On the Necessity of Proving Things

[itinerant1]

Who determined what the formal and material objects of the natural sciences are? Was it scientists or philosophers?

Historically, it has been both philosophers and scientists. Adequate discussions of the nature of the natural sciences and philosophy have been given by philosopher Jacques Maritain , historian of science Fr. Stanley L Jaki, and scientist Pierre Duhem, just to name a few notable individuals.

Do you really think that the scientists who deal with evolution theory,chaos theory,string theory,quantum mechanics,quarks,Gaia theory,or the neurobiologists who explain how humans believe in God,restict themselves according to what philosophers think is proper to science? No,they just restrict themselves to naturalism. Scientists will study whatever they think exists. Science is what scientists make of it.

This statement is difficult to respond to because it involves a number of incorrect assumptions on your part.

There is an inherent problem with any statement regarding whether scientists restrict themselves “to what philosophers think is proper to science.” The statement does not take into account that many philosophers are in error on the nature and limit of scientific knowledge. Sometimes the best thing for scientists to do is ignore the many so-called philosophers of science since the modern era is plagued with many false philosophies.

It is absolutely not true to state that scientists “will study whatever they think exists.” For example, I know many scientists who believe God exists, and I know a number of Catholic scientists, and none of these scientists study, as scientists, God or any spiritual reality such as the human soul. So, there are countless examples that serve to falsify your statement.

You stated that scientists restrict themselves to naturalism. Since you appear confused about just what is proper to scientific study and just what are the proper limits of science, it is not possible for me to address any of your statements involving naturalism. If you were to acquire a proper understanding of science, its field of competence and its limit, then I we could discuss the ideological errors and the true glories of the scientific endeavor.

 

[itinerant1]

When it comes to things scientists don’t believe exist,like the soul,spiritual mind and the power of God in the natural world,they will provide explanations using natural causes alone,even invented ones.

What I said in that post is what I had been saying to you. If it is reasonable to believe that only a power over nature could make the physical world exist,and give it order and life,then this knowledge should be brought into scientific explanations wherever it is necessary. This would not be a God of the gaps,but acknowledgement of necessary power.

NOT. One cannot bring theological or philosophical knowledge into the strictly scientific arena and still call it natural science. Such a situation would involve meta-scientific reflections on nature. These non-scientific reflections on the world should not be permitted in the area of strict science.

 

[anthony022071]

Okay, let me state things more explicitly. How do you define natural science, philosophy and theology?

Natural science is a field of research that uses experimental methods to study the workings and phenomena of nature,using experimental methods. Philosophy is the reasoning pursuit of wisdom and truth. Theology is the study of the truth about God and doctrines.

 

[anthony022071]

That is where you reveal one of the problems with your position. So far you have failed to provide a proper explanation of the differences between philosophy and science. I know I made that point clear beyond any doubt. It would be highly unfortunate if you were to remain satisfied with your statements as somehow being adequate and correct.

I stand by what I said in post 767. “Natural science tests for the facts of nature and its workings by experimentation. Philosophy seeks truth (including truth about nature and its workings) by common observation and logical reasoning. But natural scientists do not just verify by experimentation and let the results of research speak for itself,they make judgements and interpretations which cannot be justified by mere research (like the assumption that similarities between different species must mean common ancestry). They begin with a false judgement,which is that all phenomena can be adequately explained using natural causes alone,and this leads to false interpretations of how nature works.”

I like to keep things simple,using simple,trenchant language,rather than always using “intellectual” terminology and categories. What would be a proper explanation of philosophy? One which uses a lot of latinate words and Aristotelian categories and fine distinctions?

The natural sciences are limited to the study of the natural world and natural phenomena. However, your explanation of philosophy is useless. The natural sciences pusue truth, also. So you have failed here to explain how philosophy differs from science.

My explanation of philosophy is factual. Philosophers are not bound to observe the limits and categories that you would ascribe to it. They will think along whatever lines they set for themselves. Likewise,scientists do not necessarily observe the limits that philosophers and theologians would put upon it.

