of Schrödinger’s wave equation, they were off by several orders of magnitude, when put into practice. The screen on which you are reading this is more the product of technology’s heuristic methodology that to science’s inductive methodology.

In general empirical knowledge is generated not only by the predictive and the postdictive methods, but also heuristically and by mathematical formulation, and quite often serendipitously. In fact and argument can be made that there is not one specific methodology of science; instead the factor that defines science is not so much its methodology, but rather its underlying principles. The predominant principles to which most scientists adhere in creating science can be identified. There are three; they are: positivism, abstraction, and mathematical formulation.

Well, I hope it will be an interesting reading.

Perhaps if you read with an open mind. In any case be free to ask questions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Please don’t include me with those who scorn the inductive method, I happen to have a master’s degree in physics and believe in science, but I also believe that there is more than one way to arrive at empirical knowledge.

please dont think that i scorn the inductive method, either. i use it all the time. i have a heavy science education myself, but that has accumulated in the years since i had my liberal education.

i scorn the empiricism that purports there are no other way to gain knowledge than the senses.

the problem occurs when the inductive method is cited as evidence for the logically contradictory empirical claim.

the scientific method and empiricism are 2 different things. unfortunately few people educated in the sciences recieve enough philosophy to know the difference. hence the great numbers of scientists who dont know empiricism can be shown to be false with only one sentence.

ergo, its not true, and the idea that it supports atheistic beliefs is utterly false. its on the order of believing in magic.

 

[Areopagite]

Materialists (or atheists) divide the Universe into two parts: physical and conceptual (or abstract).

I have to stop you right there and ask you what “physical” means. Both theists and non-theists here on this forum seem to be in complete disagreement about its definition. How are you defining it?

The way to gain knowledge, or information about the physical reality is the method of empiricism. Empiricism is based upon observation, hypothesis forming, prediction and verification. This is the epistemological method pertaining to physical reality. It is based on basic principles, which are commonly accepted. This is called the inductive method. Believers also subscribe to this method when it comes to the physical reality.

Personally, I believe a bunch of physical-related things that I’ve never observed. I’ve never personally observed Asia, for example. I’ve personally never verified any scientific truth even (except the really basic ones in high school physics classes). Nonetheless, I trust many of the widely accepted ones are probably correct more or less. I assume you even believe in certain alleged scientific truths yourself despite having never tested them. Right? Must only the ones who have personally verified physical laws be the ones who have actual knowledge of such laws?

The second type of reality is the abstract or conceptual reality. The ways and means to gain knowledge about this aspect of reality in not empirical. It is based upon axioms and logical deductions from those axioms. This is called the deductive method.

I would say that the formulations of physical laws are also abstract, though the concepts pertain to physical reality. Things that are incapable of abstract concepts cannot perform the empirical method. Only things that ARE capable of abstract concepts can perform the empirical method (no?). Hence, empiricism belongs to “abstract or conceptional reality” as well.

Believers assert that there is another (third) type of existence, which they call supernatural. They insist that this type of existence is neither physical, not purely conceptual. They insist that this kind of existence is at least “somewhat” knowable - one can have true and false claims about this existence. The question is: what kind of epistemological method is there to employ? How does one differentiate between a true claim about the supernatural and a false claim about the supernatural?

“Supernatural” is a word that can mean a variety of things. But don’t worry, the same is true with the word “natural” (as I hope you know).

But before I can proceed with this discussion, I must first allow you to clarify what you mean by “physical.” Otherwise, there is the likelihood of me talking in a million worthless directions.

 

[R_Daneel]

I believe the double standard was explained in the paragraph to which your answer is addressed, namely there are two main methods by with “empirical” knowledge is created: predictive and postdictive. In predictive science, generally, the explanation is a mathematical equation. Equations are inherently predictive. However, some phenomena occur only once, the creation of the planet earth for example. That doesn’t prevent scientists from explaining how such an event happened, in fact, the most “plausible” theory is the nebular theory. It predicts nothing; it merely explains how such an event happened.

