K
Kaninchen
Guest
What of the statement “Nothing non-trivial in science is provable”?
- Status
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Really?
Many of which, not to put too fine a point on it may be complete rubbish.
Or “accept tentatively”.
When would you date ‘modern’ from?
Oh, I liked the pre-Socratics, Popper was very big on the pre-Socratics.
If hell exists, a lot of the punishment would surely be Aristotle’s compulsory lectures.
What else is conjectural science?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Actually, your erroneous re-capitulation of the situation combined with your ludicrous accusation of my copying from creationist sources caused me to notice an error on my part. I was in the context of talking about T.H. Huxley and moved to thinking about Aldous Huxley but kept referring to ol’ Tommy boy. It was actually Aldous Huxley who, in reminiscing about his pre-World I youth, discusses sexual ethics. He specifically notes sexual license as the primary immediate benefit to be derived from agreeing with Darwin’s Origin of Species. Anyone can read and interpret the passages for for themselves, rather than take my word for it, or get the information filtered by … In any case, see A. Huxley’s “Ends and Means”. If you come across the Harper and Brothers edition,1937, see especially page 316. Enjoy an interesting and revealing read!
I
itinerant1
Guest
Know nothing. Know nothing.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
So, without proof it’s not knowable?
I
itinerant1
Guest
In the Platonic philosophical tradition, mathematics was critical. Plato’s Academy required much mathematical training of philosophers.
In any case, when you say that mathematics is a not a science but a discipline what do mean when distinguish science from discipline?
Also, when you say that mathematics is not a science, are you in disagreement with the quote Barbarian posted? Here it is again:
"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
S
steveandersen
Guest
Science is a method
Mathematics is a discipline
If and when mathematics is called a “science” it is separated from the natural and social sciences in a category called “formal science” which also includes logic (and some would say programming and statistics). This usage is sort of archaic.
Some scholars would include the formal sciences in the sciences while many do not. There was a time when many thought that the universe ran on mathematical principals (e.g. Kepler and his Music of the Spheres) but that clockwork view of the universe has been replaced with uncertainty. (and don’t go blaming Darwin for that one, it was Heisenberg et al) So the distinction between math and the sciences has changed over the years.
The confusion is further muddied by the fact the academic institutions award both Arts degrees and Science degrees for studies in mathematics depending on the tradition of the school and or nation. But once again that usage can be sort of archaic. Schools are often about traditions rah rah rah.
The primary distinction is that formal systems like math and logic are interested in the internal workings of going from A to B to C and start with theoretical assumptions and rules while the natural sciences start with observations.
Math and logic can prove quite rigorously that given A & B thus C without A or B having anything to do with the real world. (They might but they don’t have to)
In mathematics you can say given A & B thus C while in the natural sciences you would say after observing A & B thus C within some confidence interval.
So whether or not something is “proven” in science all depends on how narrow you like your confidence intervals to be. (natural election has a very narrow confidence interval BTW)
This highlights the other major difference. The natural sciences are inductive rather than deductive. I know there are some philosophers who have had problems with induction as a method of reasoning but that is their problem. I’m an engineer, for most applications I don’t care if we can ever truly “KNOW” something, I just want some confidence that the bridge will stand up.
To be sure some mathematics is very useful for science (Newton was stuck until he invented calculus) and there is the field of Applied Mathematics. But hard core theoretical mathematics is a world all its own.
No I’m pretty much in agreement with him, although most people would also include the social sciences in the science category not just the natural sciences. (That is if most people thought about the sciences that much… don’t get me started about the state of science education in the US)
H
hecd2
Guest
Of course you are quite wrong. How can it be possible to have such a confused conception of evolutionary theory and genetics and still think that you have identified a fundamental flaw that all the specialists have overlooked.
First of all, you overlook the fact that genetic barriers occur not just between individuals but between populations of individuals. At the beginning of a speciation, the populations represent a single viably interbreeding species. At some point in time populations are separated geographically or ecologically. Over time those populations evolve independently through random drift and in response to different adaptational pressures. At some later point in time the populations no longer interbreed spontaneously in the wild, and even if they were to do so they would produce no offspring through genetic incompatability. Then speciation is complete. There might be an intermediate time when interbreeding produces more or less viable hybrids should the species be brought together again.
Allopatric speciation resulting from geographic or ecological separation is common and is not at all affected by the imaginary difficulty you propose.
Some kinds of sympatric speciation do result in the issue of hybrid viability early on in the process, but there are clear indications as to how those sorts of events proceed:
evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm
Alec
I
itinerant1
Guest
I can see your position. It is clearly explained like a true engineer.
