Ignorance and evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No need to get angry. You have made repeated errors about what Darwin actually said in The Descent of Man, (you, for example, didn’t realize that he explained that many of the ideas in the book were speculative, to be later determined). Makes it difficult to take your critique seriously.

It is difficult to understand how one can honestly think that the main issues I have presented are considered speculative by Darwin.

Many of the views which have been advanced are highly speculative, and some no doubt will prove erroneous; but I have in every case given the reasons which have led me to one view rather than to another. It seemed worth while to try how far the principle of evolution would throw light on some of the more complex problems in the natural history of man.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Darwin points out:
"Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind."

Yes, recent studies of neurology and testing of ape cognition have shown this to be true.

Darwin’s certainty about his conclusion is directly related to the necessary implications of his view that the moral sense of man is a product of evolution, which is my second main issue.

If God chose to do it that way, it offends you, because…?

Barbarian observes:
That one has a convoluted history. It turns out you’ve copied an allegation about Julian Huxley by creationists. But the funny part is, that is false, too, depending on a rewriting of a statement by Thomas Huxley, which had nothing to do with sexual ethics.
edwardtbabinski.us/julian_huxley_lie.html

Word to the wise: if you copy things from creationists, be sure you check them thoroughly.

The only thing that is funny here is that my source for this is not creationist. It is from a non-Darwinian evolutionist, combined with my own reading of Huxley.

Nope. The story was (as far as I can discover, and I’ve looked a bit) invented by none other than hyperfundamentalist Ken Hovind (currently in prison for among other things, perjury) However, it seems the first time Hovind attributed it to Aldous Huxley, apparently under the impression that he was Thomas Huxley.

So your source is indeed creationst.

Oh, the irony of it all!

You betcha.

 

[reggieM]

I admire your patience, Itinerant.

 

[itinerant1]

Or man is sometimes rational and sometimes not. If you want to do philosophy, you need to be more rigorous in your thinking.

Your statement is false, and exibits a fallacy of ambiguity.The definition of man as a “rational animal” is an essential definition. You have not understood what that means. It is irrelevant to the truth of the definition that man can act irrationally, or that some people through genetic or psychological disorder, or from critical injuries are unable to exhibit rational behavior.

You have used another sense of the word “rational” other than the sense that is traditionally used by philosophers; and then criticized the definition of man as a “rational animal”, which, as most people realize, employs a different meaning than the common meaning of “rational”. Hence, by confusing the vulgar meaning with the traditional, stipulated meaning of “rational”, your statement exhibits a fallacy of ambiguity.

Normally, mathematics is not considered a science, but rather a discipline of its own. Unlike science, mathematics can have logical certainty, because mathematicians set the rules.

Mathematics is a science in the general and traditional sense of the word going all the way back to the ancient Greek mathematicians and philosophers. It refers to an organized body of knowlege, etc. So the universality or all-inclusivity of your statement, “That nothing in science is certain”, denotes all the sciences, including the science of mathematics. In light of the facts, you may want to reword your statement to specify which natural sciences you have in mind. Of course, there are sciences higher than the natural sciences, but I did not take your meaning to necessarily include those kinds of sciences.

Mathematics sets rules based on the properties of things abstracted from nature. The ground of mathematics is the way things are in nature. This is so depsite that fact that modern physics, which has become very abstract and mathematical, at times loses sight of the reality behind the concepts, an error Einstein was not prone to.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Or man is sometimes rational and sometimes not. If you want to do philosophy, you need to be more rigorous in your thinking.

Your statement is false,

It’s demonstrably true. Humans show a mixture of rational and non-rational behavior.

You have used another sense of the word “rational” other than the sense that is traditionally used by philosophers; and then criticized the definition of man as a “rational animal”, which, as most people realize, employs a different meaning than the common meaning of “rational”.

