What is Real Science?

@neologist,

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
With respect to the above note that pragmatism as advocated by Richard Rorty holds that the "realism - antirealism debate" in science is futile. That might be summarized as "what matters is what works".

0 Replies

@FBM,

I'm not totally comfortable using the word 'force'. Isaiah refers to his 'dynamic energy' - Isaiah 40:26

His 'force' applies in his abiliity to influence events. The term !active force' is often written as 'holy spirit'. How it ties together; how God can be a kazillion miles away and simultaneously be aware of our circumstances has always been a mystery to me, perhaps one I may never fully understand. I can see how our perception of time (compared to his) may be involved. I can also muse over the discovery of Higgs Boson, and how it may explain management of galactic distance. Just don't ask me to create a doctoral thesis.

Now that I have soapboxed, I should point out that I have no commission from either the Watchtower society or, less, from God. I am simply expressing my opinion based on what I have learned.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Understood. I find it interesting. Whether it's energy or force, we're getting away from the need for supporting evidence that points to that conclusion, though. Whether you posit an intelligence of any sort guiding the course or all of history or all phenomena, or just setting the cosmic stage and the rules, that's a pretty majestic claim, and I can't just take someone's word for it, no matter how much goodwill they display. Examining the available evidence to date, I don't see how one could reach that conclusion. A much more mundane and likely answer is that scriptures are manmade. Am I wrong in thinking thus?

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

This is where Frank's thesis enters the twilight zone. Lacking a proper statement of axioms and a standard methodology, his demand for 'proof' is futile

I have never ever...NEVER EVER...NEVER EVER...NEVER EVER...

...anywhere, at any time, in any post or thread, here or in any other forum...

...asked for proof on these issues.

Ever.

Anywhere.

In fact, on many, many occasions I have gone out of my way to state that I am not asking for proof...just reasonable evidence of some sort.

Would you like you start your comment over...and give your opinion on why I am wrong for some other reason?

1 Reply

@neologist,

For me, real science has to have a very strong sense of provisory answering while maintaining genuine inquiry and openness to potential changes of paradigms. It is counter intuitive once its object is to get at the bottom of whatever is the problem at hand. I don't abandon either side of it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'm sorry, Frank.
The point I meant to convey was to focus attention on your insistence that logic , reason, and science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

What you have yet to do is to define your axioms and prescribe an acceptable methodology.

At least that is what it appears.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

For me, real science has to have a very strong sense of provisory answering while maintaining genuine inquiry and openness to potential changes of paradigms. It is counter intuitive once its object is to get at the bottom of whatever is the problem at hand. I don't abandon either side of it.

OK.
Not every discipline operates with the same degree of certainty. How do you deal with studies having elevated p values?

1 Reply

@neologist,

One...I dealt with what you wrote, Neo...rather than what "you meant."

Two...I do not need to define anything here. The fact of the matter is that logic, reason, and science do not lead to "there are no gods" or to "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are." (I have not been talking about "proving" or "disproving" anything...so why bring that up again...after apologizing for having done so earlier?)

If you disagree with my actual statement (rather than a re-phrasing of it)...do it whatever way you want. Use logic, science or reason to lead to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one."

I don't think you can do it no matter what you try. But give it a go using whatever axioms and methodology you want...and then we can discuss whether your argument has merit.

Otherwise I'd really like to see someone here grow the balls to say that I am absolutely correct on that.

Of course, doing so would then leave the question, so what does lead to either of those things. And the only answer I can come up with is...a blind guess...a "belief."

That's the reason I think the atheists cannot acknowledge me in this. They simply do not want to acknowledge that the basis of their atheism is a belief system.

How about you?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

We all operate on belief systems, Frank.
We believe God exists.
Or, we believe there is no God.
Or, we believe there is no way to discern God's existence.

We believe that, somehow, mankind will solve the problems assiciated with disease, crime, and war.
Or, we belive that God has promised this to us and will carry it out

It's all belief, Frank.

1 Reply

@neologist,

With care and patience.
If one can't have a good enough reason to state X is a fair hypothesis then one should be silent about it and move along in search of better possible explanations. If there is none in sight, guess what, keep searching or move to another field where you can be more productive.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

We all operate on belief systems, Frank.

