Most Noble Science: Math or Theology?

[Moonstruck888]

You entirely missed the point.

The sum total of the scientific method is the product of a large number of subjective experiences. It increases the research reliability but not the research validity. You should know this they are Physical Science terms (I remember them from school).

If you want to look at it that way, everything that ever happens to anyone, everything that anyone says, thinks or feels, is the sum of subjective experiences.

Without making the assumption that the natural world exists and is consistent, it would be impossible for us to function in any way.

 

[JohnDamian]

If you want to look at it that way, everything that ever happens to anyone, everything that anyone says, thinks or feels, is the sum of subjective experiences.

Without making the assumption that the natural world exists and is consistent, it would be impossible for us to function in any way.

Such assumptions cannot be verified by the physical sciences, they require other organised bodies of knowlege to verify them… hint. hint.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Such assumptions cannot be verified by the physical sciences, they require other organised bodies of knowlege to verify them… hint. hint.

Actually they can. Scientifically valid experiments and theories demonstrate that the Univerese exists and operates consistently.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Actually they can. Scientifically valid experiments and theories demonstrate that the Univerese exists and operates consistently.

So…according to you we needed science to demonstrate that the universe exists and operates consistantly?

 

[Moonstruck888]

So…according to you we needed science to demonstrate that the universe exists and operates consistantly?

I don’t recall saying any such thing. I merely pointed out that the assertion that science cannot do this is wrong.

 

[Areopagite]

Google is a search engine. You can find articles on any subject. Now, go to the google homepage again, type in the term you wish to search, and you’ll find you get fast results.

My bad.

It is based on observation and experimentation, not logic.

Don’t you think that science (as you even define it) is dependent on logic? And if that is so, don’t you think it’s based on logic?

Try it again but go outside this time. If there is one thing that I detest in a person, it is being deliberately obtuse.

Armed Robber: No nonsense. Just give me all your money.

Mr Logic: I shall commence by pointing out to you that my demeanour is not one which could be described as nonsensical. Consequently I can attest you have no cause to reprimand me on your first point. On to your second point: Bearing in mind the potentially lethal situation in which I find myself, to wit: your presence in conjunction with the presumably loaded firearm which is presently levelled at my cranium, I will comply with your request comprehensively, albeit reluctantly. Here, twenty-seven pence.

Armed Robber: Twenty-seven pence? **** off. There's more than that in the till.

Mr Logic: Indeed, undoubtedly so. However your request was for *my* money. The currency in the till belongs to a third party and is therefore not "my money". However, if you are still desirous of said money I would suggest that you re-phrase your original statement to recognise and incorporate this important distinction.

I don’t mean to be deliberately obtuse. It’s just that I really think that logic is necessary for all rational thought. Even science (as you define it). So, I’m sorry for being annoying.

Since I don’t know much about logic, I’d have to take your word for that.

Okay.

Again, since I don’t know much about logic, I’d have to take your word for that.

Alright.

Stupid people. Do we really want the expansion of human knowledge to be a convoy that travels at the speed of the slowest ship?

Well, I’ll ask you to examine what you mean by this. Why are such people (as you mention) ‘stupid’ if they think science means “an organized body of knowledge”? I don’t get your analogy. Maybe you have a good point. But you have to explain it to me. I’m actually a slow learner, so I’ll beg you to be patient with me (I’m not being sarcastic … I’m serious … you may have a point and I might have missed it, and if so, I apologize).

You’ve taken that out of context. What I meant was that in science, if the maths disagrees with the observations, the scientist will always side with the observations. Quite simply, in any disparity between maths and observations, either the maths or the experimental control will be where the error is.

I think you may have a point here. But I honestly don’t know what your point is. Could you give a little more detail about what you’re talking about. I admit, I’m not a physicist or any kind of scientist that you’re talking about, so please be patient. Is math necessary for the science you’re talking about? And how so? It may be a broad question. But maybe you can answer. I’m just trying to understand.

So, you say. I disagree.

Honest to God (even though you don’t believe in God), I’m still not quite sure why you disagree. This is a terminological disagreement. You admit that it was okay for people to define science as “an organized body of knowledge” in the past (right?), but I’m not quite sure why you disagree now, even though many, many people still define it that way. I may be missing an obvious point you’re making. And I apologize.

It shouldn’t, in my opinion, have that definition because the definition is not accurate. I don’t see why you find that difficult to understand. A description should be as precise and accurate as possible. An organized body of knowledge could mean anything.

