Scientific skepticism

[Equites_Christi]

If this helps anyone on either side, I think I can boil down a contention of the Catholic posters here:

We argue that scientific theories are like this:

Say there is a machine, whose inner workings you cannot see. You theorize that if you put in a chicken, it will come out wearing a sombrero: and lo! it does. You construct explanations about the inner workings of the machine, and each prediction based on this explanation comes true. Most people would then say that they may safely conclude that the explanation is true. And we agree! I think we just would like the people to admit that this involves a tiny bit of - oh heavens don’t say it - faith, since the inner workings themselves have not been seen. It is a very reasonable faith indeed.

Honestly, I think the leap of faith everyone has to make is that the sensory data we receive corresponds to reality. Many people believe it, but don’t want to acknowledge that it is faith.

 

[Micorhizea]

…Honestly, I think the leap of faith everyone has to make is that the sensory data we receive corresponds to reality. Many people believe it, but don’t want to acknowledge that it is faith.

Hmmmm… It would seem to me that our human experience would be living proof that our sensory data is exactly what doesn’t correspond to reality. If there is a leap of faith to be made, it is that reality as it is is beyond our mind.

 

[greylorn]

If this helps anyone on either side, I think I can boil down a contention of the Catholic posters here:

We argue that scientific theories are like this:

Say there is a machine, whose inner workings you cannot see. You theorize that if you put in a chicken, it will come out wearing a sombrero: and lo! it does. You construct explanations about the inner workings of the machine, and each prediction based on this explanation comes true. Most people would then say that they may safely conclude that the explanation is true. And we agree! I think we just would like the people to admit that this involves a tiny bit of - oh heavens don’t say it - faith, since the inner workings themselves have not been seen. It is a very reasonable faith indeed.

Honestly, I think the leap of faith everyone has to make is that the sensory data we receive corresponds to reality. Many people believe it, but don’t want to acknowledge that it is faith.

This is one of the most ignorant comments I’ve read about science on CAF. It obviously comes from a non-scientist who has no clue about how science operates. Fortunately, ignorance, which is merely a lack of information, can be corrected with information. Let’s do that quickly before gullible people reading this thread think that your comments are valuable.

BTW, give up the pretentious, “We argue…” It’s you who are doing the arguing, no one else… Unless your wife or cat is coaching from the background, it’s just you making up this stuff. The singular first person pronoun applies. The regal “we” is especially inappropriate to an expression of opinions which are disconnected from reality.

Your chicken-sombrero analogy is absurd, no personal insult intended. Science does not work like your high school teachers may have explained it. Scientists test before arriving at theories about how some aspect of nature operates. Next, the theories are tested. Oftentimes they are accepted prematurely because there seems no better alternative, such as Big Bang theory and Darwinism, but in time these theories will be shown to be false.

Actually, they already have been shown false, but science is awaiting a better theory to replace them.

The most egregiously incorrect statement you’ve made is, “I think the leap of faith everyone has to make is that the sensory data we receive corresponds to reality.” That false belief is what kept people thinking that the universe revolved around the earth.

Human senses are the poorest recorders of reality imaginable. Our eyes, for example, can observe less than 0.001% of the known electromagnetic spectrum. Dogs smell better, and bats hear better.

Your opinions about faith and the workings of science, based upon my experiences with both, are, IMO, worthless.

 

[Sair]

One hears a lot about quantum physics, atoms, etc. What I wish to ask is what is the evidence we have of believing in any of those things.
Sure, the ‘priests’ of the self-validating ‘Church of Science’ sa**y they are true, but why should I believe them? The evidence on which they rely is either totally imperceptible, or purely theoretical. No person who is not a ‘believer’ already in the Church of Science has direct access to the evidence.

It would be like if the Catholic Church started saying “We have proof that God exists, but this is proof is accessible only to us. Moreover, it is written in a language you will not be able to understand unless you have already become a believer. Since we are the experts, you must just accept what we believe at face value.”

The alchemists, and ‘magicians’ of the past would have claimed ‘evidence’ for their findings- but they all turned out to be fictions, though no doubt they ‘worked’ on paper. Why should we give quantum physics any more credibility then alchemy?