I never used the term “postdictive”. I use the term “descriptive”, which always has been the first step in the progress of science. Nothing inherently wrong with it, but it is not the “final” product.

The operative word in the (Popper’s) suggested postdictive methodology is “plausible”. Your example about fairies ignores that. In a scored debate you would have lost points. Also I don’t think I would have used the word “ridiculous” in any of my posts to you. Doesn’t sound like me, but it could happen. Please point out my inconsideration so I can respond and make amends.

Now here is the real question: “how do you decide which explanation is plausible?” I don’t think I would have lost points… since your assertion has not been “fleshed out” - yet. I am interested in the epistemological process to separate a “plausible” explanation from an “implausible” one. I am sure you see the parallel with my original question: “how do you decide which explanation is true and which is false”. It cannot be explanatory power, since the fairies provide exatly as robust explanation for the tectonic movement as would any other explanation. (And no, you never used any derogatory terms. I did not wish to imply that you did.)

And the predictions of biology are?

All over the place in pharmacology, in medical practices.

There is no argument that any phenomenon that can be modeled with an equation is most powerfully predictive and by the criteria set by the scientific community is the most scientific; thus we have the “hard” sciences and the “soft” sciences. But are we denying that no empirical knowledge can be created by the soft scientists. Is it your contention that the theory of evolution (just mentioning, not discussing) is nothing but opinion.

Good observation. The difference between “hard” and “soft” sciences is relevant. All the current “hard” sciences started out as “soft” sciences. Alchemy was a precursor to chemistry, astrology was a precursor to astronomy.

Today we have sociology, behavioral sciences, (etc…) all are on the first step, the observation part, offering tentative, descriptive explanations for their fields. As we can say: it is a good start (like having 5000 laywers on the bottom of the sea). As soon as these fields will become more robust, and will be able to offer mathematical formulae for their descriptive results, they will migrate from “soft” to “hard” sciences.

Before I expend any time, tell me which of the sciences you consider to be “physical”? Surely physics; what about chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology??

Yes, anything and everything which deals with STEM (space, time, energy, matter) and its derivatives.

Perhaps if you read with an open mind. In any case be free to ask questions.

Would you be so kind and post a link to the post you have in mind? Threads can be dozens of pages long.

 

[R_Daneel]

I have to stop you right there and ask you what “physical” means. Both theists and non-theists here on this forum seem to be in complete disagreement about its definition. How are you defining it?

STEM - space, time, energy, matter - and all its derivatives.

Personally, I believe a bunch of physical-related things that I’ve never observed. I’ve never personally observed Asia, for example. I’ve personally never verified any scientific truth even (except the really basic ones in high school physics classes). Nonetheless, I trust many of the widely accepted ones are probably correct more or less. I assume you even believe in certain alleged scientific truths yourself despite having never tested them. Right? Must only the ones who have personally verified physical laws be the ones who have actual knowledge of such laws?

Yes, indeed. But don’t forget it, what you and I (and pretty much everyone else does) is merely an epistemological shortcut (or laziness ) We don’t have the time, the inclination or the knowledge to verify everything personally. But! And that is the cruical “but”… when we go down the line, at the end there is someone, who can demonstrate the veracity of the scentific fact. Compare it to the pseudo-science of astrology, for example. It is all “he believes”… it is “turtles all the way down”. No one can demonstrate the claims of astrology.

I would say that the formulations of physical laws are also abstract, though the concepts pertain to physical reality. Things that are incapable of abstract concepts cannot perform the empirical method. Only things that ARE capable of abstract concepts can perform the empirical method (no?). Hence, empiricism belongs to “abstract or conceptional reality” as well.

This is highly misleading. In mathematics something is either proven (shown to follow from the axioms deductively) or not. The Goldbach conjecture (every even number can be composed as the sum of prime numbers) has been verified for millions and millions of even numbers - but the conjecture is still not “proven”. In the natural sciences, if you have millions and millions of experiments, which all conform with the theory, you can say: “the theory is ‘true’ - it is not contradicted by the experiments”. In the abstract sciences this does not hold. The “four color theorem” is said to be proven, but some mathematicians still have doubts. Their problem is that the proof is nice and shiny for every map beyond a very high number, and the rest has been “empirically” verified with a computer program. Thus those mathematicians fear that the computer program might have some error in it.