But accurate to what? Obviously I think a definition of a word is “accurate” if the definition conforms to the meaning which a lot of people give that word. For example, if the proposed definition of a ‘couch’ is “a long upholstered piece of furniture for several people to sit on” is how a lot of people define it, it would be accurate for the word ‘couch’. However, you should not think that that “a long upholstered piece of furniture for several people to sit on* for watching TV*” (for example) is more accurate … even though that definition is more narrow and specific … which is (forgive me if I’m wrong) what you’re doing with the word “science”. Just because one proposed definition of a word might be more specific than another proposed definition, it does not mean it’s more accurate than that other definition. See what I’m saying? If you don’t, please let me know. I could explain it much more clearly. My apologies. I don’t know how to express myself clearly sometimes.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I merely pointed out that the assertion that science cannot do this is wrong.

Please demonstrate why it is wrong to think that science does not have any epistomological authority?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Please demonstrate why it is wrong to think that science does not have any epistomological authority?

I’m not a philosopher. If you would repeat that in the Queen’s English, I might understand what you mean?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Don’t you think that science (as you even define it) is dependent on logic? And if that is so, don’t you think it’s based on logic?

Possibly in the same way that I think billiards is based on angular momentum conservation and trigonometry. Do you think Cliff Thorburn would have benefited from having a maths degree? Of course not.

I don’t mean to be deliberately obtuse. It’s just that I really think that logic is necessary for all rational thought. Even science (as you define it). So, I’m sorry for being annoying.

I think you’re mistaken. Like I said, they never taught me anything about logic or epistimology or any of the other Star Trek talk you love on this forum when I studied science.

Well, I’ll ask you to examine what you mean by this. Why are such people (as you mention) ‘stupid’ if they think science means “an organized body of knowledge”? I don’t get your analogy. Maybe you have a good point. But you have to explain it to me. I’m actually a slow learner, so I’ll beg you to be patient with me (I’m not being sarcastic … I’m serious … you may have a point and I might have missed it, and if so, I apologize).

In France, they call a word from another language that sounds coincidentally the same as the word in French a false friend. An example of this would be gift in English and German. In English, gift means a present or a talent. In German, gift means poison. Same word, totally different usage and meaning.

The same thing is happening here. The way a philosopher and a scientist define science is completely different. Same word, unrelated meaning. The philosopher’s definition of science as an organized body of knowledge is no use to a scientist.

I think you may have a point here. But I honestly don’t know what your point is. Could you give a little more detail about what you’re talking about. I admit, I’m not a physicist or any kind of scientist that you’re talking about, so please be patient. Is math necessary for the science you’re talking about? And how so? It may be a broad question. But maybe you can answer. I’m just trying to understand.

In physics, maths is necessary. In other sciences it is necessary to varying degrees. Even though maths is a necessary tool in physics, a mathematical proof will never be given priority over experimental evidence.

Honest to God (even though you don’t believe in God), I’m still not quite sure why you disagree. This is a terminological disagreement. You admit that it was okay for people to define science as “an organized body of knowledge” in the past (right?), but I’m not quite sure why you disagree now, even though many, many people still define it that way. I may be missing an obvious point you’re making. And I apologize.

I think I’ve explained my opinions on this above with my false friend example.

But accurate to what? Obviously I think a definition of a word is “accurate” if the definition conforms to the meaning which a lot of people give that word.

I don’t agree. Words are commonly misused by the populace all the time and an organized body of knowledge is not an accurate description of the scientific method.

I could explain it much more clearly. My apologies. I don’t know how to express myself clearly sometimes.

You’re doing fine.

 

[Areopagite]

Just to let you know … I’ll be in Italy for two weeks (and then on the east coast for about another week). I don’t know if I’ll have ready internet access during that time.

And I apologize for not having time to respond either.

So, until then … Ciao!

 

[Young_Thinker]

Just to let you know … I’ll be in Italy for two weeks (and then on the east coast for about another week). I don’t know if I’ll have ready internet access during that time.

And I apologize for not having time to respond either.

So, until then … Ciao!

Have a nice trip, Signore.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Just to let you know … I’ll be in Italy for two weeks (and then on the east coast for about another week). I don’t know if I’ll have ready internet access during that time.

And I apologize for not having time to respond either.

So, until then … Ciao!

Have a good holiday…

 

[Dhelenmarie]

Science is a method of Observe → Hypothesize → Experiment → Repeat.

I don’t see how that corrolates in any way with Theology. I don’t have a problem with intelligent design being taught in a Theology class, but there is no debate in academic circles over whether it should be taught in Biology class.

No debate whatsoever! I am a high school science and biology teacher…in a Catholic high school. Part of the course in grade nine includes Astronomy and the origin of the universe. Even gifted physicists can’t say what started the Big Bang. I have also taught evolution in biology. We speak of complexity of design and God. I have a sign that says “God Rules”…right over all the physics and bio posters. I have a huge ultrasound poster at the front with the words “You are God’s biological masterpiece” etc. etc. etc. I can not fathom why some people still insist that science and ‘religion’ are in conflict. They most certainly are not. God is the master scientist.

