What to do when contradiction happens?

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

furthermore the scientific method itself does not capture all there is to reality. And I’m not even including the supernatural in that

Leaving aside the ‘supernatural’ then, what is an example of a part of reality that cannot be subjected to the scientific method?

Qualitative aspects, purpose ethics, values.

Now, you can of course have people self-report and collect thag data, and you can measure for certain pre-determined criteria, and you can make rational judgments and interpretations based on the data, but these things are not directly measurable or quantifiable in themselves.

Furthermore you can’t apply the scientific method to it’s own presuppositions regarding causality without making a circular argument.

Physics and physical models are also in themselves mathematical abstractions of reality, not reality itself. Same with chemistry, etc… Things are boiled down to values which can be plugged into formulas, and it is instrumentally useful, and I would say even structurally real about reality, but they are no more capturing the full reality being modeled than does the blueprint of a building capture all there is about the building itself. And this paragraph isn’t just a matter of me being an Aristotlean with an axe to grind. Philisophers like Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead have made the same point.

 

[Sarcelle]

Sorry, the value determining the circumference of a circle from the value of the radius is NOT poetic.

I was referring to the Bible.

What’s with the geometry lesson?

 

[FiveLinden]

Qualitative aspects, purpose ethics, values

I am not sure why you say these cannot be subjected to the scientific method. One can for a hypothesis about any real human activity associated with these things (such as reported belief), observe the phenomenon, test the hypothesis and develop a theory whch can then be tested against later observations.

you can’t apply the scientific method to it’s own presuppositions regarding causality without making a circular argument.

Science is not philosophy. Science deals in the first instance with observations.

Physics and physical models are also in themselves mathematical abstractions of reality, not reality itself. Same with chemistry, etc…

Yup. Of course. But this does not demonstrate that there are things that cannot be subjected to the scientific method. It just says what abstraction is.

Can you give me an actual example of a thing you can observe (i.e. is not ‘supernatural’) that cannot be subject to the scientific method?

 

[Abrosz]

I was referring to the Bible.

So was I. Kings 7:23. “And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”

Even in those times people knew that the circumference of a circle is NOT three times of the diameter. (In other words, the value of “pi” is NOT 3.) The Chinese even had an incredibly precise approximation for the value of “pi”, they used 355/113. And this is just one example.

In other words, the text in the bible is contradicted by reality. And that is the question: what does one do in tat case?

 

[Abrosz]

And specifically, where the Bible is attempting to assert a scientific proposition, please!

Kings 7:23

 

[Pattylt]

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20

“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5

he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. ” — Job 7:9

“…the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth….” — John 5:28-29

Here are two to start with…

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Qualitative aspects, purpose ethics, values

I am not sure why you say these cannot be subjected to the scientific method. One can for a hypothesis about any real human activity associated with these things (such as reported belief), observe the phenomenon, test the hypothesis and develop a theory whch can then be tested against later observations.

The very next paragraph you cut out might enlighten you on what I meant. Maybe respond to that portion so I can see what you don’t understand about it.

you can’t apply the scientific method to it’s own presuppositions regarding causality without making a circular argument.

Science is not philosophy. Science deals in the first instance with observations.

See, I don’t get your confusion you express later, because right here you concede there are aspects of reality that the scientific method can’t be applied to. Again, the scientific method uses causality as an axiom. Is it a real feature of reality? If it is not and has no bearing on reality than why is the scientific method so powerful? If it is, then it’s something the scientific method cannot test or falsify in itself since the method presupposes it.

 

[Rau]

Miracles are not a problem for us atheists.

The context of the thread is that which is written in the Bible. Recall the OP: “And yet, many things in the bible are contradicted by science. How do you resolve these contradictions?”

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Thank you but I was asking the OP to provide examples of science conflicting with the spiritual, as his post asks.

 

[FiveLinden]

Now, you can of course have people self-report and collect thag data, and you can measure for certain pre-determined criteria, and you can make rational judgments and interpretations based on the data, but these things are not directly measurable or quantifiable in themselves.