 

[Areopagite]

STEM - space, time, energy, matter - and all its derivatives.

My, you sound like a certain Vulcan friend I knew … nevermind.

Where do atomic forces fall under STEM? Forgive me, I’m a plebeian in these matters.

Yes, indeed. But don’t forget it, what you and I (and pretty much everyone else does) is merely an epistemological shortcut (or laziness )

Perhaps, but is it a legitimate shortcut? Does this quick and easy path actually land you legitimate knowledge? If so, then the empirical method is not the only way to find out about physical reality.

We don’t have the time, the inclination or the knowledge to verify everything personally. But! And that is the cruical “but”… when we go down the line, at the end there is someone, who can demonstrate the veracity of the scentific fact.

Oh, come now, this somewhat begs the question. Sure, I can be told there are people that have verified this stuff. But how do I know that if I’m wedded to the empirical method? I would have to verify that these people can verify this stuff … and obviously, neither you nor I nor most scientists have verified every single claim of all supposedly verified stuff.

Face it, if you think physical things can only be know via observation of the things themselves, we’re in a heap of trouble.

This is highly misleading. In mathematics something is either proven (shown to follow from the axioms deductively) or not. The Goldbach conjecture (every even number can be composed as the sum of prime numbers) has been verified for millions and millions of even numbers - but the conjecture is still not “proven”. In the natural sciences, if you have millions and millions of experiments, which all conform with the theory, you can say: “the theory is ‘true’ - it is not contradicted by the experiments”. In the abstract sciences this does not hold. The “four color theorem” is said to be proven, but some mathematicians still have doubts. Their problem is that the proof is nice and shiny for every map beyond a very high number, and the rest has been “empirically” verified with a computer program. Thus those mathematicians fear that the computer program might have some error in it.

I understand that you are making the distinction between inductive and deductive sciences. I just don’t think that, as you said, knowledge of physical things are not in the realm of “concepts.” This is because scientific knowledge of physical things require concepts … the idea about the law of gravity is an abstract concept. Right?

 

[R_Daneel]

My, you sound like a certain Vulcan friend I knew … nevermind.

I certainly don’t mind… and for a very good reason. You know why?

Where do atomic forces fall under STEM? Forgive me, I’m a plebeian in these matters.

Energy, which is of course a crude term, since matter and energy are the same.

Perhaps, but is it a legitimate shortcut? Does this quick and easy path actually land you legitimate knowledge? If so, then the empirical method is not the only way to find out about physical reality.

Of course it is legitimate. If there is someone who can demonstrate the veracity of the claim. The shortcut is not a “different” method.

Oh, come now, this somewhat begs the question. Sure, I can be told there are people that have verified this stuff. But how do I know that if I’m wedded to the empirical method? I would have to verify that these people can verify this stuff … and obviously, neither you nor I nor most scientists have verified every single claim of all supposedly verified stuff.

Knowledge is information. The question at hand is: “how do we obtain the information”? And when it comes to the physical reality, at the end it boils down to the “dirty” empiricism. Once the information is obtained, it can be transmitted via teaching, books, internet, whatever type of medium is there to convey the information. But these are not new, different methods.

Face it, if you think physical things can only be know via observation of the things themselves, we’re in a heap of trouble.

Why so?

I understand that you are making the distinction between inductive and deductive sciences. I just don’t think that, as you said, knowledge of physical things are not in the realm of “concepts.” This is because scientific knowledge of physical things require concepts … the idea about the law of gravity is an abstract concept. Right?

Yes, some concepts are about the physical reality. Some other concepts are wholly imaginary. In a fairy tale the laws of nature can be suspended. Even the laws of logic can be suspended. Just consider the virtual reality of games. But that is not what I am talking about. Stories, fairy tales and games are not sciences. they are entertainment.

 

[Areopagite]

I certainly don’t mind… and for a very good reason. You know why?