 

[anthony022071]

Edited:

Likewise,scientists do not necessarily observe the limits that philosophers and theologians would put upon science. When someone says that science must make claims that go beyond the proper limits of science (as Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have done),a scientist with a naturalistic perspective may well sneer and say “What are the proper limits of science? Everything that is can be adequately explained according to natural causes alone. Whatever cannot be tested by science probably does not even exist,or in any case it is irrelevant. If we deny that the supernatural exists and that only nature exists,it is because science has provided or is capable of providing convincing explanations for almost natural phenomena,including the belief in the supernatural.”

 

[itinerant1]

I like to keep things simple,using simple,trenchant language,rather than always using “intellectual” terminology and categories. What would be a proper explanation of philosophy? One which uses a lot of latinate words and Aristotelian categories and fine distinctions?

The meaning of philosophy is found in the philosophy perennis. Whatever “philosophy” or philosophical ideas are outside of the philosophia perennis is not philosophy – it is just false.

My explanation of philosophy is factual. Philosophers are not bound to observe the limits and categories that you would ascribe to it. They will think along whatever lines they set for themselves. Likewise,scientists do not necessarily observe the limits that philosophers and theologians would put upon it.

Obviously you are unable to grasp the difference between abuses of science and philosophy and genuine science and philosophy. You confuse and conflate matters due to your biased personal opinions. Your statements, continually, are sorely lacking in many neccessary distinctions, and as such they are hardly adequate to the topics you attempt to address.

 

[itinerant1]

Edited:

Likewise,scientists do not necessarily observe the limits that philosophers and theologians would put upon science. When someone says that science must make claims that go beyond the proper limits of science (as Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have done),a scientist with a naturalistic perspective may well sneer and say “What are the proper limits of science? Everything that is can be adequately explained according to natural causes alone. Whatever cannot be tested by science probably does not even exist,or in any case it is irrelevant. If we deny that the supernatural exists and that only nature exists,it is because science has provided or is capable of providing convincing explanations for almost natural phenomena,including the belief in the supernatural.”

Guffaw! You have incorrectly represented the thinking of Popes John Paul and Benedict, and that does not surprise me.

 

[inocente]

But natural scientists do not just verify by experimentation and let the results of research speak for itself,they make judgements and interpretations which cannot be justified by mere research (like the assumption that similarities between different species must mean common ancestry).

What would be the point of collecting data without interpreting it?

The scientific method has three steps - observe something in nature, make a guess about how it works, and then test the guess as far as you possibly can.

That process means natural science is not so much about proving truths as avoiding falsities - you can never know whether your good guess, a.k.a. theory, uncovers some absolute truth but only whether it works in practice.

All theories are tentative as a result, including your example about ancestry. A better guess may be made in future with more data.

They begin with a false judgement,which is that all phenomena can be adequately explained using natural causes alone,and this leads to false interpretations of how nature works."

That’s not a judgment, it’s just another guess, and would be falsified when and if something is found that can’t be explained by nature alone.

Incidentally, there’s nothing to stop anyone doing supernatural science – trying to find phenomena that can’t be explained naturally. I’m sure I read somewhere of a team based in the Vatican that researches reports of miracles. There are also those who have a hidden agenda and don’t use the scientific method, but I shall not speak their name (forum rules).

 

[anthony022071]

The meaning of philosophy is found in the philosophy perennis. Whatever “philosophy” or philosophical ideas are outside of the philosophia perennis is not philosophy – it is just false.

Maybe,but philosophy is not confined to a particular “system” of thought.

Obviously you are unable to grasp the difference between abuses of science and philosophy and genuine science and philosophy. You confuse and conflate matters due to your biased personal opinions. Your statements, continually, are sorely lacking in many neccessary distinctions, and as such they are hardly adequate to the topics you attempt to address.

