The Science Delusion. 10 dogmas of modern science

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve never heard a definition of “empiricist” quite like that before. You’ve basically defined it to be any (imaginary) individual that you don’t like. I say “imaginary” because I’ve been in college for a while now and I haven’t heard a professor ridicule religion even once. In fact, most of my professors have been religious.

I have personal experience and the witness of well know professionals whom I trust. Your problem is that you are not open to instruction or you are one of those who have been successfully indoctrinated.

But go on and keep fighting the good fight against invisible foes if you wish.[/QOTE]

They are quite visible, have you been asleep for the last fifty years?

Also, I’m not going to spend 1 to 2 hours watching astrology. Why don’t you go watch Religulous

?

Not astrology, but the science of astronomy.
Like I said, you are not open to instruction. No truth on the side of believers, right? Ostresize them, close the public square, right?

Linus2nd.

 

[Catolico65]

The section you quoted was a response to claims you made about how the universe came to be, i.e., cosmology, not evolution.

Thanks you. Have you studied physics yet?

Journalistic tripe on the news is perfectly reliable, though?

You should study the term legal precedence. BTW, what is your background in research and statitics?

I question your reading comprehension. I said it is taught with few applications. This is done with many concepts in high school and introductory college courses. For example, integrals are taught as if they merely represent area under a curve or volume under a surface. Their applications obviously extend far beyond that.

Please explain your background in physics.

But if Fox News tells me that those atheistic scientists are being really, really naughty, I should accept that unquestioningly? Gotcha. I’ll keep your, err…“wisdom” in mind.

It would appear that you are uncomfortable being different than the majority or of learning from perspectives that could challenge your preconceptions.BTW, I don’t read Fox news.

You made a claim about mainstream science in classrooms, not debaters or forum members. You were wrong. Admit it and move on.

Thanks for the clarification. Regarding forums and the like, what is your opinion that homosexuality is so frequently claimed to be biological without bothering to reference studies nor much less understand them?

What a simplistic worldview. Everything is either all in your head or genetically predetermined.

I prefer science to emotion.

It seems more likely to me that sexual preference exists on a continuum rather than discrete categories. Bisexuality attests to this.

This appears to be your opinion. Nonetheless, homosexuality is temporary in the majority of cases. Given that people who suffer from SSA don’t change overnight the obvious implication is that they desire both sexes sexually.

Then cite a Supreme Court case that proves how we evil atheists are abolishing Christianity.

As long as you are unwilling to leave your comfort zone regarding what you read you won’t hear about cases. Not all are supreme court cases of course, but there are a few.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree to what you write here, though I haven’t watched the video, and of the names you mention, I’m only familiar with Jaki who I admire philosophically as well as scientifically.

However, it’s important to remember that Jaki’s criticism against the phenomenon we call scientism (which is what I think you mean by empiricism, or am I wrong?) also hits “theologism” (if that’s a word). The main fallacy of the scientism crowd is that they think natural sciences, which are only concerned with the material, can tell us something about the metaphysical. At the same time, the “theologism” crowd think theology, which is mainly concerned with the metaphysical, can tell us something about the material world. Both of those ideas constitute category mistakes.

Which is why I cringe just as much when I see the Christian (mainly Protestant) trying to use the Bible as a science textbook, as I do when I see the Atheist trying to use natural sciences to disprove God. Both fallacies are manifestations of ideology, defined as letting a particular science become the all-explaining/“omnipotent” science. Philosophy, however, transcends science, and can hence say something about other sciences, but philosophers should know their boundaries too - they tend to embarrass themselves when attempting to use quantum physics for philosophical purpose, for example. Note that I know less than I wish I did about quantum physics, but I have this from a physicist

I’m not sure if I’m one of the skeptics you were referring to, but either way, I certainly am a skeptic, toward science (at least!) as much as everything else. I’ve spent too much time with “brains in a vat”-style arguments to think of empirical science as definitive in any way. If I weren’t Catholic, I wouldn’t even believe in the existence of an external world. But when discussing science, I (do my best to) do so within the boundaries of science, since its domain doesn’t converge with theology, and not really with philosophy either. The ethics surrounding science surely does, but ethics of science isn’t science, it’s something that governs science. The same goes for methods of science - the current scientific method came into existence because of philosophy, and philosophy may very well (or probably will) be the discipline to change that at some point in the future.