Hmm … I’m not … entirely sure.

Energy, which is of course a crude term, since matter and energy are the same.

I’m not familiar (forgive me) of a force being equated with an energy (for, you said that an atomic force falls under energy). Isn’t energy the amount of work done by a force? If that’s true, then it is inaccurate to have force fall under energy. Hence, forces (at least the nuclear forces) do not seem to fall under STEM.

Of course it is legitimate. If there is someone who can demonstrate the veracity of the claim. The shortcut is not a “different” method.

But, if you adhere solely to the empirical method, you would have to sit through all demonstrations of all currently accepted scientific truths in order to verify the veracity of each claim, right?

But obviously, you have not verified every scientific truth yourself and yet you accept many of them, simply on the basis that you trust that they have been verified (despite never having observed the verification yourself). Nonetheless you believe in knowing those truths (though not seeing their verification), you have legit knowledge … hence you can gain knowledge about physical reality without using the empirical method. When I say “you” I mean “you” (and not the collective existence of humanity). It would be absurd to deny this, no?

 

[R_Daneel]

Hmm … I’m not … entirely sure.

You can be entirely sure… not that it really matters. It is nor against the rules, fortunately. I am just a robot for the time being, R. Daneel is Robot Daneel Olivaw. Asimov’s creature, whom I admire.

I’m not familiar (forgive me) of a force being equated with an energy (for, you said that an atomic force falls under energy). Isn’t energy the amount of work done by a force? If that’s true, then it is inaccurate to have force fall under energy. Hence, forces (at least the nuclear forces) do not seem to fall under STEM.

The famous E=m*c^2 equation equates matter and energy. It is somewhat unfortunate that our older understanding created a different word to describe the two manifestation for the same phenomenon. Just like we talk about separate space and time, when we should really talk about space-time.

It is our current, best understanding that all the forces (or energy) is “expressed” by exchanging particles, in the case of nucleonic forces, too. We discovered four forces, the electromagnetic, the strong nucleonic force, the weak nucleonic force and gravity. In the case of gravity, the hypothesized “gravitons” sill need to be empirically verified. One of the huge challenges of modern physics is the search for the Unified Field Theory, a common theory which is hoped to explain all the forces with one set of equations.

But, if you adhere solely to the empirical method, you would have to sit through all demonstrations of all currently accepted scientific truths in order to verify the veracity of each claim, right?

But obviously, you have not verified every scientific truth yourself and yet you accept many of them, simply on the basis that you trust that they have been verified (despite never having observed the verification yourself). Nonetheless you believe in knowing those truths (though not seeing their verification), you have legit knowledge … hence you can gain knowledge about physical reality without using the empirical method. When I say “you” I mean “you” (and not the collective existence of humanity). It would be absurd to deny this, no?

It certainly would be absurd. The knowledge originally was obtained by the direct, empiral method, but once the information is obtained, it can be freely distributed via the information network. I am using the same epistmological shortcut as 99.99999…% of humanity. If you wish to say that I (personally) do not use the direct empirical method, you will be somewhat correct. It is true that I don’t wander from lab to lab, and don’t look over the shoulders of the scientists when they do the “dirty work”. However, I use the results of those experiments every day, and so does everyone else. We all do the “testing”, in an informal manner, of course. But every time I take an aspirin (for example) I **personally **verify that the claim about aspirin is correct.

Let’s save time and let’s go one step further. You may point out that I rely on second hand information, and you will be right again. Then you can ask me why do I trust this second hand information when I discard other pieces of second hand information. It is a legitimate question. The answer is: “Because scientists are also human, they want recognition, they want fame, they are greedy, they are just as fallible as everyone else”.

When someone comes forward with a new discovery (cold fusion comes to mind) the collective set of scientists will try their best to invalidate this new discovery, to show that the claimants are wrong. Only if this “tear-down” process fails, (it was successful in the case of cold fusion) will the new discovery be tentatively accepted. Remember the case of the doctor’s who came up with the idea that stomach ulcer is caused by bacteria. There was a huge uproar from the collective scientific community, the doctor was called a charlatan. Only after verification after verification confirmed the new idea, did the doctors start to eat humble pie.