 

[Moonstruck888]

No debate whatsoever! I am a high school science and biology teacher…in a Catholic high school. Part of the course in grade nine includes Astronomy and the origin of the universe. Even gifted physicists can’t say what started the Big Bang. I have also taught evolution in biology. We speak of complexity of design and God. I have a sign that says “God Rules”…right over all the physics and bio posters. I have a huge ultrasound poster at the front with the words “You are God’s biological masterpiece” etc. etc. etc. I can not fathom why some people still insist that science and ‘religion’ are in conflict. They most certainly are not. God is the master scientist.

You said it yourself, physics cannot explain the origin of the Universe, so you, at the limits of your knowledge, invoke superstition and brainwash a classroom full of kids to the same level of buffoonery.

That is sickening, depressing and demeaning. If you wanted to teach about God, you should have become a religious studies teacher, not peddled propagnda in a biology class.

 

[Dhelenmarie]

Good grief, Moonstruck! You’ve missed the point entirely. All of us teach exactly what the public schools teach in our science courses. We teach current scientific thought in Chemistry, Biology and physics. But where the public school teachers may say " what started the Big Bang we just don’t know" , we at our Catholic schools submit that perhaps a creator being had something to do with it! And we often have a discussion about the two sides of the debate. The public schools aren’t even allowed to do that!

 

[Geremia]

But where the public school teachers may say " what started the Big Bang we just don’t know" , we at our Catholic schools submit that perhaps a creator being had something to do with it!

This is a deistic “God-in-the-gaps” theology, in the gaps of our understanding or in the processes of nature. It is what the Protestant Intelligent Design (ID) movement supports; it is not Catholic. God, being outside of time, is responsible for the very being of everything created and the government of the universe; if He were not constantly creating everything created, created things would cease to exist. He did not just create the universe at a moment in time—e.g., at the Big Bang—and leave it alone. He is not a super-powerful natural agent, especially when it comes to explaining life. Just because life is complex does not mean that nature cannot be its proximate cause. God is especially not an empty explanation for what we do not know!

Read these things:
“Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers”
**
Creation Mingled with Works of Nature? No. **

St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica: “[ or “out of nothing”] is mingled with works of nature and art?creatio ex nihilo](Sententiæ Deo: Creation Mingled with Works of Nature? No.)” While ID advocates would say “Yes,” St. Thomas says “No.” He says that “in the works of nature creation does not enter, but is presupposed to the work of nature.” This is fully consistent with God simply letting things be. He does not say, e.g., “I create light!” but “Let there be light.” (Genesis 1:3). Nor does He say “I bring forth the living creature!” but “Let the earth bring forth the living creature.” (Genesis 1:24).

 

[Geremia]

You said it yourself, physics cannot explain the origin of the Universe, so you, at the limits of your knowledge, invoke superstition and brainwash a classroom full of kids to the same level of buffoonery.

The true God, the Trinity, is Logos, Reason. I agree with you that when God is used as an empty explanation for what we do not know about the natural world, we make our God as nothing more than the false gods of the Greeks, where Zeus was used to explain a natural phenomenon like lightning, etc. But the Trinity is a lot more than those false gods! He is the very foundation of everything that exists.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Good grief, Moonstruck! You’ve missed the point entirely. All of us teach exactly what the public schools teach in our science courses. We teach current scientific thought in Chemistry, Biology and physics. But where the public school teachers may say " what started the Big Bang we just don’t know" , we at our Catholic schools submit that perhaps a creator being had something to do with it! And we often have a discussion about the two sides of the debate. The public schools aren’t even allowed to do that!

I assume you live in the USA? Over here, we teach biological or physical science in science class and theology in Religious studies class. That’s how it should be, don’t you think?

At the very least, the question of a creator should be moved to a philosophy class.

 

[JohnDamian]

I assume you live in the USA? Over here, we teach biological or physical science in science class and theology in Religious studies class. That’s how it should be, don’t you think?

At the very least, the question of a creator should be moved to a philosophy class.

The fact that many people **believe **that the Big Bang was created by God deserves at least a cursory mension in Science books - although as you rightly pointed out this subject is really one for religion or philosophy classes.

Adding a wider context to Science can be a good thing - but anything more than the most cursory of mentions would be certainly out of place.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The fact that many people **believe **that the Big Bang was created by God deserves at least a cursory mension in Science books - although as you rightly pointed out this subject is really one for religion or philosophy classes.

Adding a wider context to Science can be a good thing - but anything more than the most cursory of mentions would be certainly out of place.

No it is not a good thing. Anything that distracts from science should not be in a science text book, ever, under any circumstances.

Leave the philosophy to the philosophers and the science to the scientists.