Interestingly, my views make some Atheists (and even some Catholics) see me as a horribly conservative, superstitious and irrational person, while some religious see me as a horribly liberal, secularized closet atheist. Which is both entertaining and frustrating, but then I guess pleasing no one (or well… “few”, I guess - I know some like minded people) is better than pleasing everyone…

No, I wasn’t thinking of you but there are those who reject philosophical reasoning after the mode of St. Thomas.

Linus2nd

 

[Oreoracle]

Thanks you. Have you studied physics yet?

You should study the term legal precedence. BTW, what is your background in research and statitics?

Please explain your background in physics.

Three attempts in a row at an appeal to authority! What is your background in evolutionary biology?

It would appear that you are uncomfortable being different than the majority or of learning from perspectives that could challenge your preconceptions.

I belong to a group (atheists) that makes up 5% of the U.S. population and is frequently targeted by the 80% Christian majority as if we were monsters. Tell me more about how I succumb to the majority’s whims.

Regarding forums and the like, what is your opinion that homosexuality is so frequently claimed to be biological without bothering to reference studies nor much less understand them?

In all fairness, most people don’t understand the studies they cite. I’m sure an individual such as yourself, the pinnacle of human perfection, has never once made a generalization or oversimplification whilst referencing vague studies and decisions, like Supreme Court cases.

This appears to be your opinion. Nonetheless, homosexuality is temporary in the majority of cases.

And I am willing to concede that it could be temporary (as for the frequency of its transience, that’s debatable). The human body changes with ageing, after all.

As long as you are unwilling to leave your comfort zone regarding what you read you won’t hear about cases. Not all are supreme court cases of course, but there are a few.

So basically you’re admitting that you have nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Challenge accepted.

I’m assuming you mean that nature is considered to follow a certain set of rules. This is indeed an assumption that is made in science, but it’s a necessary one in my opinion. The alternative is that the universe does not behave according to rules, which makes the world fundamentally unpredictable and unintelligible. If this assumption is wrong, you might as well give up trying to understand anything.

Yes, it is a self-fact of human experience supported by both Philosophy and Science, and it was Aristotle who first defended it both in his Physics and his Metaphysics.

That depends on your definition of “memory”. If we define it to be material, it tautologically will have material consequences for its existence. If we define it in a waffly philosophical manner, then it won’t. Simple as that.

" Waffly, " is a prejudicial ad hominem. Naturally it appears mysterious to those who don’t take the pains to look into it.

Linus2nd

 

[Oreoracle]

You cannot reason under the assumption that everything requires demonstration or can be controverted. At some point you need a basis for proceeding: i.e., something that is not falsifiable or subject to demonstration, otherwise you would have an infinite regress and it would be impossible to prove or demonstrate anything. There must be at least one self-evident principle.

I agree, every system of thought requires axioms. The scientific method makes certain assumptions. Everything afterward must be falsifiable, however.

We do the same thing with math. We make some initial assumptions, but everything afterward requires proof. (Of course, proof and evidence are different.)

In trying to deny the claim that you assumed that science wasn’t in the business of determining the purpose of things, you appeal to another dubious assumption (i.e. that everything proposed in science must be theoretically falsifiable, with the curious exception of the assertion itself, which is quite falsifiable, as science would be impossible if we could never get off home plate).

It’s not an assumption, it’s the definition of “science”. “Science” is defined to require falsifiability, just as logic requires rules of inference. Again, you could make similar criticisms of math. It is assumed that all propositions should require proof, but we make exceptions for the axioms. That’s the price we pay for axioms, but they’re necessary sacrifices.

Are you seriously pretending to believe that to claim, for example, that a human hand is not intended for being roasted in a fire somehow can not be demonstrated or grounded in reasons and observations? I think that is beyond silly. Why don’t we use our eyes to taste things?

You’re confusing purpose for use. Just because you use an organ for some goal doesn’t imply that the organ was created with that goal in mind. In fact, it doesn’t even prove any creation occurred.

And even if there were some purpose, there’s no objective reason why we ought to care about that purpose. If someone gives birth just to consume their own offspring, that doesn’t mean that purpose is a suitable basis for the morality of child care. Likewise, if some powerful being created me, the notion that I ought to care about his opinion is in itself a matter of opinion.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Right, but it cannot explain why art is beautiful. This is because math is not in the business of aesthetics. “Beauty” is philosophical talk.