Perhaps you don’t know the roots of the word, or the precise meaning philosophers put on it. (which, BTW, is not any more “right” than the standard usage) But in the context it appears that you are equating “rational” with “rationalism.” I’ve never seen any philospher use “rational person” as anything but “capable of reason.”

And humans are demonstrably sometimes rational and sometimes not.

Barbarian observes:
Normally, mathematics is not considered a science, but rather a discipline of its own. Unlike science, mathematics can have logical certainty, because mathematicians set the rules.

Mathematics is a science in the general and traditional sense of the word going all the way back to the ancient Greek mathematicians and philosophers.

You are making the same error creationists make when they cite the Bible (1 Timothy 6:20: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called)

The Douay, BTW, correctly translates this as “knowledge.” Mathematics, precisely because it is capable of logical certainty, is not science.

Here’s a mathematician’s view:
"Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of “systematic and formulated knowledge”, but most people use “science” to refer only to the natural sciences. Since mathematics provides the language in which the natural sciences aspire to describe and analyse the universe, there is a natural link between mathematics and the natural sciences. Indeed schools, universities, and government agencies usually lump them together. (1) On the other hand, most mathematicians do not consider themselves to be scientists and vice versa. So is mathematics a natural science? (2) The natural sciences investigate the physical universe but mathematics does not, so mathematics is not really a natural science.'
euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html

So, unless you re-define “science”, no math is not a science. But it’s OK to not be a science.

It refers to an organized body of knowlege, etc.

That would include philosophy, theology, football, etc.

So the universality or all-inclusivity of your statement, “That nothing in science is certain”, denotes all the sciences, including the science of mathematics.

Words mean things. If you re-define them to suit yourself, you can expect to be misunderstood frequently. You’re not a mathematician, are you?

 

[itinerant1]

Barbarian observes:

Darwin points out:
"Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind."

Yes, recent studies of neurology and testing of ape cognition have shown this to be true.

Not at all so. If one looks closely at how the data is interpreted, then it is clear that other interpretations are possible. In fact, many of the older scientists in this field who assumed that animal and human cognitive behaviour is essentially the same, only differing in degree, have been moving on to other fields of study since their hypothesis appears impossible of prove.

Furthermore, if you actually believed that scientific studies have proven there is only a difference in degree between man and animals, then in the interest of consistency, you have to give up any belief that says man has a spiritual soul. Or, you have revert to a definition of soul that is not consistent with traditional philosophy and Revelation. But then, man would not be a rational animal or possess a spiritual component. So far, you have chosen to remain seriously conflicted in your views.

Next item: “Darwin’s certainty about his conclusion is directly related to the necessary implications of his view that the moral sense of man is a product of evolution, which is my second main issue.”

If God chose to do it that way, it offends you, because…?

It helps to first understand something about the human soul, the essential nature of material and immaterial reality, and God, before making the assumptions you do. I see you are out of your element.

God can do whatever He wills, but He cannot will just anything. For instance, God cannot create a “square circle”. The notion is a contradiction and an impossibility. The silliness of what is usually intended by statements that assert, “God can do whatever he wants”, has given rise to such jokes as “If God is all-powerful, why can’t he make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?”.

To answer that “God can do whatever he wants” is typically the Creationist’s ultimate response to objections to their absurd beliefs, such as God created a young earth to look like an old earth. You are looking more and more like a closet Creationist. What was that line you used about the duck?

You are asserting the impossible, like that of a god who can create “square circles”. The human moral sense, as the phrase goes, is known certainly from Revelation, and by the natural light of reason in philosophy, to be an activity of the spiritual soul. Again, this is a certainty. In addition, it is virutally impossible for matter to generate a spiritual substance such as the human soul. When one understands the essential nature of material reality and immaterial reality then it is seen that to assert material reality can generate spiritual reality is to attribute to contingent material being an actual infinite power to create. It just can’t happpen. It is a logical contradiction and an ontological absurdity on the order of creating a “square circle”.

Back to the Huxley issue, later.