This is the process which is lacking when it comes to pseudo-science. It is all claims, and no verification.

There are some non-materialist “philosophers”, who try to discredit this process by saying that the process cannot be used to verify itself. It is sheer nonsense. The process itself is not a scientific claim, it is an epistemological claim. It is verified by the proof-of-the-pudding. It is verified every day you turn on the TV, or the computer, or take a mediciation. Every activity in your life verifies the process, billions and billions of actions undertaken by you and I and everone else. Pretty impressive, huh?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hmm … I’m not … entirely sure.

when empiricism claims that the only source of knowledge is the senses, i know that it is false, because that claim itself is knowledge one cannot gain from the senses.

an obvious, invalidating, fatal, logical contradiction.

unfortunately its such a cherished belief that logical contradictions dont matter to hardcore empiricists. they are ok with the 2+2 = 5 situation. frankly, i dont think you can really explain what that means to anyone but logicians, metaphysicians, and mathematicians. they simply arent educated in such a way that a logical contradiction impinges on their awareness as a real problem, with real world repercussions.they dont understand that it is no different than a miracle, or a magical claim.

the very definition of an unfounded belief. a faith.

excaberating the situation, they try to defend empiricism with the scientific method. not having been educated, that they are two very different things.

until today, i didnt realize that people well educated otherwise, didnt know the implication of a logical contradiction, they dont realize it is the equivalent of a miracl. so i made it worse by picking on the scientific methods weak points. i thought they were being obstinate in order to protect a cherished belief. come to realize they simply arent educating kids in logic of any depth in college any more, unless they are a mathematics or philosophy majors.

so i am afraid i wounded some intellectual pride and got their backs up. making the whole situation a bigger problem than it need be. you have a softer touch than me, maybe you will have better luck.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Only after verification after verification confirmed the new idea, did the doctors start to eat humble pie.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Verification-_and_falsification-principles.

verification/falsification schemes based on empiricism are self refuting as well. its just circular reasoning.

for instance. if you say.

“statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified/falsified.”

you are making a meaningless statement, because it cannot be verified/falsified empirically.

This is the process which is lacking when it comes to pseudo-science. It is all claims, and no verification.

no one is practicing a pseudoscience. is mathematics a psuedoscience? of course not. so why do you think metaphysics is? its a logic system of a different kind, thats all. mathematics divides beings (things that exist) by quantity, science divides beings by physical qualities, metaphysics divides beings by relationships. in particular the methods of term logic and modal logic. necessity, contingency, etc.

which is the point of the logical contradiction inherent to empiricism. the idea that everything must be verified empirically is self refuting as well.

There are some non-materialist “philosophers”, who try to discredit this process by saying that the process cannot be used to verify itself. It is sheer nonsense. The process itself is not a scientific claim, it is an epistemological claim.

the scientific method is something different from empiricism. empiricism as an epistomological claim is still a logical contradiction.

when empiricism claims that the only source of knowledge is the senses, i know that it is false, because that claim itself is knowledge one cannot gain from the senses.

nothing changes when it is described as an ‘epistomological claim’ it still is a logical contradiction.

It is verified by the proof-of-the-pudding. It is verified every day you turn on the TV, or the computer, or take a mediciation. Every activity in your life verifies the process, billions and billions of actions undertaken by you and I and everone else. Pretty impressive, huh?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Verification-_and_falsification-principles.

even bertrand russell came to this conclusion.

kirjasto.sci.fi/brussell.htm

PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA (1910-13) was written in collaboration with the philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead. According to Russell and Whitehead, philosophy should limit itself to simple, objective accounts of phenomena. Empirical knowledge was the only path to truth and all other knowledge was subjective and misleading. - However, later Russell became sceptical of the empirical method as the sole means for ascertaining the truth, and admitted that much of philosophy does depend on unprovable a priori assumptions about the universe. He, however, maintained in contrast to Wittgenstein, that philosophy could and should deliver substantial results: theories about what exists, what can be known, how we come to know it.