Ignorance of the gaps

[balto]

The first definition of “dogma” offered by Webster’s is “a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted”.

If dogma could be questioned, we would just call it “doctrine” instead.

What I meant was that the claim is not going to be doubted but it can be questioned in order that the questioner may understand it better. So when Dawkins et al. claim that all knowledge is scientific, they are being dogmatic because that claim cannot be substantiated scientifically. They may question it to understand its veracity, but they aren’t willing to reject just because they can’t defend it.

I hate to be “that guy” who insists on clarifications, but…that depends on how you define “knowledge”.

…]

What better criterion is there to determine the best method of inquiry besides its performance?

Well like I said before science cannot justify itself without making recourse to philosophical and rational arguments. If science can be justified in this way, why can’t other propositions be tested similarly? If an argument contains fallacious logic, inherent contradictions, or is proposed on fallacious premises then it is false.

 

[balto]

I don’t think it’s fair to judge a discipline for failing to provide the very things it admits that it was never meant to provide. Religion didn’t provide us with Newtonian mechanics, Relativity, or Quantum Theory. It would be unfair for me to call that a failing of religion, wouldn’t you agree?

I think this is the issue that most of us have with Hawking and Dawkins. Yes, you are correct that it is not fair to science to suggest that it is useless because it cannot answer certain questions that are outside of its scope. But Hawking and Dawkins seem to claim that since science cannot answer those questions those realities are not real at all. It’s like an inverse of Bible fundamentalism which claims that if it’s not in the Bible, it’s not true, or that it is reducible to things in the Bible. I’m not sure what your opinion is on the matter, but I take issue with both of those claims because the interpretation and context of both is critical.

 

[Catolico65]

But again, the gullibility of others is not the fault of Dawkins and Hawking. If I share my ideas and you believe me unquestioningly, that doesn’t mean I’m spreading dogma or trying to pass off my speculation as factual. It would just make you gullible.

It does actually mean exactly what I said; that these scientists are promoting their baseless theories as probable and ridiculing those who disagree. For example, when major news agencies report that Hawking says the universe doesn’t need a creator this is taken as established theory. These scientists are filling in major gaps with unverified theory that can’t even be tested, how convenient.

 

[Catolico65]

Hi Catolico, thanks for the response.

I wouldn’t say that atheists have an “innate lack of ethics”, as we are all capable of discerning to the moral law to some extent.

You are right. I should have worded it “atheist scientists show little ethics in their profession.”

No doubt this is because of their objective of resisting God and their innate conscience.

 

[Catolico65]

What I meant was that the claim is not going to be doubted but it can be questioned in order that the questioner may understand it better. So when Dawkins et al. claim that all knowledge is scientific, they are being dogmatic because that claim cannot be substantiated scientifically. They may question it to understand its veracity, but they aren’t willing to reject just because they can’t defend it.

Hawking’s claim that the universe didn’t need a creator to come into existence because there are multiple parallel universes is another example of dogma. Dawkins’ claim that evolution could happen while ignoring:

1. mutation is degenerative
2. gaps in the fossil record.
3. zero probability that multiple mutations could happen simultaneously for that would be needed for thousands of very complex biological systems.

is just another example of promoting a dogma and worse is that he rejects valid challenges to his “gaps dogma”.

 

[Oreoracle]

So when Dawkins et al. claim that all knowledge is scientific, they are being dogmatic because that claim cannot be substantiated scientifically.

Could you provide a link wherein this claim is made? It would probably be obvious which kind of knowledge they were refering to based on the context. For example, they would surely agree that mathematical knowledge, for example, is not scientific, but is instead just assumed by science.

But I think it’s fair to say that any knowledge about the observable universe that isn’t assumed axiomatically by science is scientific. Obviously the axioms can’t be proven by science, but neither can any philosophy prove its own axioms.

If science can be justified in this way, why can’t other propositions be tested similarly?

I don’t think Dawkins or the like have ever denied the usefulness of logic in understanding the universe. Again, I welcome any link that would attest to the contrary.