 

[itinerant1]

That would include philosophy, theology, football,

It includes philosophy and theology. You are some posts behind. In fact what is now called science (as in the natural sciences) was for some time referred to as natural philosophy.

I don’t know how you came up with “football”. It must mean you still don’t understand the correct divisions of the sciences and how they relate to each other, including the additional disctinctions of theoretical and practical. Mathematics was not also used by the other sciences as it is now. Better get your facts straight before lecturing on the subject on the future.

 

[itinerant1]

Barbarian observes:

It’s demonstrably true. Humans show a mixture of rational and non-rational behavior.

Perhaps you don’t know the roots of the word, or the precise meaning philosophers put on it. (which, BTW, is not any more “right” than the standard usage) But in the context it appears that you are equating “rational” with “rationalism.” I’ve never seen any philospher use “rational person” as anything but “capable of reason.”

And humans are demonstrably sometimes rational and sometimes not.

Specious repsonse, indeed!

That man is “capable of reason” or rational thought is the only thing that is relevant here to an “essential” definition. Your comments about irrational behaviour only serve to muddy the waters. Instead of trying to nuance your way out of the mud, try addressing the heart of the matter: What do you think is the nature of conceptual thinking, in itself? This question pertains to the essence or nature of human reason and thought.

What will be interesting to see is that “if” you can answer the question correctly, then you have shown your original position to be false. And in order not to be considered to be engaging in conflicted or irrational thinking, you must then agree that man differs from animals not in degree only, or not by a difference in kind that is superficial, but by a difference in kind that is radical.

If you cannot answer the question correctly, then you have no idea what philosophers in the tradition of “philosophia perennis” mean by “capable of reason”. And any reference you made to what philosophers say does not represent anything that you understand or are even aware of.

I will be watching to see whether you answer the question precisely and in sufficient detail, choose to avoid the question altogether, or give another one of your specious and nuanced responses that is merely a pretense to an answer.

First, make sure you understand the question. If you need additional clarification, I will gladly provide it. However, anyone familiar with philosophical discussion on this matter, as you implied that you are, will immediately understand the precise nature of the question as I have worded it.

So, using your previous reference to baseball, let everyone here see whether you can even make it to first base on this one.
The ball has been pitched!
Popcorn sales are up!
All eyes are now on the batter!

 

[itinerant1]

Here’s a mathematician’s view:
"Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of “systematic and formulated knowledge”, but most people use “science” to refer only to the natural sciences. Since mathematics provides the language in which the natural sciences aspire to describe and analyse the universe, there is a natural link between mathematics and the natural sciences. Indeed schools, universities, and government agencies usually lump them together. (1) On the other hand, most mathematicians do not consider themselves to be scientists and vice versa. So is mathematics a natural science? (2) The natural sciences investigate the physical universe but mathematics does not, so mathematics is not really a natural science.'

That sounds like a good description of mathematics. We won’t call it a natural science, but we will certainly call it a science in the broad sense of the term. This sense of “science” includes philosophy and theology, which you flippantly included along with baseball. Remember to correct yourself as well.

However, regarding your statement that “Nothing in science is provable”, as I previously explained, I took “science” in the general sense, while excluding the particular higher sciences or disciplines, i.e. philosophy and theology. Which means I still maintain my objection to your statement since it makes proof an interminable pursuit, and hence entails the impossibilty of certain knowledge in what are specifically the natural sciences. So, the objection still stands and is not affected in a negative manner by a more precise definition of mathematics.

Mathmatics is actually an intermediate science or discipline between the lower natural sciences and higher science of the metaphysics of nature. This has to do with the degree of intellectual abstraction from things involved in mathematical knowledge in relationship to natural science on one hand and philosophy on the other.

Mathematics is grounded in nature just as are the natural sciences. Mathematics abstracts from natural bodies, properties that form the basis of its rules or formulations. This remains independent of how the natural sciences in modern times use mathematics to further scientific knowledge and explanation. One can make the argument that the use of mathematics in the natural science can aid the achievement of proof and certainty. So, if we were to follow this out, we will see by any number of perspectives how things in the natural sciences are in fact provable.

