On the Necessity of Proving Things

[itinerant1]

So we have string theory and the multiverse. There are supposed to be a near infinite number of universes out there that we at present just cannot detect or predict by theory. How do they know? They don’t you just have to have faith that they are right. .

The idea of a near infinite number of universes is a bad example to use.

First of all, it is false to say that “There are supposed to be a near infinite number of universes…” This idea, as most historians of science know, owes its origin to the Copenhagen school’s philosophy of quantum mechanics. Note that I did not say “science of quantum mechanics.” The philosophy in question is a rank form of idealism, combined with a rank form of pragmatism, that end in an extreme solipsism.

Second, the notion of *multi-*verse involves an inherent contradiction in terms.

Third, Einstein rightly observed that science has no use for theories about multiple universes and such speculations ought to be avoided. In other words, Einstein was saying “knock off the fantasies and get back to doing real physics”.

Fourth, the multi-verse idea is not science. If another universe exists, and has no connection to our own, then we cannot know that it even exists, and therefore we have no rational grounds for talking about a multi-verse.

Fifth, if another alleged universe has some connection with our own, then we are actually talking about a uni-verse and not a multi-verse. Hence, the notion has nothing to do with legitimate science.

Sixth, the multi-verse idea was created and is promoted for reasons other than strictly scientific considerations.

Seventh, there is no rational or scientific justification whatsoever for having faith that multiple universes exist, or may exist.

 

[itinerant1]

Evolution theory is materialist. It portays the natural world as being self-sufficient,able to produce life forms through natural processes alone. If you disapprove of my use of the words naturalism and materialism because you think of them only as philosophies rather than perspectives,then just read “the view that only nature exists”. That is the view that evolution theory takes,without having to state it.

Your argument fails not only here, but in your later posts, because what you are describing is not actually science but scientism. Since you have not made the necessary distinctions, due to the fact you do not understand science or evolution theory, your best statements amount to nothing more than an equivocation of terms.

 

[anthony022071]

Your argument fails not only here, but in your later posts, because what you are describing is not actually science but scientism.

I’m not talking about scientism,I’m talking about the contents of evolution theory itself,in all it’s objectivity and sobriety. If you view the natural world through the lens of evolution theory,you are taking a naturalistic view.

Since you have not made the necessary distinctions, due to the fact you do not understand science or evolution theory, your best statements amount to nothing more than an equivocation of terms.

You keep on saying I don’t understand science,but never demonstrate it. You haven’t provided your own idea of what defines science or evolution theory.

 

[anthony022071]

Science has well defined limits. It can’t work with subjective stuff - even if we knew the exact way love works in the brain, we could still never explain how it feels.

Science does try to explain the causes of feelings and beliefs.

Nor can science say anything about the existence of God - He is either everywhere or nowhere all the time, so there’s no way to make comparison tests. Transient supernatural phenomena can be tested though, like probing the existence of ghosts.

In a sense,science does have something to say about God – that all natural phenomena must be explained without recource to the supernatural,the underlying assumption being that God is unnecessary to the workings of the natural world. That is methodological naturalism.

Are there any proven theories that are illogical?

Naturalistic theories concerning life,order,mind,and the origination of matter are illogical and can’t be proven.

Anyway, nature doesn’t have to be logical, we can’t tell it to be logical.

Maybe,but we ought to be logical in the way we explain natural phenomena.

 

[anthony022071]

Anyway, nature doesn’t have to be logical, we can’t tell it to be logical.

Nature is logical in that there are proper causal connections in nature,or causes and effects that are proper to each other. We ought to only accept logical explanations for natural phenomena which use proper causal connections. This means that we should always consider “By what power does this happen?” or “What power would be necessary to make this happen?” Evolution theory,chaos theory and abiogenesis theory explain phenomena in terms of so-called mechanisms or process rather than with necessary power,and this leads to illogical connections between one thing and another.

 

[itinerant1]

I’m not talking about scientism,I’m talking about the contents of evolution theory itself,in all it’s objectivity and sobriety. If you view the natural world through the lens of evolution theory,you are taking a naturalistic view.

You keep on saying I don’t understand science,but never demonstrate it. You haven’t provided your own idea of what defines science or evolution theory.

That is absolutely hilarious! You were the one unable to even provide proper definitions of science or philosophy, while I did provide correct definitions, definitions which you subsequently refused to acknowledge. And now you claim I haven’t provided my idea of what defines science. LOL

The fact that you cannot properly define natural science or philosophy, or even tentatively agree to proper definitions when they are presented to you, sufficed to show that you do not understand, or choose not to understand, either discipline. So, your statement that I never demonstrate my claim clearly shows that you are not being intellectually honest. Methinks you are in serious denial.