Yes, you are correct that it is not fair to science to suggest that it is useless because it cannot answer certain questions that are outside of its scope. But Hawking and Dawkins seem to claim that since science cannot answer those questions those realities are not real at all.

I’m not sure how they can “seem to claim it”. They either have claimed it or they haven’t. Can you provide a link to an article or video where they made such a claim?

 

[Oreoracle]

It does actually mean exactly what I said; that these scientists are promoting their baseless theories as probable and ridiculing those who disagree. For example, when major news agencies report that Hawking says the universe doesn’t need a creator this is taken as established theory.

It’s strange that you cite an example of bad reporting and instead of blaming the reporter, you blame the person being reported on instead. Bad reporting is the fault of the reporter and no one else. Misinterpretations of a report are the fault of the reader and no one else.

Again, I have asked for links to these supposed claims numerous times. Either Dawkins and Hawking made these claims or they didn’t. I don’t care if reporters thought they said something, and I don’t care if readers thought they said something. I care if they actually said it.

Dawkins’ claim that evolution could happen while ignoring:

…]

1. gaps in the fossil record.;

Regarding gaps in the fossil record, let’s think of a simple geometry problem. Suppose I make the claim that two variables, such as the net force and acceleration of a given object, have a linear relationship. I make 5 measurements and plot the results on a 2D plane. The results roughly lie along a line, with any discrepancy being explained by errors in measurement.

But suppose someone remains unconvinced because I have merely plotted some of the points on the line. They could argue that there are 4 gaps in this line, so we can’t be confident in any sort of pattern. So now I make 16 extra measurements, resulting in 21 points on the line. “But this is even worse” our contrarian says, “because now there are 20 gaps in the line!”

The problem is that evolution, like our hypothetical line, is better imagined as a continuum than as a set of discrete points. And as the geometry indicates, you can never fill in all the points of a continuous curve. The only way to fill in every point would be to record every generation of every species that ever existed on Earth.

 

[Catolico65]

It’s strange that you cite an example of bad reporting and instead of blaming the reporter, you blame the person being reported on instead. Bad reporting is the fault of the reporter and no one else. Misinterpretations of a report are the fault of the reader and no one else.

The reality is 10’s of millions of people believe them and I for one don’t believe one minute that Hawings et al don’t know this is happening.

Again, I have asked for links to these supposed claims numerous times. Either Dawkins and Hawking made these claims or they didn’t. I don’t care if reporters thought they said something, and I don’t care if readers thought they said something. I care if they actually said it.

With all due respect you can buy their books and read articles they have published.

Regarding gaps in the fossil record, let’s think of a simple geometry problem. Suppose I make the claim that two variables, such as the net force and acceleration of a given object, have a linear relationship. I make 5 measurements and plot the results on a 2D plane. The results roughly lie along a line, with any discrepancy being explained by errors in measurement.

But suppose someone remains unconvinced because I have merely plotted some of the points on the line. They could argue that there are 4 gaps in this line, so we can’t be confident in any sort of pattern. So now I make 16 extra measurements, resulting in 21 points on the line. “But this is even worse” our contrarian says, “because now there are 20 gaps in the line!”

The problem is that evolution, like our hypothetical line, is better imagined as a continuum than as a set of discrete points. And as the geometry indicates, you can never fill in all the points of a continuous curve. The only way to fill in every point would be to record every generation of every species that ever existed on Earth.

Thanks for making my point for me; evolution should be a continuous line but it is very far from it, not to mention the very major problem of systems that require multiple adaptations.

Therefore, applying standard statistical analysis of the available data that all scientists use the only outcome with any confidence level is that evolution is not possible. Proposing anything else is ignoring the overwhelming gaps in information, which is not acceptable anywhere in scientific research.

In summary, many objective scientists are only asking that those who propose evolution as a viable theory is to use the scientific method to predicts its confidence level, which at this point would be so low as to not be worthy of any merit.

 

[Oreoracle]

With all due respect you can buy their books and read articles they have published.

Why would I do that when you already know where they’ve made the claims? Why should I skim through hundreds of pages of material to look for something you can point out in 3 minutes?