I don't.

Quote:

We believe God exists.
Or, we believe there is no God.
Or, we believe there is no way to discern God's existence.

I don't. I do not "believe" any gods exist; I do not "believe" there are no gods; and I do not "believe" there is no way to discern a god's existence.

I do not guess any of those things either.

Quote:

We believe that, somehow, mankind will solve the problems assiciated with disease, crime, and war.

Not sure who you mean by "we" there, Neo...but there may not be a single person here who agrees with you in that. I certainly do not "believe" that. Nor do I "believe" the alternative you are about to offer.

Quote:

Or, we belive that God has promised this to us and will carry it out

See above response.

Quote:

It's all belief, Frank.

No...I do not think so, Neo.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

No...I do not think so, Neo.

= I do not believe so

Beliefophobia is a psychological condition which seems to afflict ex-priests needing to repress their personal belief crisis. The word has taken on an idiosyncratic negative pseudo-religious significance. It reaches neurotic proportions when the inductive logic which all humans operate with, is denied as a natural ability based on degrees of "belief".

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
No...I do not think so, Neo.

= I do not believe so

No...it does not. It means I THINK not.

And if you want to guess there are no gods...and hide the fact that you are guessing...you can call the guess a "belief."

If I were making that guess...I would call it a guess.

If Neo wants to guess that there is a GOD...and hide the fact that he is guessing...he can call his guess a "belief."

I would call it a guess. (Although back many years when I was making that guess...I called it "belief.")

Quote:

Beliefophobia is a psychological condition which seems to afflict ex-priests needing to repress their personal belief crisis. The word has taken on an idiosyncratic negative pseudo-religious significance. It reaches neurotic proportions when the inductive logic which all humans operate with, is denied as a natural ability based on degrees of "belief".

I call BS on you...although I will acknowledge that is not a hard call, because you are into BS so often, Fresco.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank

It is hard to distinguish Neologist's third choice from what you claim about your own beliefs or lack thereof. I suspect there is a lot less to the distinction you appear to be making than meets the eye.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

How would a lapsed Catholic, heavily conditioned by his experience of word magic have a cat in hell's chance of understanding the contextual value of words if he refuses to to enlighten himself with the relevant literature ?
You bleating about "beliefs" and "blind guessing" are the very epitome of "BS" because you foist those words onto anybody who states a personal position or asserts a depth of understanding which you compare with your own enmeshment by religious dogma.
And this thread is about "science" which is a contextually shifting network of consensual beliefs. The fact that we might call such beliefs "knowledge" is more a statement of our confidence in their current utility, rather than any claim to their reflection of a nebulous state called "reality".

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . and I do not "believe" there is no way to discern a god's existence.

Just to clarify, Frank. So I get it straight.
Does this mean there may be some way to discern God's existence?
If so, could you clarify the propositions, axioms, and standard of proof.you would find acceptable?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank

It is hard to distinguish Neologist's third choice from what you claim about your own beliefs or lack thereof. I suspect there is a lot less to the distinction you appear to be making than meets the eye.

IF there is a GOD, George...and IF the GOD wanted to reveal itself to a human...

...I cannot conceive that it could not do so.

Neo's third choice is a non-starter in my book.

Read it over again.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Sorry, Fresco...but you do not know what you are talking about.

I do not do believing. That does not mean I do not makes guess (including blind guesses) or estimates or suppositions.

But I refer to them as guesses, estimates, and suppositions.

If you people want to disguise them by calling them "beliefs" do so...but don't suppose for one second that I must do so also.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Read my response to George up above...and discuss it further with me if you want.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank,

You are being illogical. I don't think anyone here suggested that if god excists he would be able to reveal his existence to us. The issue is has he done so? You have separately and loudly proclaimed your agnosticism, assering that the existence of a god can neither be proved nor disproven. That is essentially the same as neologist's third alternative which you call a "non starter".

Here it is again;

Quote:

Or, we believe there is no way to discern God's existence.

Change "discern" to "prove" and they are identical.

1 Reply

What is Real Science?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know