1. Math is very much in the business of aesthetics.
2. You don’t need to be a philosopher to admit beauty into your “talk”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Likewise, if some powerful being created me, the notion that I ought to care about his opinion is in itself a matter of opinion.

Because his opinion is not falsifiable, does that mean you don’t have to care about his opinion unless you want to?

You must be totally contemptuous of philosophy as well as God.

 

[Oreoracle]

Because his opinion is not falsifiable, does that mean you don’t have to care about his opinion unless you want to?

You make it sound as if I’m discriminating against God or something. This would be true of any normative statement, regardless of who makes it.

No amount of authority will make a normative statement objective, just as no amount of authority will make 2+2=5 under the usual rules for arithmetic.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

I agree, every system of thought requires axioms. The scientific method makes certain assumptions.

Alright, but an assumption isn’t necessarily axiomatic and this admits a problem, as you later say,

“Alright but even axioms require grounding as to why we ought to believe them. Axioms are normally demonstrated.”

I am not sure how you reconcile these beliefs.

Everything afterward must be falsifiable, however.

Problematic. Are you saying that science has (let us say) x,y and z axiomatic assumptions (?) but beyond this it is impossible to have, add or find more? Or are you saying that scientists are especially blessed such that whatever assumptions they make are necessarily axiomatic?

And what happens, for example, when an alleged scientist insists on demanding proof for what is really self-evident or axiomatic, denying it simply because it can’t be falsified?

But I am not sure why we are even having this debate as teleology doesn’t mean we can’t be wrong about the specific final causes of things but that things do have final causes can be demonstrated or there is evidence to prove their existence or reality.

It’s not an assumption, it’s the definition of “science”. “Science” is defined to require falsifiability…

But as you would agree not everything in science can possibly be subject to falsification and even to claim so would be to produce something in science that is not subject to falsification and we are back at the same problem I pointed out in my previous post.

Again, you could make similar criticisms of math. It is assumed that all propositions should require proof, but we make exceptions for the axioms. That’s the price we pay for axioms, but they’re necessary sacrifices.

That is most certainly not the way axioms and self-evident principles operate in science or philosophy. They’re not “sacrifices” we make in order to do science or philosophy: they are the legitimate bases and grounds for doing science and philosophy.

You’re confusing purpose for use.

But that again assumes that there is no reason for why we use certain things the way we use them. Moreover, that we use things a certain way doesn’t mean the way we use it is what it was intended for by nature. But man by nature is master over nature.

All living organisms that we see generated and which grow are seen to follow a pattern or blueprint such that the preceding stages of development occur for the subsequent ones until an adult or mature specimen is finally realized and capable of reproducing itself and, through itself, its own kind. In other words, each stage of development is for the adult which no longer develops but rather either ages until it finally dies or is killed; otherwise, it would remain as an adult. Now there can certainly be adaptions or variations but the basic procedure always remains the same. If we deny teleology in nature then we can’t make sense of why animals reach a certain point of biological development then cease: organisms would have no goal or goals they are intrinsically striving to reach or manifest. In which case they would be utterly random and aimless; this, however, is not what we observe.

Moreover, “use” makes no sense without reference to what something is being used for. You just end up going in circles.

Every explanation of the natural world ultimately resorts to and admits final causes or teleology of some kind because - as Aristotle rightly observed - we don’t believe we have an intelligible account or explanation of a phenomenon until something functioning as a final cause is produced.

Just because you use an organ for some goal doesn’t imply that the organ was created with that goal in mind.

It implies just that.

In fact, it doesn’t even prove any creation occurred.

Let’s avoid a digression and just speak of things naturally generated.

And even if there were some purpose, there’s no objective reason why we ought to care about that purpose.

There most emphatically is.

When we use things wrongly there are consequences and, for mortals, the possibility of sickness, disease, disorders and even death. If we use things that aren’t food for food, we will suffer and die. Hence we do not eat dirt or asphalt; and please don’t bother trying to convince us that our reasons for not eating asphalt are purely subjective or, with the reverse implication, there is no reason to eat anything at all as hunger serves no apparent purpose except a purely “subjective” one.