This is the paragraph you referred me to. Remember I am asking you do identify something in the real world that cannot be subjected to the scientific method (you claimed the existence of such things). I’m afraid I have trouble understanding this paragraph as the term ‘these things’ appears to refer back to 'rational judgements and interpretations". These are, of course, directly measurable and quantifiable. In science this is part of psychology.

It might be simplest if you just pointed to an observable thing that you think cannot be subjected to the scientific method.

Again, the scientific method uses causality as an axiom. Is it a real feature of reality?

Does it? I am not entirely sure exactly what ‘causality’ in relation to science means. CAn you explain please? What part of the scientific method as usually understood uses this as an axiom? Could you give an example please? Say if its axiomatic use in the scientific understanding of speciation?

 

[Sarcelle]

Overlook it?

The Bible wasn’t meant to be a primer for maths.

It is the story of God and mankind, maths errors aside.

To focus on this error is to ignore the whole point of the Bible.

 

[FiveLinden]

The context of the thread is that which is written in the Bible. Recall the OP: “And yet, many things in the bible are contradicted by science. How do you resolve these contradictions?”

It can not be demonstrated to the level of a scientific observation that any of the miracles reported in the Bible happened.

 

[White_Tree]

We all know that the bible is not a science textbook. And yet, many things in the bible are contradicted by science. How do you resolve these contradictions?

Many things in science are contradicted by science.

Consider the conflict between general relativity and quantum field theory. These are two of the most successful and accurate theories in modern science, and yet they are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true, and yet they both seem impervious to any empirical attempt to disprove them.

How does one resolve this contradiction?

 

[fredystairs]

This is the paragraph you referred me to. Remember I am asking you do identify something in the real world that cannot be subjected to the scientific method (you claimed the existence of such things). I’m afraid I have trouble understanding this paragraph as the term ‘these things’ appears to refer back to 'rational judgements and interpretations". These are, of course, directly measurable and quantifiable. In science this is part of psychology.

It might be simplest if you just pointed to an observable thing that you think cannot be subjected to the scientific method.

How about Picket’s Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg? I don’t think that is repeatable.

Pax

 

[Abrosz]

Many things in science are contradicted by science.

Consider the conflict between general relativity and quantum field theory. These are two of the most successful and accurate theories in modern science, and yet they are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true, and yet they both seem impervious to any empirical attempt to disprove them.

How does one resolve this contradiction?

They deal with different parts of reality. The macro world is fundamentally different from the micro world. So there is no contradiction.

 

[Abrosz]

The Bible wasn’t meant to be a primer for maths.

Sure… and also for biology, or sociology, or astronomy. But the problem is that it is supposed to the word of God, so elementary errors cannot be overlooked.

 

[White_Tree]

They deal with different parts of reality. The macro world is fundamentally different from the micro world. So there is no contradiction.

Physicists would disagree with you. Macroscopic physical laws should be emergent properties of the microscopic laws. Hence, the vast amount of intellectual (and financial) capital being expended to find a “theory of everything,” thus far with no success.

Though if that truly is your answer to the contradiction in science, the obvious response to your original inquiry is that the Bible and materialistic science deal with different parts of reality. The spiritual world is fundamentally different from the physical world. So there is no contradiction.

Your words, answering your own question.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Leaving aside the ‘supernatural’ then, what is an example of a part of reality that cannot be subjected to the scientific method?

Dark matter and dark energy cannot be explained by current scientific knowledge/methods.

 

[Pattylt]

Oops, you’re right…sorry! :hugs:

 

[Pattylt]

Matthew 13:32:1 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
The mustard seed is not the smallest of seeds.

Sirach 17:6 says: “He gave them the ability to think, made a tongue, eyes and ears and gave them a heart to be able to think.”

We don’t think with our heart. It’s merely a pump.

We also have the incorrect order of creation that conflicts with science not even counting the two versions that conflict with each other.

Are these acceptable as conflicting with science?