I must now add “Denial” to the list, a list which already includes “Equivocates”, “Mischaracterizes” (strawman fallacy), and “Begs the Question” (petitio principii). You have not done well at all, for one reason, you keep trying to present a view that is inherently and fatally flawed.

One can only guess what your next logical fallacy will be like.

Here is a clear acknowledgement of evolution from Communion and Stewardship, issued under Cardinal Ratzinger:** “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.”**

If you want to know something about evolution theory, try reading Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo.

 

[itinerant1]

Evolution theory,chaos theory and abiogenesis theory explain phenomena in terms of so-called mechanisms or process rather than with necessary power,and this leads to illogical connections between one thing and another.

You might trying elaborating on what you are trying to say, because your statement, as it stands, does not make much sense.

 

[anthony022071]

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition for science.

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

And for philosophy.

1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought
4 a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

 

[anthony022071]

If you wanted dictionary definitions to argue over you could have provided them yourself. That would have been more honest than asking for my personal definitons and then saying they are inadequate.

 

[itinerant1]

If you wanted dictionary definitions to argue over you could have provided them yourself. That would have been more honest than asking for my personal definitons and then saying they are inadequate.

Guffaw! You are not making much sense here.

What made you come up with the bogus idea that I was interested in dictionary definitions?

Your post appears to be an attempt to distract from the point that you have been equivocating on the word “science”, and you do not understand how philosophical knowledge differs from scientific knowledge.

 

[inocente]

A distinction between science and philosophy is that one relies on objective testing while the other relies on rational argument. A distinction between natural and supernatural phenomena is that the first are reproducible, at least in principle, while the second are not.

Here is just one example where you argue that it’s wrong to leave out the supernatural:

In a sense,science does have something to say about God – that all natural phenomena must be explained without recourse to the supernatural

But then, in your next post, you say that it’s right to leave out the supernatural:

Nature is logical in that there are proper causal connections in nature,or causes and effects that are proper to each other. We ought to only accept logical explanations for natural phenomena which use proper causal connections. This means that we should always consider “By what power does this happen?” or “What power would be necessary to make this happen?”

Welcome on board, bro . Arguing that when the going gets tough, scientists and philosophers should give up with the somewhat illogical and subjective “and here a spell/miracle/curse happens” was never going to fly.

 

[anthony022071]

Guffaw! You are not making much sense here.

What made you come up with the bogus idea that I was interested in dictionary definitions?

I offered you my own definitions of science and philosophy,but you said they were inadequte. So I assumed that you wanted dictionary definitions,because that is the only other kind to personal ones. Offer your own definitions if you think they are more adequate.

Your post appears to be an attempt to distract from the point that you have been equivocating on the word “science”, and you do not understand how philosophical knowledge differs from scientific knowledge.

How have I been equivocating on the word science? My understanding is that natural science is the study of natural things with the help of experimental research. This does not demand the exclusion of supernatural power from consideration,nor does it mean that science need not offer explanations that are logical,using only proper causes and effects,or proper causal connections. It it unreasonable to demand that scientific theories make sense? Natural science,like philosophical accounts of reality,should use proper causal connections or preoper causes and effects.

 

[anthony022071]

A distinction between science and philosophy is that one relies on objective testing while the other relies on rational argument. A distinction between natural and supernatural phenomena is that the first are reproducible, at least in principle, while the second are not.

While it’s true that science relies on testing,it also should use rational explanations for what causes what. And rational thinking does not mean naturalistic thinking. When it comes to explaining life,order,the human mind,and the coming into existence of matter,it is rational to acknowledge power over nature,or super-natural power,because the naturalistic and mechanistic perspective of science does not add up. That fact that supernatural cannot be tested does not mean that it must be excluded from how phenomena are explained. Experimentation and explanation are two different things.

But then, in your next post, you say that it’s right to leave out the supernatural:

Welcome on board, bro . Arguing that when the going gets tough, scientists and philosophers should give up with the somewhat illogical and subjective “and here a spell/miracle/curse happens” was never going to fly.

I didn’t say in that post that it was right to leave out the supernatural. When I speak of logical explanations and proper causal connections I am not talking about the naturalistic perspective. Reason is not naturalistic,and methodological naturalism is not reasonable.

 

[inocente]

I didn’t say in that post that it was right to leave out the supernatural.
When I speak of logical explanations and proper causal connections I am not talking about the naturalistic perspective.

Oh snap

I admire your optimism. Instead of trying to put you on your back foot again, perhaps you could explain how natural science should change.

In altering the methodology of science, or in how it should interpret results, note:

1. 
   *]The faithful must be protected from God-of-the-gaps (this is where I think you may do most damage).
   

   …how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved
   
   Dietrich Bonhoeffer, quoted in theopedia.com

   *]The changes, and indeed their author, must be protected from the scandalous putdowns Not Even Wrong and dilettante.
   