 

[itinerant1]

This sense of “science” includes philosophy and theology, which you flippantly included along with baseball. Remember to correct yourself as well.

I need to correct my reference to baseball in two posts. You included “football” along with philosophy and theology as organized bodies of knowlege. I want to avoid any objection on your part as regards football vs. baseball. I am not going to debate football vs. baseball. I much prefer football even though it is 80% muscles and 30% brains.

Also, my abbreviated definition of science in the relevant post was followed by an intentional “etc.” as an indication that I was abbreviating or cutting short my definition, as I wrongly assumed the meaning was already understood by others in regard to the general and traditional sense of “science”.

 

[Kaninchen]

Which means I still maintain my objection to your statement since it makes proof an interminable pursuit, and hence entails the impossibilty of certain knowledge in what are specifically the natural sciences.

Sorry for interrupting all this but why is that a problem?

 

[itinerant1]

Hmmm… never said you disbelieved in the human soul. You do act a great deal like a creationist; you use their doctored “quotes”, and you have expressed a large number of their misconceptions about science. I guess I am beginning to think that if you quack like a duck you might be one.

Do you have any statement at all in which I said you don’t believe in human souls?

You ignored the quotations I provided as examples. Do you recall this sentence that you conveniently left behind?: For example, in post 410, Barbarian replies saying, **“I suppose, it seems that way for anyone who refuses to accept the idea that man has a body and a soul.” **It’s obvious from the original context who you are referring to. And you have said similar things more than once. The logical inconsistency of your groundless accusations comes back to haunt you. Now you have explain this one away in order not to appear to so arbitrary. Your subsequent glossing over won’t change the facts, though.

Also, whence comes your continual obsession with creationists? Do you have nightmares about them, too?

And, do your remember saying, **"**Nope. We’re still trying to teach you what science is, and what it isn’t"? Who is the “we” you are referring to? Not that I really care. I just thought you would have known better than to say “we”. Mark Twain made the point very clear when he said “Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial ‘we’.”

 

[itinerant1]

Sorry for interrupting all this but why is that a problem?

Interruptions are most welcome. I see it as a problem for many reasons. I’ll mention some reasons here.

First, it represents a mischaracterization of science. So, in the interest of a correct understanding of the natural sciences and what kind of knowledge they achieve, the question is an important one.

Second, not every scientist accepts the idea that nothing is provable in science. One might call it a partisan or sectarian view.

Third, it is an odd position just from that fact that those who accept it in theory often don’t accept it in practice. I might compare it with a more extreme example of the skeptic who theorizes about the unattainablility of truth and certainty, but has yet to spend a minute of his life in practical serious doubt of anything his senses tell him. When a train is coming, he gets out of the way just like everybody else.

Fourth, there is a question as to whether the proper scope and province of the natural sciences affords science the tools necessary to pass this kind of judgement on itself. Or, is the judgement proper only to a philosophical analysis of science utilizing sound epistemological principles?

Fifth, the issue is important because it shows how this discussion frequently side-tracks from the main issue of the problems concerning the darwinian conception of man.

 

[Kaninchen]

First, it represents a mischaracterization of science. So, in the interest of a correct understanding of the natural sciences and what kind of knowledge they achieve, the question is an important one.

The thing is that I don’t think that you’ve established that it’s a ‘correct’ understanding. I know quite a few ‘natural scientists’ and I’ve not come across one who thinks that certain knowledge is achievable – more knowledge, greater explanation etc, of course, but not certainty that some kind of ultimate explanation has been achieved or is achievable. That rather reminds one of things like what could be described as the ‘Enlightenment’ project – the great encyclopaedias and taxonomies – or, even, the positivists.

Second, not every scientist accepts the idea that nothing is provable in science. One might call it a partisan or sectarian view.