I wasn’t talking about the abuse of science and philosophy,I was acknowledging the reality that science and philosophy are shaped according to the intrests and inclinations of those who practice them. The reason why I don’t make the acedemic distinctions between science and philosophy that you do is because I do not find that those distinctions hold in the history of those professions,nor do they hold in the present time. For example,natural science from the time of Bacon throught the 18th century was called natural philosophy. And in the present time,the theory of evolution implies and demonstrates a view of nature in which nature is self-sufficient. Do you really think that the scientists who study theories of existence,order,and life are concerned about keeping to the supposed formal and material objects of science? Considering that science takes a naturalistic view of reality,there would be disgreement as to what exactly the formal and material objects of science are. When science has a naturalistic view of reality,there is no limit to what it may talk about.

 

[anthony022071]

Because science has a naturalistic view of reality,there is no limit to what it may get around to talking about,since all reality (in its view) is its province. At the present time,neurobiologists are attepting to provide an explanation for the belief in God according to natural causes alone,which would,of course,render the belief in God irrational. All science has to do to contradict the doctrine of creation and divine providence is explain all phenomena according to natural causes alone. It sins against truth by omission.

Guffaw! You have incorrectly represented the thinking of Popes John Paul and Benedict, and that does not surprise me.

I’ve read what they wrote about science and the theory of evolution. They criticize materialist philosophies and the materialist underpinnings of science,but they were too deferential to science to criticize the theory of evolution as being materialist in itself.

 

[itinerant1]

I’ve read what they wrote about science and the theory of evolution. They criticize materialist philosophies and the materialist underpinnings of science,but they were too deferential to science to criticize the theory of evolution as being materialist in itself.

You just provided proof for my statement that you do not understand the thinking of Popes John Paul and Benedict.

The popes have not criticized evolution theory per se because evolution science is not materialist. Their position has nothing to do with being “too deferential to science.” I don’t know where you get your mistaken ideas, but since you do not understand the Vatican’s view about evolution theory, there is nothing more to talk about.

 

[itinerant1]

I wasn’t talking about the abuse of science and philosophy,I was acknowledging the reality that science and philosophy are shaped according to the intrests and inclinations of those who practice them. The reason why I don’t make the acedemic distinctions between science and philosophy that you do is because I do not find that those distinctions hold in the history of those professions,nor do they hold in the present time.

The truth is you seem to know almost nothing about the history of science or philosophy. And you do not make the necessary distinctions required by the subject matter because you do not have any background in science or philosophy that would enable you to make proper judgements on any relevant issue.

You merely repeat and rationalize your unfounded and unsupportable assumptions. Also, you consistently fail to present any suppporting logical argument or cite appropriate authority for anything you have said. So far, the best you have done is to misrepresent the thinking of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

I regret having to say this, but I find discussing anyone’s opinions, for which there are no supporting facts presented, to be a mere waste of time.

 

[anthony022071]

You just provided proof for my statement that you do not understand the thinking of Popes John Paul and Benedict.

The popes have not criticized evolution theory per se because evolution science is not materialist. Their position has nothing to do with being “too deferential to science.” I don’t know where you get your mistaken ideas, but since you do not understand the Vatican’s view about evolution theory, there is nothing more to talk about.

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.

 

[anthony022071]

The truth is you seem to know almost nothing about the history of science or philosophy. And you do not make the necessary distinctions required by the subject matter because you do not have any background in science or philosophy that would enable you to make proper judgements on any relevant issue.

Scientists themselves do not make the acedemic distinctions that you make between science and philosophy. They just don’t speak that language. It is irrelevant to their profession,as far as they are concerned. In practice,they don’t take heed of what acedemic philosophers say are the formal and material objects of science.

You merely repeat and rationalize your unfounded and unsupportable assumptions. Also, you consistently fail to present any suppporting logical argument or cite appropriate authority for anything you have said. So far, the best you have done is to misrepresent the thinking of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

I regret having to say this, but I find discussing anyone’s opinions, for which there are no supporting facts presented, to be a mere waste of time.

You haven’t shown where my assumptions are unfounded or where my arguments are illogical. You just keep on telling me that I don’t understand science and philosophy.