   *]The rational of natural science is based in the philosophy of people like Karl Popper and probably also needs to be changed, but must remain equally rigorous.
   
   *]There are large scientific communities in nations with non-Christian traditions (China, Japan, India, etc.) so even implicit references to Yahweh/Bible must be avoided to prevent Church bashing.
   
   *]To avert a backlash against faith in general, the changes should not need to be imposed - they must make good sense on their own terms.

 

[anthony022071]

Oh snap

I admire your optimism. Instead of trying to put you on your back foot again, perhaps you could explain how natural science should change.

Science should consider by what power things happen,or to put it another way,what power would be necessary for a certain natural phenomena to happen. Natural phenomena cannot be adequately (that is,logically) explained in terms of mechanisms and processes. The operations of natural phenomena are rarely mechanical. And to explain things in terms of mechanisms and processes does not answer the real question,which is,“By what power does this happen?” Mechanisms and processes require some kind of power to move them. But science tends to make them into the very causes of natural order and life. It’s like explaining the workings of a pulley or a bycycle without bringing up the fact that it must be powered by a person.

 

[anthony022071]

In altering the methodology of science, or in how it should interpret results, note:

1. 
   *]The faithful must be protected from God-of-the-gaps (this is where I think you may do most damage).

1. 
   The naturalistic perspective of science is not really a methodology,and neither is the use of hypotheses. A method,propery speaking,is a way of doing something physically,not a way of thinking.
   
   To understand the workings of nature in light of what is known about the power of God is not a matter of the so-called “God of the gaps”. God has power over all creation,whether we have knowledge of natural causes or not. Our knowledge of natural causes does not necessarily make supernatural power unnecessary to the proper understanding of phenomena. The so-called “God of the gaps” is not something to be protected from anyway. It is natural for people who don’t have detailed knowledge of the workings of nature to attribute them to the power of God. They are right about the power of God over nature,in spite of their lack of knowledge about natural causes. The scientists of the 1700’s and 1800’s who believed that the circulation of the blood was caused by spirit were much closer to the truth than the scientists of today who explain it in naturalistic and mechanistic terms.
   

   …how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved

   Dietrich Bonhoeffer, quoted in theopedia.com

   Bonhoeffer was apparently unaware of the doctrine of divine providence and all it entails about the natural world. The increased knowledge of natural causes does not justify a naturalistic view of how nature works. It does not make obsolete what is known about God’s power over nature.

 

[anthony022071]

…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, quoted in theopedia.com

We know that God created the universe and has power over all of it and that he sustains it in act. He is the cause behind natural causes. These are reasonable and justifiable beliefs. So whatever knowledge we have about natural causes ought to be seen in light of God’s power over natural causes. We ought not to explain natural order and life as if only natural causes were involved. We ought not to accept explanations for phenomena that give to natural causes alone powers that they cannot logically have: the power to make things come into existence,to create order and life and thought. These powers are super-natural. They have to do with power over natural things,not power of natural things.

 

[itinerant1]

While it’s true that science relies on testing,it also should use rational explanations for what causes what. And rational thinking does not mean naturalistic thinking. When it comes to explaining life,order,the human mind,and the coming into existence of matter,it is rational to acknowledge power over nature,or super-natural power,because the naturalistic and mechanistic perspective of science does not add up. That fact that supernatural cannot be tested does not mean that it must be excluded from how phenomena are explained. Experimentation and explanation are two different things.

The natural sciences, as natural sciences operating within their proper domains, do not attempt to explain such things as “the coming into existence of matter.” Hence, your argument fails.

 

[anthony022071]

The natural sciences, as natural sciences operating within their proper domains, do not attempt to explain such things as “the coming into existence of matter.” Hence, your argument fails.

There are quantum scientists that attempt to explain the coming into existence of matter from nothingness.

 

[itinerant1]

There are quantum scientists that attempt to explain the coming into existence of matter from nothingness.

There are scientists who speculate so, but just like theories about multi-verse, such speculations are not science, they have no value for scientific research, and they cannot contribute to the advancement of true science.

The quantum idea of matter popping into existence from nothing is an idea grounded in a false and extreme philosophy of idealism. It is ideology coated in scientific garb, rather than being strictly science.

First, the “nothing” in this context is actually something. To say that nothing is something is logically and ontologically incoherent.

Second, the idea is based on Heisenberg’s denial of causality. That is, Heisenberg foolishly claimed that he had conclusively disproved causality.

Third, the denial of causality destroys science as an investigation into the natural world. It also makes knowledge of the external world impossible, and leads to an extreme solipsism.

In conclusion, I fully maintain my original position: science, when it remains within its specific competence, does not attempt to show that matter arises out of nothing. The fact that some theoretical physicists speculate about a self-creating universe does not make it science. Such statements are philosophical rather than scientific. And the philosophy involved is a rank and false idealism.