You’re certainly allowed a partisan view!

Third, it is an odd position just from that fact that those who accept it in theory often don’t accept it in practice. I might compare it with a more extreme example of the skeptic who theorizes about the unattainablility of truth and certainty, but has yet to spend a minute of his life in practical serious doubt of anything his senses tell him. When a train is coming, he gets out of the way just like everybody else.

Hm

The problem I see with this is that people who believe in the attainability of truth and certainty don’t spend all their time attempting to establish them either – most of the things both sceptics and believers deal with consist of ‘tentative’ truths to them, whether those truths are surface manifestations of ‘TRUTH’ or not.

Fourth, there is a question as to whether the proper scope and province of the natural sciences affords science the tools necessary to pass this kind of judgement on itself. Or, is the judgement proper only to a philosophical analysis of science utilizing sound epistemological principles?

‘Sound epistemological principles’ would need some explaining to me, I’m afraid, in the sense that I’d like to know things like just who is defining the ‘soundness’ and to what purpose. As to whether the practice of science tends to reveal things about the practice of science, I rather expect that it does, you know.

Fifth, the issue is important because it shows how this discussion frequently side-tracks from the main issue of the problems concerning the darwinian conception of man.

Or do problems concerning the ‘darwinian conception of man’ lead to discourses about ‘science’s conception of itself’?

 

[itinerant1]

The thing is that I don’t think that you’ve established that it’s a ‘correct’ understanding. I know quite a few ‘natural scientists’ and I’ve not come across one who thinks that certain knowledge is achievable – more knowledge, greater explanation etc, of course, but not certainty that some kind of ultimate explanation has been achieved or is achievable. That rather reminds one of things like what could be described as the ‘Enlightenment’ project – the great encyclopaedias and taxonomies – or, even, the positivists.

I have no intentions of arguing this point just yet. I only intended to present my objection to Barbarian’s statement that “Nothing in science is provable”.

The fact that greater knowledge is achievable is not at issue. At least I hope it is not. Every one agrees, or should agree, that greater knowledge is achievable. In fact the intelligibilty of the least thing in nature is infinite. Science continually strives to present a more accurate picture of the universe. And science has made enormous advances in modern times.

But the statement “Nothing in science is provable”, entails something different than the undeniable fact that greater knowledge is achievable. What is now known by man in total, is inconsequential in relation to what there is still to be learned, because what remains to be learned is, for all pactical concerns, infinite.

You’re certainly allowed a partisan view!

Most certainly. How many views are univerally held, and therefore not partisan?

 

[itinerant1]

The problem I see with this is that people who believe in the attainability of truth and certainty don’t spend all their time attempting to establish them either

I am not sure what you mean here. If you mean whether the human being attains any truth in itself, then that is not something that is provable. It is a given. One cannot deny the validity of sense knowledge and make a cogent argument for genuine skepticism because any such argument tacitly assumes many truths.

most of the things both sceptics and believers deal with consist of ‘tentative’ truths to them

, whether those truths are surface manifestations of ‘TRUTH’ or not. There are different degrees of knowledge and various ways of knowing. We can distinguish such things as faith, opinion, speculation, certain knowledge, and so on. In fact, we cannot function without taking many things on faith. For example, we believe that there was ancient battle on the plains of Marathon between the Greeks and the invading Persian army even though none of us today witnessed it. We take it on faith, which is based on historical evidence. Yet, fact of the battle is not a matter of faith for the soldiers at Marathon. They have certain knowledge of the battle’s reality. It would be a most strange situation if these soldiers thought they needed to prove to themselves that the battle they were involved actually existed.

There are varieties of philosophical skepticism. A radical skepticism doubts all knowledge and the so doubts the existence of any truth. This variety of skepticism is commonly found in degraded cultural conditions throughout history, such as that which follows the collapse of a civilization, or the aftermath of great wars, especially the world wars of the 20th century. The modern period is unusual in history for its uniquely high degree of skepticism, such as atheism.