On another note, I think some people’s particular understanding of induction is skewed by the influence of false epistemologies on the modern mind. So, I will soon address the subject of induction and synthetic judgments in relation to the natural sciences because I see in other posts, misconceptions about what I am saying concerning induction and proof in science.
Confidence the bridge will stand, for it to be a justfied confidence, must be based on what one “knows”. One must know what particular design results in a bridge the engineer can be assured will be a durable structure. If a bridge fails, then it must be investigated to determine the cause of the failure. There is a need to “know” why it failed.
But I am just emphasizing what you already know in relation to your comment that says, “I don’t care if we can ever truly “KNOW” something”. An engineer does care to truly know what structures work and which ones don’t. Engineering has become very scientific in comparison to the first medieval methods of building cathedrals with confidence in God the design would work. When it failed, another design and more prayer might be attempted.
Architecture, bridges, and so on, of the ancient Romans always impresses me. I have a few books on the subject.
BTW, I have some questions for you about the state of science education in American schools? Are you ready for that?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Sort of like a pigeon noticing he has a feather on his wing. But of course, the creationists got it right about who they were quote-mining.
His grandfather, who was Darwin’s formost defender would have disagreed with that. Thomas Huxley became engaged to a woman who was shortly thereafter diagnosed to have a fatal and dengerative disease. He married her anyway, and his constant and loving attention helped to restore her health; they had a long and faithful marriage. So perhaps you can understand why the way Thomas Huxley lived his life is far more persuasive than your claim about what Julian Huxley said.
Since you’ve actually read the book, and know exactly what it says, why not post that statment here, so we can see it?
H
hecd2
Guest
This displays a poor understanding of the situation.
All we require is, as the Barbarian said, for every species that ever lived to be alive today to see a perfect continuum.
All extant and extinct species represent a continuum in the same way that the trunk, branches and twigs of a tree are continuous - it is not necessary for a tree to have limbs that fill all possible space in order to say that they are continuous. In the same way it is not necessary for all possible variations of organism to have lived in order to have a continuum of all variations that did live.
By the way, saltation or the hopeful monster hypothesis was hardly ever and is no longer regarded as a serious scientific hypothesis for the mechanism of evolution. That means, by the way, that in the evolution of humans that there is a finely graded progression between the last common ancestor of humans and chimps and behaviourally modern Homo sapiens, not a sudden emergence of an organism radically different in kind.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
I
itinerant1
Guest
I will have to address soon induction and synthetic judgements in relation to the natural sciences to clarify my position.
Also, concerning your response to my post acceptable and unacceptable views of science, you asked “what else is conjectural?” I was not saying that all views of science are necessarily conjectural. There may be a view that is certain. It can be certain even though it is limited. It allows room for incorporating new knowledge, so that view is capable of offering a greater and greater understanding of science. No view should be closed and no system should be a closed system because the last word on anything is far from being said. An open system or view does not imply in the least that it is not provable. In fact, if it is initially true and it is open, it can admit of greater proofs. Despite the limited state of our current knowledge, it does not follow, that some theory in particular or all theories in science do not admit of proof. Some theories are incapable of being proved. That may be so concerning any theory X on the theoretical level or on the practical level, or on both levels.
I have no qualms about maintaining that some non-trivial matters in science are provable. The contrary position that states categorically either that nothing or no theories in the natural sciences are provable is based on an improper understanding of induction in relation to truth. This contrary position betrays the influence in the modern world of false epistemologies, which most likely can be traced back to the Cartesian philosophical experiment and its immediate fallout. Likewise, the Kantian errors about science and truth, which influence modern thinking about science and knowledge, can be traced back to the Cartesian experiment.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Sort of like a pigeon noticing he has a feather on his wing. But of course, the creationists got it right about who they were quote-mining.
His grandfather, who was Darwin’s formost defender would have disagreed with that. Thomas Huxley became engaged to a woman who was shortly thereafter diagnosed to have a fatal and dengerative disease. He married her anyway, and his constant and loving attention helped to restore her health; they had a long and faithful marriage. So perhaps you can understand why the way Thomas Huxley lived his life is far more persuasive than your claim about what Julian Huxley said.
Since you’ve actually read the book, and know exactly what it says, why not post that statment here, so we can see it?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
That’s a testable claim. Show us.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Well, I was basing my understanding on what Dobzhansky said about genetic swamping. Perhaps I over-extended a bit what he actually means but I am not so sure that your position is the obvious situation. I’ll leave that matter to the scientists. But it is the implications of your theory for human development that need a closer look. I stated that the philosophical and theological position that man has a spiritual soul is consistent only with the view that says man’s difference is a difference in kind that is radical. The view assumes no particular scientific position about emergence.