No doubt people will reply, “the scientists have done tests”- yes, but with invisible or incomprehsible results- at least to me. No doubt the alchemists also “did tests” by their ‘experts’. Essentially, the people who do scientific tests are in the business of science. There is no stronger reason for a scientific sceptic to believe a scientist then there is for an atheist to believe a priest.

Why is it that people are so much more credible in believing the myths of science rather than the narratives of religion? Why are people hesitant to question “experts” on the science myth (i.e. scientist), but are so readily question experts on God (the theologians)?

When I can put my hand inside an atom or see the theory of relativity work with my own eyes, then I will believe…

Well, some things to consider from the outset are, firstly, that scientific investigation into things that we can’t directly see or touch have led to demonstrable outcomes, such as the curing and control of bacterial infections. Back in the Middle Ages, the best guess was that the plague was caused by “bad air”, by “miasma” - when in fact it was caused by bacterial infection, which we can’t directly experience with our senses, but which is very apparently controlled by hygienic practises (hand-washing, for example) and sometimes by the administering of antibiotic drugs.

After all, if you could put your hand inside an atom, you would be of a size undetectable to the human eye anyway!

The second thing to consider is that, unlike the historical practice of many organised religions, people are generally not persecuted, even now, in our highly scientifically-charged time in human history, for their beliefs regarding science. Sure, every week there is a new ‘scientific’ report into some behaviour that might be adversely affecting our health, and there are scientifically supported campaigns to promote things like healthy diets and vaccination, but as far as cosmology is concerned, I think it’s a fairly safe bet that no government or church tribunal will be calling you up any time soon because you’re sceptical about dark matter.

Science is progressive, not dogmatic and regressive. The whole idea is that the human race in general is on a voyage of discovery about the universe we inhabit, and any new item of ‘knowledge’ is open to question upon the uncovering of new evidence. Such is the way of science. It is a very, very different procedure to religion, despite how it can be - and has been - portrayed in the popular media.

 

[Sair]

That’s true. But, there could be alternative ‘scientific’ or pseudo-religious explanations- e.g. when certain conditions were met by the uranium, a demon of destruction from the other realm was summoned, thus producing the explosion.

My point is, alternative theories could be developed. At different times in history people thought lightning was bolt thrown by Zeus- is that a scientific theory? How do we know our scientific theories of today will not, in the future, seem like ‘Zeus throwing a bolt’?

Well, it comes down to repeatability and, to a large extent, observability.

If you were to replicate all the humanly and/or technologically controllable conditions for a uranium explosion, and it happened in every given instance, why would you need the additional explanation of the demon?

If you apply Occam’s razor - the idea that one does not unnecessarily multiply the entities involved in any given phenomenon - what need have you to posit the demon? If it comes down to brass tacks, and every single time the necessary conditions were met for the uranium to explode, how would you test for the presence or absence of the demon? If there were such a test, then you would be doing science.

The same goes for lightning - if all the necessary conditions can be met without positing a divine being with a good throwing arm, why not settle upon the simplest explanation? The only instances in which one would need to posit additional - one might say, mythological - factors at work is when a given phenomenon cannot be explained by controllable or observable factors.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**If you apply Occam’s razor - the idea that one does not unnecessarily multiply the entities involved in any given phenomenon - what need have you to posit the demon? **

William of Occam was a Franciscan priest. Occam never said there was no Spirit (or demon as you prefer to call God) behind the design of the universe. The Razor, as it has come to be called after him, was designed for reasoning about nature, but was not designed to preclude the belief that supernatural forces are at work creating and controlling nature.

Isaac Newton, for example, aptly applied the Razor. Yet he had not problem with God or Demon.

“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Isaac Newton

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

 

[LJH_80]

One hears a lot about quantum physics, atoms, etc. What I wish to ask is what is the evidence we have of believing in any of those things.
Sure, the ‘priests’ of the self-validating ‘Church of Science’ sa**y they are true, but why should I believe them? The evidence on which they rely is either totally imperceptible, or purely theoretical. No person who is not a ‘believer’ already in the Church of Science has direct access to the evidence.