If someone gives birth just to consume their own offspring, that doesn’t mean that purpose is a suitable basis for the morality of child care.

I am not sure what your meaning is here.

Offspring are not meant to be food for their parents. They are meant to proliferate and continue the species. That is the purpose of procreation.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . matter is conscious of matter.

If you wouldn’t mind providing a falsifiable hypothesis so that we may validate such an odd claim.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The Star of Bethelehem by Rick Larson, youtube.com/watch?v=zPHKg0M3mEo

Fascinating! Thx. There are definitely "more things in heaven and earth … than are dreamt of in (my) philosophy.

 

[Oreoracle]

Alright, but an assumption isn’t necessarily axiomatic and this admits a problem, as you later say,

“Alright but even axioms require grounding as to why we ought to believe them. Axioms are normally demonstrated.”

I don’t seem to recall when I said that. Indeed, we needn’t have a rationale for axioms at all. I can explain if you’ll forgive a small digression:

Are you acquainted with non-Euclidean geometries? In Euclidean geometry, we assume what is called the parallel postulate, which says that given any line and any point not on the line, there exists exactly one line which passes through the point and is parallel to the original line. One can derive different (and extremely useful) geometries by assuming that there are no parallel lines or that there are infinitely many parallel lines. Obviously we can’t provide intuitive justifications for each of these axioms without contradicting ourselves, since they aren’t consistent with each other. The fact that assumptions which feel wrong can be just as useful as the ones that feel right tells us that our intuition is overrated.

However, I will nonetheless answer your question. The axioms that make the scientific method possible can be defended mainly for two reasons: 1) We already know for a fact that science works very well, so obviously we’re doing something right. 2) No other system of thought has explained and predicted phenomena with the accuracy that has been attained by science. In short, science has proven itself to be our best bet for understanding the world. It may not be perfect, but no one seems to be offering any alternatives that are better.

I know that doesn’t sound very satisfying because we are defending the axioms after they are proposed, but I would again appeal to my example of differing geometries. We don’t really know what a useful choice of axioms will be until we’ve used the system and demonstrated its usefulness. Non-Euclidean geometries were decried as useless until they formed the basis for the Theory of Relativity.

Problematic. Are you saying that science has (let us say) x,y and z axiomatic assumptions (?) but beyond this it is impossible to have, add or find more? Or are you saying that scientists are especially blessed such that whatever assumptions they make are necessarily axiomatic?

It’s possible to propose more axioms, certainly. But making more assumptions than one needs is to be discouraged.

Maybe you could give me a better idea of where you’re coming from by answering this: Which assumptions made by the scientific method do you feel are expendable? Are we proposing any unnecessary restraints?

And what happens, for example, when an alleged scientist insists on demanding proof for what is really self-evident or axiomatic, denying it simply because it can’t be falsified?

Then the competing system of thought can feel free to demonstrate its usefulness by explaining phenomena at least as effectively as science. Intelligent design has had ages to trump evolution, for example, but it hasn’t explained anything that couldn’t already be explained more simply by evolution.

That is most certainly not the way axioms and self-evident principles operate in science or philosophy. They’re not “sacrifices” we make in order to do science or philosophy: they are the legitimate bases and grounds for doing science and philosophy.

The “sacrifice” I was speaking of is that we have to concede that there are propositions which cannot be demonstrated (although the propositions that cannot be proven differ from system to system). This is certainly a sacrifice for philosophy, a discipline which admonishes us to question everything. The axioms cannot be questioned in a system of thought without circularity.

But that again assumes that there is no reason for why we use certain things the way we use them. Moreover, that we use things a certain way doesn’t mean the way we use it is what it was intended for by nature. But man by nature is master over nature.

Well the idea that humans determine the purpose and not nature is a matter of opinion. For instance, let’s say a teen gets a new car. The parents intend for the teen to run errands with the car, and the teen intends to drive with his buddies. What is the “purpose” of the car? Somewhere along the line you’ll need to subjectively choose the parents’ will over the teen’s or vice-versa. There is no objective way to demonstrate that the parents’ purpose supersedes the teen’s, or indeed that the car dealer’s purpose shouldn’t supersede them both.

Let’s avoid a digression and just speak of things naturally generated.

Fair enough. A beaver uses logs to build a dam. Did the logs exist for the purpose of being used by the beaver, or is the beaver’s use of the logs merely incidental?