I’ll take this as an admission that you have no evidence that they are making these claims. You already have your script which says that these scientists are evil, and you’re sticking to that script regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.

Thanks for making my point for me; evolution should be a continuous line but it is very far from it, not to mention the very major problem of systems that require multiple adaptations.

You obviously didn’t understand my point. The flawed argument you’re making applies equally well to established laws of physics. You can never, under any circumstances, conduct enough experiments to fill up the continuous line.

Indeed, as my post illustrated, the more information you have, the more “gaps” there will be in the line. By your argument, having less information would be better since there would be fewer gaps.

 

[balto]

Could you provide a link wherein this claim is made? It would probably be obvious which kind of knowledge they were refering to based on the context. For example, they would surely agree that mathematical knowledge, for example, is not scientific, but is instead just assumed by science.

But I think it’s fair to say that any knowledge about the observable universe that isn’t assumed axiomatically by science is scientific. Obviously the axioms can’t be proven by science, but neither can any philosophy prove its own axioms.

I don’t think Dawkins or the like have ever denied the usefulness of logic in understanding the universe. Again, I welcome any link that would attest to the contrary.

I’m not sure how they can “seem to claim it”. They either have claimed it or they haven’t. Can you provide a link to an article or video where they made such a claim?

My apologies, I meant to write “seem to claim it” all throughout my post. Based off of my own interactions with atheist scientists, the view is that all knowledge is scientific. Yes, they think that logic and mathematics are valid but they are subsets of science, because all knowledge is scientific. Although I cannot be 100% certain I would assume that Hawking and Dawkins would agree with this. But science is only a subset of rational inquiry that can be used to understand the material universe.

But then when we run into questions like “where did the universe come from” and “is there purpose in nature” the only acceptable responses are those that agree with materialism. If science has been redefined to include all rational knowledge, then why aren’t the arguments of Aquinas et al. considered “scientific?” Because they mention God? If a rational case can be made for God, then why is it not allowed to be part of the discussion? If we want to go back to what science is supposed to be (an empirical method for the material order), then this debate occurs in the metaphysical realm where it belongs, but it is not scientific, although it is rational.

Just look at the debate between purposeless evolution and Intelligent Design (both of which I have issues with, full disclosure). Both sides are claiming to be scientific, but one says that the science says that there is no purpose in nature and the other claims that the science says the contrary. The truth of the matter is that it says neither, but why is the materialist side considered scientific but the opposing side is pseudo-scientific? I think it would benefit everyone if we all reminded ourselves of the natural limitations of science.

 

[Catolico65]

Why would I do that when you already know where they’ve made the claims? Why should I skim through hundreds of pages of material to look for something you can point out in 3 minutes?

I’ll take this as an admission that you have no evidence that they are making these claims. You already have your script which says that these scientists are evil, and you’re sticking to that script regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.

I have already pointed out what Hawkings stated.

At any rate the fact that I don’t point out numerous references of my point does not by inference mean it is not true, just so you know.

You obviously didn’t understand my point. The flawed argument you’re making applies equally well to established laws of physics. You can never, under any circumstances, conduct enough experiments to fill up the continuous line.

Indeed, as my post illustrated, the more information you have, the more “gaps” there will be in the line. By your argument, having less information would be better since there would be fewer gaps.

Have you ever set up an experiment and then graphed the results and applied a regression equation? I expect if you did you would understand the issue. The fact is the theories I have discussed are not defensible scientifically speaking. Thus they are unverifiable guesses at that, and not very good ones either, based on scientific standards.

 

[Oreoracle]

But then when we run into questions like “where did the universe come from” and “is there purpose in nature” the only acceptable responses are those that agree with materialism.

I don’t think scientists insist that the answers to these questions are materialistic. Rather, they just point out that these questions are not the subject matter of science. The first is metaphysical, and the second is either metaphysical or perhaps metaethical.

Whenever a scientist points out that you cannot infer metaphysical and/or ethical notions solely from the observable universe, they are making a valid point. That is the subject matter of philosophy, not of science.