Pope Benedict,in his books “In the Beginning” and “Truth and Tolerance”,speaks of evolution theory as a world-view and a “first philosophy”.

 

[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.

Yawn…

 

[anthony022071]

What would be the point of collecting data without interpreting it?

I wasn’t arguing against interpreting data,I was arguing against naturalistic interpretations.

The scientific method has three steps - observe something in nature, make a guess about how it works, and then test the guess as far as you possibly can.

That process means natural science is not so much about proving truths as avoiding falsities - you can never know whether your good guess, a.k.a. theory, uncovers some absolute truth but only whether it works in practice.

All theories are tentative as a result, including your example about ancestry. A better guess may be made in future with more data.

Science begins with a falsity – that all natural phenomena can be adequately explained with natural causes alone. And this leads to false scientific theories. The usefulness of a hypothesis or theory for further research does not justify it. Science should be about the pursuit of the truth or facts of nature. It should not hold to hypotheses or theories because of their usefulness for further research.

That’s not a judgment, it’s just another guess, and would be falsified when and if something is found that can’t be explained by nature alone.

The naturalistic point of view isn’t just a guess,it’s the operational hypothesis of science,and so scientists have no intention of trying to test it. Everything can indeed be explained according to natural causes alone,if one wants to do so,but the explanations will not always be adequate. That is,they will not always hold up to logical thinking.

 

[Coleski]

You are right in your general assertion. All human logical systems end up running against the unproven postulates. A simple series of and then what questions ends in the theorist saying you just have to take that as a given. Right now the physics will eventually explain everything proponents argue that well science just hasn’t gotten that far but it will. They will say people used to think thunder was caused by gods until science discovered the real cause, etc. 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. Yet even in our own world many things can’t be explained such as why something is beautiful in music or art. Try explaining a great work of art with mathematical formulas and dry scientific answers. I love math and science but I don’t expect it to explain any more than rather simple systems with accuracy and precision. Which is why humans use simple shapes like squares and circles and their three dimensional analogs like cubes and spheres when we build things. There is no escaping the limits of the individual human intellect and the collective organization capacities of humans. We can go only so far and no further. So read any great scientist or philosopher and you ultimately end up with opinion based on faith just as much so as the God believing theologian. No I say those who stop with science are even more limited. A big secret that the top physicists know is the the great discoveries are becoming harder and harder to come by. Even Einstiens general relativity theory can be used to come up with numerous solutions and Einstein himself played with constants changing them arbitratily to fit what he wanted to be the result. We often know but can’t explain why to the sceptic.

 

[inocente]

Everything can indeed be explained according to natural causes alone,if one wants to do so,but the explanations will not always be adequate.

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. 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.

That is,they will not always hold up to logical thinking.

Are there any proven theories that are illogical? Anyway, nature doesn’t have to be logical, we can’t tell it to be logical.

 

[inocente]

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.

They don’t know. We shouldn’t have any faith in them at all, no matter how famous they are, until they have run some successful tests – and last time I looked, there wasn’t even one thing that could be tested.

Yet even in our own world many things can’t be explained such as why something is beautiful in music or art. Try explaining a great work of art with mathematical formulas and dry scientific answers.

The golden ratio is intriguing though. Start with Wikipedia if it’s new to you.

There is no escaping the limits of the individual human intellect and the collective organization capacities of humans. We can go only so far and no further.

Agreed. We’re not God and can never know whether our understanding is the absolute truth.

 

[inocente]

At the present time,neurobiologists are attepting to provide an explanation for the belief in God according to natural causes alone,which would,of course,render the belief in God irrational.

If you were thinking of Kapogiannis et al. Feb-2010, it’s fairly tame despite the headlines. They found that we think about God the same as we think about anything else. In other words, faith is not a malfunction or virus as some pontificating atheists would claim. The work never questions faith, the supernatural or the existence of God.

All science has to do to contradict the doctrine of creation and divine providence is explain all phenomena according to natural causes alone.

Oh, is that all