 

[Rin]

This is one of the sad consequences I think of the parting of ways between science and philosophy. This assertion is biased in favour of scepticism. You cannot reason under the assumption that everything requires demonstration or can be controverted. At some point you need a basis for proceeding: i.e., something that is not falsifiable or subject to demonstration, otherwise you would have an infinite regress and it would be impossible to prove or demonstrate anything. There must be at least one self-evident principle.

In trying to deny the claim that you assumed that science wasn’t in the business of determining the purpose of things, you appeal to another dubious assumption (i.e. that everything proposed in science must be theoretically falsifiable, with the curious exception of the assertion itself, which is quite falsifiable, as science would be impossible if we could never get off home plate).

No, it’s a consequence of science still being governed by philosophy.

Falsificationism was introduced because philosophers arrived at the conclusion that verification (which was seen as a requirement by logical positivists/verificationists) within the hypothetico-deductive method is impossible, since the method itself constitutes a formal logical error if used for verification. It is, however, valid for falsification. So the goal in any experimental science is to falsify the hypothesis, and if that doesn’t happen, the hypothesis is seen as probable. Very simplistically said, of course.

That said, falsification isn’t really possible either - while the method is valid for falsification, you never know exactly which hypothesis you falsified. It could always be you falsified an auxiliary hypothesis, even something as simple as “this measuring equipment works”. But still, you can take measures to make the falsification of auxiliary hypotheses improbable. So falsificationism works well enough that the possibility of falsification still is a formal requirement for a hypothesis to be considered scientifically.

Due to the possible problem of the falsification of auxiliary hypotheses, though, there’s the additional requirement of consensus. To call something a theory, you need massive evidence (non-falsification, if you wish), and consensus among scientists within the field. Then there’s also (it seems to me, this part is my observation and not a philosophical one) “temporary consensus”, which exists when the scientific community deems a working hypothesis the most probable or interesting one. Consensus within those areas tend to shift a lot and/or be divided, as opposed to the above-mentioned theories, that effectively constitute paradigms and hence will need massive counter-evidence to be abolished. Evolution being one of them, by the way.

The thing some people in both camps seem to not get, is that science is never definitive, by its very nature. Science can’t make definitive claims, it can only make claims of probability. Even evolution, which is seen by most (including me) as a fact, could be disproved some time in the future. It probably won’t happen, however.

Are you seriously pretending to believe that to claim, for example, that a human hand is not intended for being roasted in a fire somehow can not be demonstrated or grounded in reasons and observations? I think that is beyond silly. Why don’t we use our eyes to taste things? Is the question “What are eyes meant for?” necessarily unsolvable? Is not the answer, “in order to see,” obvious? Or why do living things mate? For what purpose? Is there no answer to this question or is it simply that scientists are necessarily incapable of answering it? But then I feel compelled to ask just what exactly the scientist is supposed to be for.

Again. Are you saying we can’t concern ourselves in science with purposes because you can’t falsify a claim to the effect that my tongue is meant for seeing things?

You are confusing “purpose” with “use”. You are also confusing philosophy and empirical science. “Use” is a statistical question. Human hands are rarely held in fire, since that would destroy the hand. I very much doubt there’s a teleological components to this - hands don’t have an innate purpose to be kept away from fire. Neither do yarns have an innate purpose to be played with by cats. Yet, hands are kept out of fire when possible, and yarns played with by cats when discovered by one.

By “purpose”, most people think of teleology - are we created with the purpose to “know and love God”, to “know ourselves”, or is there no teleology at all, as in, do we simply exist, die and disappear without purpose? Those questions can’t be answered by empirical science, nor does science try to answer them. That would be a category mistake, since the scientific method can only be applied to the material world, and teleology is metaphysical. They’re philosophical questions. The same goes for the methodological statements above - the scientific method exists because of philosophical discussion, and hence can’t be criticized for being “non-scientific”, simply because no one ever said they were.

Edit: clarification

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Fascinating! Thx. There are definitely "more things in heaven and earth … than are dreamt of in (my) philosophy.