I’ve never known a scientist to say anything to the effect of “Morality/Metaphysics is pointless because it doesn’t lend itself to the scientific method.”

If we want to go back to what science is supposed to be (an empirical method for the material order), then this debate occurs in the metaphysical realm where it belongs, but it is not scientific, although it is rational.

But it is still not a scientific issue. When scientists decline to speak on the matter, they aren’t suggesting that the question is worthless. They are stepping down because their discipline is not applicable to the topic. In fact, this is the very behavior you wanted; scientists are defering to the philosophers to settle the matter and aren’t getting involved themselves.

Just look at the debate between purposeless evolution and Intelligent Design (both of which I have issues with, full disclosure).

This is just a misinterpretation. When scientists describe evolution as “unguided” (I’ve never heard the word “purposeless” used), they are referring to the fact that nature doesn’t have some specific type of species in mind to be produced in the distant future. In other words, the forces that make evolution possible only take into account the short term advantages of traits rather than long term advantages.

This 4-minute video provides a good example of how evolution doesn’t specialize in long term planning, and so we sometimes get ridiculous imperfections in the “design” of animals: youtube.com/watch?v=AN74qV7SsjY

 

[Oreoracle]

At any rate the fact that I don’t point out numerous references of my point does not by inference mean it is not true, just so you know.

Right, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But it is certainly a ridiculous way to argue a point. You went on a thread, made a claim, and when someone asked for evidence for that claim, you offer them nothing but point out that that does nothing to refute your point.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You made these assertions about Hawking and Dawkins. Either substantiate them or retract your statement. That is the proper way to debate.

Have you ever set up an experiment and then graphed the results and applied a regression equation?

Yes, I am a math major. I have taken statistics classes.

I expect if you did you would understand the issue.

Since you want to speak in terms of statistics, you also surely realize that interpolations become more accurate as data points become closer together. But the ludicrous idea that having more gaps should generate more uncertainty suggests that having more data points is a bad thing. With every data point you add, you also add a gap.

 

[balto]

I don’t think scientists insist that the answers to these questions are materialistic. Rather, they just point out that these questions are not the subject matter of science. The first is metaphysical, and the second is either metaphysical or perhaps metaethical.

Maybe my experiences are unique (I hope they are, because it would mean a lot less anxiety for me), but I think that the desire to use science to explain everything is fairly common nowadays, at least among scientists. Maybe that’s changing for the better though.

Whenever a scientist points out that you cannot infer metaphysical and/or ethical notions solely from the observable universe, they are making a valid point. That is the subject matter of philosophy, not of science.

I’ve never known a scientist to say anything to the effect of “Morality/Metaphysics is pointless because it doesn’t lend itself to the scientific method.”

Depends on what the issue is we’re talking about. Morality is something that very few people will reject, but it is reformulated and presented as something that can be known scientifically. I have had the case made to me that evolution determines morality, which is problematic on numerous grounds. On other issues, such as the nature of existence, the view is that science is answering all the real, important questions and philosophers are just arguing over silly things that don’t really matter even if there are answers that can be found. But that in and of itself is a philosophical view and I just think people need to realize that.

This is just a misinterpretation. When scientists describe evolution as “unguided” (I’ve never heard the word “purposeless” used), they are referring to the fact that nature doesn’t have some specific type of species in mind to be produced in the distant future. In other words, the forces that make evolution possible only take into account the short term advantages of traits rather than long term advantages.

I understand all of this but that just illustrates my point. To say that it is “unguided” is making a metaphysical statement that is not supported by scientific data. It may just as easily be guided and the scientific data would be the same. I’m not saying that people cannot believe it is unguided, but to claim that it has been determined scientifically so the debate is over is false. And, as was discussed on the other thread, the view that nature is mechanistic is also a metaphysical assumption.

 

[Catolico65]

Right, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But it is certainly a ridiculous way to argue a point. You went on a thread, made a claim, and when someone asked for evidence for that claim, you offer them nothing but point out that that does nothing to refute your point.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You made these assertions about Hawking and Dawkins. Either substantiate them or retract your statement. That is the proper way to debate.