The issue pertains to applying a particular version of the contiuum to the appearance of man. If a Catholic scientist says man does not represent a radical difference in kind, then he needs to explain the inconsistency of what he maintains as scientist with what he believes as a Catholic. To re-restate the problem, the truth in science cannot contradict the truth of philosophy or theology. The God of evolution is also the God of philosophy and theology. God cannot contradict Himself. Truth cannot contradict truth. So, the evolutionist who says man diifers only in degree, or differs in kind that is not a radical difference in kind, but superficial, needs to state who is wrong, himself, the Christian philosopher, or the Christian theologian. To restate a scientific position, as you have, does not explicitly answer the question. I have had to repeatedly pose the question. I might assume from your resonse, that your implicit answer is that Revelation and Christianity and the philosopher are all wrong, but I won’t state that assumption for you.
So, the question thus far remains unanswered in this thread, even though the gauntlet has been thrown.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Please let us assume that we’ve had the ‘induction conversation’ and that you know that I’m a pretty ‘hard-line’ Popperian on the subject - it will save a lot of typing.
No, what I said was:
“What else is conjectural science?”
Which was a response to your:
“Science’s understanding of itself is not much different than competing scientific theories.”
My suggestion was that ‘competing scientific theories’ were what conjectural science actually ‘is’.
How would you keep astrology out? Would you keep astrology out?
If what is ‘initially true’? The initial conjecture?
It might help if you could suggest some kind of research methodology for establishing such proofs - some kind of test hypotheses that might indicate to a scientific research group that they had achieved the perfection of proof?
I
itinerant1
Guest
My interest in discussing induction was not specifically in reference to you, but to certain other folks in the neighborhood. Of course, since you subsequently ask about evidence that science achieves proofs, then that brings me back to discussing induction. An argument, though, cannot be prematurely narrowed to meet the conditions you specified. It may or may not meet those conditions, while still being a logically compelling argument.
I was relying on memory about your question on conjecture, and I recalled it somewhat incorrectly. Competing scientific theories are what conjectural science is for you. For me, not all scientific theories are conjectural. Hence, there is need for a discussion of induction and synthetic judgments, but it is not that I have the ability or intention of convincing hard-liners of any view different from than their own.
Before I answer your question about astrology, first tell me whether you think astrology qualifies as a natural science.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
How about just showing us a proof in science? That would be a pretty effective argument, wouldn’t it?
IDers think so, at least some of them. Behe, for instance testified that ID is science in the same way that astrology is science.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
There is no conflict. Your conflation of man’s body with his soul is the problem. Our physical selves are different from apes in degree. This is all that science can say.
We are different from apes in kind, because we possess an immortal soul, but that is out of the reach of science.
If this seems wrong to you, I’m sure He will listen, even if He might not be willing to change it for you.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Would you care to debate the nature of the soul and show just what it is that you think you know?
Your statement that says man is different in degree from apes in regard to his body, but is different in kind because of a soul, which science does not deal with, shows your total failure to understand the terms of the question being posed. When the distinctions I used are properly understood, and they are distinctions that have been frequently used by evolutionists and philosophers in discussing these kinds of issues, then you will see that your answer remains an impossible situation, like a square circle.
When the nature of the soul is properly understood, and its relation to the body, of which it is the substantial form and principle of life, then a difference in degree only of man’s body from apes cannot account for rational activity such as propositional speech.
The correct answer is not so simplistic as you have made it out to be. If it were, then decades of debate could have been avoided.
A rational soul cannot be the substantial form of a body that differs in degree only from other animals, or even if man is said to be different by a difference in kind, but one that is superficial. The latter is the neo-darwinian position. You have regressed from the advance in distinctions made by neo-darwinists over Darwin’s position.
You need to see that the difference in kind pertains to man as possessing an integrated nature, body and soul, not some Platonic man in which the dualism of body and soul is conceived as being of a dichotomous nature. This latter situation is what your answer actually entails even though you are absolutely unaware of it.
You can go back to my post in which I introduced descriptions of the differences. I briefly illustrated three types of differences, while leaving out a fourth difference, a difference in kind that is apparent only. Start over there and see what you can do to understand the nature of the problem for science and philosophy before attempting to answer the question.
So far, you are not even in the ball game.
- Status