Thanks. Have your son take a look at it, he may want to make use of it. I am a little surprised that " doubters " will not take the time to view it. I guess that just means they are afraid they may see something which will force them to make some very painful adjustments to their thinking - like Divine Revelation is a fact, that Christ is a fact, etc.
They ask for evidence and proof, but when it is offered, they run and hide. This is why St. Paul said, they have no excuses.

Linus2nd

 

[Oreoracle]

If you wouldn’t mind providing a falsifiable hypothesis so that we may validate such an odd claim.

Sure, but first we need a suitable definition of “consciousness”. Since I was not the one to drag consciousness into the discussion, it seems unfair to force me to guess the definition you guys would like me to work with. So feel free to offer a definition.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I don’t seem to recall when I said that. Indeed, we needn’t have a rationale for axioms at all. I can explain if you’ll forgive a small digression:

Are you acquainted with non-Euclidean geometries? In Euclidean geometry, we assume what is called the parallel postulate, which says that given any line and any point not on the line, there exists exactly one line which passes through the point and is parallel to the original line. One can derive different (and extremely useful) geometries by assuming that there are no parallel lines or that there are infinitely many parallel lines. Obviously we can’t provide intuitive justifications for each of these axioms without contradicting ourselves, since they aren’t consistent with each other. The fact that assumptions which feel wrong can be just as useful as the ones that feel right tells us that our intuition is overrated.

That fact - that our cognitive apparatus, both physical (the brain and the rest of the CNS) and non-physical (consciousness), which under a materialist view evolved without outside direction did not evolve to recognize truthful propositions, only useful ones, also means that based on a materialist worldview, we can have no basis for concluding that any of the products of that cognitive apparatus can be recognized as “true” propositions, or even that an objective “truth” exists, as Alvin Plantinga has demonstrated.

Natural selection, under a materialist view, only selects for that which increases DNA transmission and survival, not the ability to recognize an objectively true proposition. A frog’s cognitive apparatus only recognizes the movement of food sources and potential dangers. Other objects are simply not seen or recognized. That does not mean that the frog’s perception is “true,” just because that is a useful method for it to survive. On materialism, one can not even argue that humans have a superior, or “more true” cognitive capacity, by attempting to use an outmoded Victorian-era view of the “Tree of Life” to argue that we are the end result of natural selection, and thus favored. Frogs, which far outnumber man, or even trilobites, which existed for far longer than humanity and in greater numbers, by sheer mathematics could be said to be more favored by natural selection than humanity. On materialism, one evolved cognitive mode cannot be said to be any more true than another.

Materialism is self-defeating, even in arguing for the basis of materialism.

Only if we accept the proposition that humans - including our cognitive apparatus - were designed to seek and recognize objective truth by an outside designer, other than the brute force of the random collision of atoms and genes, can we say that an objective basis for truth exists.

 

[Oreoracle]

That fact - that our cognitive apparatus, both physical (the brain and the rest of the CNS) and non-physical (consciousness), which under a materialist view evolved without outside direction did not evolve to recognize truthful propositions, only useful ones, also means that based on a materialist worldview, we can have no basis for concluding that any of the products of that cognitive apparatus can be recognized as “true” propositions, or even that an objective “truth” exists, as Alvin Plantinga has demonstrated.

That depends on your definition of “true”. In math, “true” roughly means “provable from the axioms”. (This is a bit of an oversimplification. See Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem for details.) This means that any claims of truth are only being made relative to a specified set of axioms. There is no “correct” set of axioms, since one cannot prove one’s choice of axioms without using circular reasoning.

Thus, you and I could propose different sets of axioms, each set being internally consistent. Your axioms are false in my system, and mine are false in your system. Neither of us is “correct” in any objective way, since math’s definition of “truth” only lets us analyze claims after we have already made a choice of axioms. Thus we can only determine who is right after choosing who will be right, which is a circular argument.

The “tl;dr” version: We can’t objectively determine truth because we can’t objectively determine axioms. The choice of axioms is arbitrary, and this choice determines what is “true” within a framework.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

No, it’s a consequence of science still being governed by philosophy.

I don’t agree with this at all but let’s see your reasons for this.

Falsificationism was introduced because philosophers arrived at the conclusion that verification (which was seen as a requirement by logical positivists/verificationists) within the hypothetico-deductive method is impossible,

This seems problematic. I don’t see why you couldn’t verify an hypothesis through replication, testing or experimentation.