What you propose is valid for theories while what I stated is fact and easily verifiable by a quick web search.

Since you want to speak in terms of statistics, you also surely realize that interpolations become more accurate as data points become closer together. But the ludicrous idea that having more gaps should generate more uncertainty suggests that having more data points is a bad thing. With every data point you add, you also add a gap.

There are not enough date points to be able to make an inference with ANY confidence level. Then there are the major issues with systems that would require the statistical impossibility of multiple mutations and of course the degenerative mutation process. Using simple logic and the scientific method one would have to be obligated to state that the probability is zero that this is by chance. This is the only real scientific conclusion, everything else are fairy tales based on wishful thinking, sorry.

 

[yppop]

Oreoracle
I have been following this thread from the beginning and although I don’t agree with the content of your replies I do admire your forensic skill with which you present them. You have managed to defend science effectively with what I would consider a naive understanding of the nature of science. I would hope you could prove me wrong in my assessment by answering a few questions:

1. What do you mean by “science”? posts: 18, 22, 28, 40?
2. What do you understand the “gaps” to be? posts 47. 49?
3. What do you mean by “physical”? posts: 37, 40

Incidentally, what is an agnostic atheist?

Yppop

 

[jonathan_hili]

The problem is that there is no way to know in an a priori fashion which entities are physical. A popular misconception is the belief that “If something is physical, it lends itself to scientific explanation”. But in practice, it’s really the converse that comes about: “If something can be explained scientifically, it is physical”. There is no method or algorithm we can use to determine whether something is physical before employing the scientific method, thus a Christian who says “This isn’t physical, so we can’t use science anyway” is jumping the gun.

Hmmm what an unusual thing to say. While I take your meaning that some entities may not seem physical but actually are, I think there is a clear and fundamental difference between physical and non-physical entities which can be known a priori. For instance, you mention “energy”, by which, I assume, you mean electricity(?). Electricity or other forms of energy may have been considered magical but I don’t know if they were ever considered non-physical. A physical object is capable of being physically effectual and reacts to other physical objects. That is why science can study them. Non-physical objects, such as abstract concepts, numbers, beliefs, etc. are effete with regards to affecting the physical world directly.

Since philosophy and theology are essentially about beliefs, concepts, etc. it is difficult to see how science could say anything substantial about them.

Regardless, even if something like philosophy were about physical objects, it still follows that science only deals with physical reality.

Math, at least, also presupposes concepts it cannot demonstrate (such as the axioms of the deductive system you’re using). No one ever seems to make a fuss about this, so why be so critical of science?

Of course. What I’m saying is that such presuppositions are philosophical in nature, not scientific, and if they are to be discussed and debated are done so in philosophy, and therefore, we will always require more than science to know truth simply because a discipline like science rests on philosophical presuppositions.

Also, strictly speaking, science doesn’t assume what most people mean by “causality”. Quantum mechanics is an example of a discipline where what counts as a “cause” is questionable.

And while we may appeal to causation in our explanations, cause and effect are irrelevant to the math involved. Newtonian physics would work just as well from a mathematical point of view if we instead regarded motion as causing forces and not the other way around.

Science generally does assume causality. Every experiment conducted in science assumes causality. Sure, quantum mechanics doesn’t but this form of physics is primarily theoretical not experimental.

 

[Oreoracle]

1. What do you mean by “science”? posts: 18, 22, 28, 40?

Throughout the thread, I’ve used “science” to mean “the scientific method”. Sometimes I also use it to refer to the theories that are currently the most well supported by the scientific method.

1. What do you understand the “gaps” to be? posts 47. 49?

The “gaps” are the transitional forms in the fossil record that have not yet been found. So if a scientist says that one population of animals of species A evolved after successive generations into some new species B, there will be a gap between A and B. Obviously the difference between A and B didn’t occur all at once, so we would expect to find a fossil that is “midway” between A and B in terms of its traits and genetics.

I was pointing out earlier that even if you found some fossil of species C that lies between A and B, there would be two gaps rather than one (one between A and C, and another between C and B). Thus the number of gaps isn’t reflective of our ignorance, but rather the number of types of fossils we’ve observed.