On the other hand, there is a healthy type of skepticism, which the educated mind should entertain.

‘Sound epistemological principles’ would need some explaining to me, I’m afraid, in the sense that I’d like to know things like just who is defining the ‘soundness’ and to what purpose.

A proper understanding of what constitutes sound epistemological principles is acquired by a study of the history of philosophy, beginning with the pre-Socratics.

Rene Descartes derailed modern philosophy with his “Cogito ergo sum” experiment. He meditated under the illusion that everything could be doubted except his own existence which he thought was proven by the fact that he thinks. Unfortunately, he treated ideas as “that which” we know, rather than that “by which” we know. The obvious implication is that we only know our own ideas and not the external world. So how do we know if our ideas give us knowledge of external reality? Descartes had his answer to this question, but it was an unacceptable one. (Oddly enough, Descartes may be only philosopher that did not consider man to be a “rational animal”). Locke’s empiricism was a failed attempt to escape Descartes’ solipsism. Berkeley had his shot at it and missed wide of the mark. (There is an interesting relationship between Berkley’s idealism and Darwinian Theory). Hume just connected the dots with his absolute skepticism. This awoke Immanuel Kant from his “dogmatic slumbers” to formulate his epistemological answer involving noumenal and phenomenal reality. Another failed answer. All of these answers heavily influence contemporary thinking when it comes to epistemology.

The story of the sad condition of modern philosophy is a perfect illustration of Aristotle’s saying that, “A little error in the beginning amounts to a colossal one in the end.”

Descartes’ little error of “I think therefore I am” has increased in magnitude over the centuries. Ideas have consequences. If he had said, “I know, therefore I am”, subsequent history would have been notably different. People would be talking more soundly today about truth and knowledge than they are.

That is just a glimpse at problems involved when dealing with sound vs. unsound epistemological principles. Yet, there is a tradition in philosophy that remains uncorrupted in modern times by the effects of Descartes little error in the beginning.

As to whether the practice of science tends to reveal things about the practice of science, I rather expect that it does, you know.

That is undeniable. Yet, as one might guess from what little I have said about epistemology, science, while master of its domain, cannot provide complete explanations of itself. Higher things are needed to explain the lower, just as an architect is needed to explain certain things to the artisans.

Or do problems concerning the ‘darwinian conception of man’ lead to discourses about ‘science’s conception of itself’?

Oftentimes it does. And it did again in this case. But as I indicated, there is not a single conception. Some conceptions are inadeqate. There is no creature or entity called Science that merely has to look into the mirror and describe itself to everyone and post its profile on MySpace.com.

Science’s understanding of itself is not much different than competing scientific theories. For instance, there is more than one theory of Big Bang. All theories are not acceptable. Stephen Hawking thinks his particular theory provides an ultimate explanation of the universe, which has no place for God. Well, if his theory actually replaces God, then I suspect we will find, in the final analysis, that his theory is unintelligible.

 

[itinerant1]

So you brought him into the discussion, because…? Did you think I wouldn’t know what he actually wrote?

No, not that I am aware of. I mentioned Popper in case anyone might be over-extending a Popperian analysis of Darwinism, such as is presented by K.K. Lee, to all scientific theories as not provable. The context is important for the any clue as to why I mentioned Popper. Remember: Context=Clue.

Whether you read Popper or not is of no real interest to me. On the other hand, if you were an authority on Popper then I would be very interested in asking you many questions about Popperian method. However, I am anticipating that you will tag K.K. Lee as a creationist, because… because that’s what you do.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Do you have any statement at all in which I said you don’t believe in human souls?

You ignored the quotations I provided as examples. Do you recall this sentence that you conveniently left behind?: For example, in post 410, Barbarian replies saying, “I suppose, it seems that way for anyone who refuses to accept the idea that man has a body and a soul.” It’s obvious from the original context who you are referring to.