It would be like if the Catholic Church started saying “We have proof that God exists, but this is proof is accessible only to us. Moreover, it is written in a language you will not be able to understand unless you have already become a believer. Since we are the experts, you must just accept what we believe at face value.”

The alchemists, and ‘magicians’ of the past would have claimed ‘evidence’ for their findings- but they all turned out to be fictions, though no doubt they ‘worked’ on paper. Why should we give quantum physics any more credibility then alchemy?

No doubt people will reply, “the scientists have done tests”- yes, but with invisible or incomprehsible results- at least to me. No doubt the alchemists also “did tests” by their ‘experts’. Essentially, the people who do scientific tests are in the business of science. There is no stronger reason for a scientific sceptic to believe a scientist then there is for an atheist to believe a priest.

Why is it that people are so much more credible in believing the myths of science rather than the narratives of religion? Why are people hesitant to question “experts” on the science myth (i.e. scientist), but are so readily question experts on God (the theologians)?

When I can put my hand inside an atom or see the theory of relativity work with my own eyes, then I will believe…

The fact that he is posting this on a computer over the internet amuses me greatly.

 

[Qoeleth]

Well, it comes down to repeatability and, to a large extent, observability.

If you were to replicate all the humanly and/or technologically controllable conditions for a uranium explosion, and it happened in every given instance, why would you need the additional explanation of the demon?

If you apply Occam’s razor - the idea that one does not unnecessarily multiply the entities involved in any given phenomenon - what need have you to posit the demon? If it comes down to brass tacks, and every single time the necessary conditions were met for the uranium to explode, how would you test for the presence or absence of the demon? If there were such a test, then you would be doing science.

The same goes for lightning - if all the necessary conditions can be met without positing a divine being with a good throwing arm, why not settle upon the simplest explanation? The only instances in which one would need to posit additional - one might say, mythological - factors at work is when a given phenomenon cannot be explained by controllable or observable factors.

It seems to me just as far-fetched to imagine that uranium is made of atoms, protons, neutrons and electrons, as it is to believe in a Demon. Indeed, if a tribe of primitive people saw an atomic bomb, I think they could more readily be convinced of the demon explanation than the atomic one! The same goes for lightning- the idea of someone throwing a bolt is the most obvious and simple one- it requires no complex mathematics, awareness of gases, voltages, etc.

 

[Qoeleth]

The fact that he is posting this on a computer over the internet amuses me greatly.

I think there is something mystical going on with computers. How can a tiny box hold so many pictures? How can it connect to other computers on the other side of the world? Applying Ockham’s Razor, the simplest explanation is that the computer screen is a magical window into another dimension of universe. That way, I do not introduce unnecessary entities like silicon chips, binary numbers, electrons, virtual reality, satellites in space, etc. etc., into my hypothesis. Frankly, these things are harder to believe than the “magical window into another dimension” explanation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I think there is something mystical going on with computers. How can a tiny box hold so many pictures? How can it connect to other computers on the other side of the world? Applying Ockham’s Razor, the simplest explanation is that the computer screen is a magical window into another dimension of universe. That way, I do not introduce unnecessary entities like silicon chips, binary numbers, electrons, virtual reality, satellites in space, etc. etc., into my hypothesis. Frankly, these things are harder to believe than the “magical window into another dimension” explanation.

I really like your sense of humor! Plays right into the Occam’s Razor paradox!

Even Einstein had reservations about Occam’s Razor.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hmmmm… It would seem to me that our human experience would be living proof that our sensory data is exactly what doesn’t correspond to reality. If there is a leap of faith to be made, it is that reality as it is is beyond our mind.

This is true. We only see some light not all light. We only hear some sound not all sound. We sense what we are able to sense insofar as that is how we are created. This raises a question as to how we experience in light of how we were created. Had there been necessity to experience beyond what we sense then we would have been created to do so. Do you not agree?

What you are saying is what Alfred Korzybski said “The Map is not the Territory”. What we percieve in our mind is a map of what is out there however what we have as a map in our minds is only a map and not what is out there.