What should matter is not the number of gaps, but the size of the gaps.

1. What do you mean by “physical”? posts: 37, 40

Based on how the word has been used historically, I would say something is physical if it allows us to predict the behavior of the observable universe. So, for example, potential and kinetic energies are physical (even though they can’t be observed per se) because they allow us to predict the motion of objects.

Incidentally, what is an agnostic atheist?

There are two common questions concerning gods: 1) Do you believe in any gods? 2) Do you believe we can have knowledge of gods?

A negative answer to the first would make you an atheist and a negative answer to the second would make you an agnostic. The question of why I’m agnostic is not usually asked of me, so I figure I’ll say it here. It seems to me that gods are defined in such a way that I couldn’t know whether one existed even if I were confronted by a god. Take the Christian God for example. Even if God manifested before me and performed miracles, how would I know he’s omnipotent just from that? Satan supposedly could do such things too, and there may be demigods, spirits, or the like that could do the same. Likewise, no matter how knowledgeable God appears, how could I know that he knows everything? Quite simply, I could not.

There may be logical proofs of God’s existence, but I have never seen a satisfactory one (and I’ve seen quite a few). However, I concede that gods may exist, thus I’m not “gnostic” (for the lack of a better word). I just see no convincing reason to believe in them, just as I see no convincing reason to believe that a team of cheerleaders will greet me in my dorm tonight.

 

[polytropos]

My issue is that just because you make a claim that turned out to be correct doesn’t mean that you “knew” the claim. It could have been a lucky guess, or it could have been faith (like the faith one has in their teachers).

I agree that making a claim which is true by coincidence is not sufficient for knowledge. I don’t quite see the dichotomy between faith and knowledge here (in this case my claim is not just true by coincidence). Faith in what my teachers told me was veridical and knowledge-forming.

If we define “knowledge” in the traditional manner as “justified, true belief”, then what constitutes knowledge can reasonably be expected to change with the circumstances. Taking the publisher’s word for it (or your teacher’s word for it) may be sufficient justification for inconsequential matters, but it wouldn’t be sufficient if the stakes were high enough.

Now you might insist that, ideally, we should have just one conception of “knowledge” and stick with it, but I think that’s obviously impractical. Have you ever heard the joke “On the Internet, no one knows that I’m a dog?” It’s technically true. For all you know, I could be a trained dog. You can’t claim to know otherwise if our epistemology is strict enough. Obviously, we relax the standards depending on the situation we’re in.

These are fair points, but it still seems that the counterexample stands in some cases, so there are veridical, non-scientific epistemologies.

 

[polytropos]

The problem is that there is no way to know in an a priori fashion which entities are physical. A popular misconception is the belief that “If something is physical, it lends itself to scientific explanation”. But in practice, it’s really the converse that comes about: “If something can be explained scientifically, it is physical”. There is no method or algorithm we can use to determine whether something is physical before employing the scientific method, thus a Christian who says “This isn’t physical, so we can’t use science anyway” is jumping the gun.

Suppose a Christian “knows” that something exists and cannot change. He invokes a principle that everything material can change. Hence, he concludes, the entity in question, whatever else it is, is immaterial. (This being, of course, a negative statement.) Since material instantiation would entail its changeability, it cannot be materially instantiated, and so cannot be the subject of science.

Do you take issue with this line of thinking? Or do you maintain that the presuppositions (that such an entity exists and cannot change) could not be soundly determined? Would you reject the universally quantified claim that everything material can change?

To invoke some other considerations, perhaps it could be argued that formal entities cannot be physical. Take indeterminacy of translation. Any set of physical data is underdetermined and is open to multiple “interpretations” as to what functions it models (or whether it really models a function at all). One cannot bridge the gap from physics to semantics. “Entities” with determinate semantic content, such as propositions, universal forms/concepts, equations, etc. are therefore not material (in some aspect, at least). (This is obviously a hasty shotgun approach. But I think cogent arguments can be made along these lines.)