So you don’t have an example? But you think I might have been referring to you in the above?

And you have said similar things more than once.

But you can’t find them now? Isn’t that a surprise.

Also, whence comes your continual obsession with creationists? Do you have nightmares about them, too?

Getting upset won’t help you. I suggest you try providing some evidence to support your position.

And, do your remember saying, “Nope. We’re still trying to teach you what science is, and what it isn’t”?

As everyone can see, you have redefined “science” as “knowledge”, which puts pretty much everything in there.

This sense of “science” includes philosophy and theology, which you flippantly included along with baseball.

Redefining science as philosophy and theology is not only contrary to accepted use, it’s contrary to the teaching of the Church. Sabermetrics, BTW, is a subset of statistics, and as rigorous and useful a discipline as philosophy.

I much prefer football even though it is 80% muscles and 30% brains.

Ah, you’re thinking of American football. What most of the world thinks of football is something that challenges the mind to a much higher degree. There is a study, though, that shows that at least one mental quality (short-term memory) tends to be higher in American football players than in other people. I suspect it’s the discipline of memorizing all those tightly-choreographed plays that makes it so. Now, old football players tend to be different, if they have a history of concussions.

Someone recently showed, BTW, that young chimps outdo humans in short-term memory as well. I’m not sure what that means.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203094823.htm

(Itinerant objects to the right of barbarians to refer to themselves as “we”)

Sorry, that one goes back to the first sack of Rome. We’ll stand on precedent for this one.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have no intentions of arguing this point just yet. I only intended to present my objection to Barbarian’s statement that “Nothing in science is provable”.

It’s a very scientific statement. I can’t prove it, but since we have yet to find anything in science that is provable, it is sufficiently well-demonstrated to be accepted in science.

But the statement “Nothing in science is provable”, entails something different than the undeniable fact that greater knowledge is achievable.

Yes. It is a fact of the scientific method, which goes from particulars, and makes inferences about generalities. In such a system, logical certainty cannot be found.

 

[steveandersen]

…
Mathematics is a science in the general and traditional sense of the word going all the way back to the ancient Greek mathematicians and philosophers.

Actually it is a discipline not a science.
Modern science is a descendent of the Philosophy side of the Greek family tree not teh mathmatetics hence during the enlightenment and early industrial ages before the sciences were formalized many proto-scientists referred to themselves as natural philosophers.

I thought that was your point worrying about the implications of Darwin’s philosophy.

Of course scientists use mathematics but as a tool not as pursuit in itself

 

[itinerant1]

As everyone can see, you have redefined “science” as “knowledge”, which puts pretty much everything in there.

Redefining science as philosophy and theology is not only contrary to accepted use, it’s contrary to the teaching of the Church. Sabermetrics, BTW, is a subset of statistics, and as rigorous and useful a discipline as philosophy.

“As everyone can see” is a good one, Barbarian. I have already defined truth and knowledge. Guess you missed it. In no place have I redefined science as knowledge. Not only do you not listen to others, but you do not even listen to yourself. Do you even remember the quote from the mathematician about science, which you posted? Recall how it states that science in the broad sense is “systematic and formulated knowledge”. Hence, even according to your own quote metaphysics and theology are sciences since they are “systematic and formulated knowledge”. Today your self disagrees with your self as it was yesterday. This is not surprising from anyone who thinks my use of “science” in the general and broad sense, as has been the traditional and historical use of the word contradicts what the Church says. Gimme a break. You are not even making sense here.

Were you dismayed that I provided a quote of your own words that referred to me as disbelieving in the existence of the soul? It is revealing that you deliberately omitted that quote in your earlier response, which is why I had to re-post it. You quoted my text right only up to the point that I commenced quoting you. The srategy is transparent. Did you notice my subsequent comment about how will next deny that you intended this a reference to myself? And this is exactly what you did. Your evasive strategies and mischaracterizations of what I say have become all too predictable.