So the goal in any experimental science is to falsify the hypothesis, and if that doesn’t happen, the hypothesis is seen as probable.

I think Oreoracle and I covered the problem with this. It conceals circular reasoning at best and fails to provide a basis for science. And again at the least its actually scepticism: you’re saying that no matter how many tests or experiments we do, we can never have satisfactory amount of proof or verification for an hypothesis. Eventually you have to move on from one thing to another.

That said, falsification isn’t really possible either - while the method is valid for falsification, you never know exactly which hypothesis you falsified.

?

It could always be you falsified an auxiliary hypothesis, even something as simple as “this measuring equipment works”. But still, you can take measures to make the falsification of auxiliary hypotheses improbable. So falsificationism works well enough that the possibility of falsification still is a formal requirement for a hypothesis to be considered scientifically.

Again as Oreoracle and I were discussing science at some point in such a system must admit, probably by or in general assumptions, certain things before proceeding on this course.

And I’m not sure how you can say that falsification is both possible and not possible in the same breathe:

"falsification isn’t really possible either "

“So falsificationism works well enough that the possibility of falsification still is a formal requirement for a hypothesis”

This is just ridiculous and makes science look ridiculous.

science is never definitive, by its very nature.

I disagree. Again at some point you need some definitions or else you can’t operate or proceed.

Science can’t make definitive claims, it can only make claims of probability.

A lot of knowledge can be just probabilities but it all can’t be.

Even evolution, which is seen by most (including me) as a fact, could be disproved some time in the future. It probably won’t happen, however.

It either happens or it doesn’t: it either can happen or it can’t.

You are confusing “purpose” with “use”.

I addressed this allegation in another post.

You are also confusing philosophy and empirical science.

A difference largely only of procedure. Regardless, even science has to be logical (as does philosophy, of course). I’m not ready to admit multiple “knowledges” that are contradictory and irreconcilable.

“Use” is a statistical question.

Now that’s a new one.

Human hands are rarely held in fire,

This is completely beside the point. There’s a reason why we don’t put our hands in fire. That destroys our hands. However, we can see with our eyes and hear with our ears and never experience even fatigue from such use. Eyes are meant for seeing and ears for hearing; hands, if put into a fire, will burn and be destroyed. You can’t use them for that purpose because it’s just no the purpose of hands.

since that would destroy the hand. I very much doubt there’s a teleological components to this

Arguably there is one to be drawn - see above.

hands don’t have an innate purpose to be kept away from fire.

But think about it. It’s not hard to see how being oriented to one thing precludes the possibility of doing others. It’s like taking raw resources and designating what you will use for them: using them for some x’s excludes being able to use them for some y’s; or, in other words, being for x by its nature means being not for y.

Neither do yarns have an innate purpose to be played with by cats.

No of course not. But a cat’s playing with yarn doesn’t necessarily annul the nature of the yarn. If it did, then we would definitely say that’s it not the purpose of yarn to be played with by cats, as that would destroy it; and a thing is useless, as such, once it is destroyed.

By “purpose”, most people think of teleology - are we created with the purpose to “know and love God”, to “know ourselves”, or is there no teleology at all, as in, do we simply exist, die and disappear without purpose? Those questions can’t be answered by empirical science, nor does science try to answer them. That would be a category mistake, since the scientific method can only be applied to the material world, and teleology is metaphysical.

But teleology is classically supposed to be an operative cause in natural phenomenon.

Thanks for this discussion. At the very least wen participants are being serious and honest we tend to make progress in understanding and I think Oreoracle and yourself are good dialogue partners here.

 

[Aloysium]

Thanks. Have your son take a look at it, he may want to make use of it. I am a little surprised that " doubters " will not take the time to view it. I guess that just means they are afraid they may see something which will force them to make some very painful adjustments to their thinking - like Divine Revelation is a fact, that Christ is a fact, etc.
They ask for evidence and proof, but when it is offered, they run and hide. This is why St. Paul said, they have no excuses.

Linus2nd

I sent him the link last night for Epiphany. He is a human factors engineer doing work and research on the human-machine interface, figuring out the whys of planes crashes, power plant nukings, car accidents, patients dying from their medication etc (proud dad here).
Among the interesting things that the video demonstrates is that God, in eternity, through events that happened over two thousand years ago, speaks to us by means of our technology, today.