Restating the Paradox

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I just mean that scientific statements are logically valid


[/ QUOTE ]

The scientfic method is a combination of induction and deduction as process, but the final form of a scientific law is an empirical statement, not an exercise in logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't think so. QM is great science but science does not claim QM is true.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Is this a "The map is not the territory" type statement, or is there something more here?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

QM is great science but science does not claim QM is true.


[/ QUOTE ]

It beats me how great science can't be claimed to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

That explains a lot.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need to take Hume 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are arguing that induction is considered rational only by faith, since it's can't be proven.

Here's a good response: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p71.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that is a very weak response. It may be rational to assume induction is valid but it is an act of faith to believe induction is valid.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a weak response, too. Of course it's an act of faith. If by faith you mean something that is unproven by deductive logic, and taken on presupposition. The point is, some presuppostions are necessary, and some are not.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need to take Hume 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are arguing that induction is considered rational only by faith, since it's can't be proven.

Here's a good response: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p71.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that is a very weak response. It may be rational to assume induction is valid but it is an act of faith to believe induction is valid.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a weak response, too. Of course it's an act of faith. If by faith you mean something that is unproven by deductive logic, and taken on presupposition. The point is, some presuppostions are necessary, and some are not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Science doesn't require any presuppositions (unless you mean we have to assume logic).

Believing that the results of science are naked truth is irrational i.e. suppositions/faith are required.

Maybe we aren't disagreeing about anything, I thought the link was an attempt to defend induction against NotReady's claim it require faith to believe, which it did very badly - maybe because it agreed with him [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

chez

Traditionally--theologically and philosophically at least--god is supposed to be the perfect being. Being omniscient is part of being perfect.

There are all sorts of possible problems if god is not conceived of as omniscient. If god is not omniscient, then by definition there are things that god does not know. This means that god is fallible since he can make mistakes now due to his ignorance. He can misjudge people for example.

If god is not perfect, then even if there is a 'creator' what you are left with at best is just a very powerful, very smart being. That could just be some super-smart super-advanced alien for all we know.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, a scientific or rational belief is one based on quantity and quality of the evidence supporting it.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty fundamental that all humans operate on the basis of faith. I'm surprised you contest this. The very possibility of science requires an unprovable assumption that there is order in nature. No amount of reasoning or evidence will make it any less than an assumption.


[/ QUOTE ]

Baloney. You're going the wrong direction. You want me to tell you that I know for certain that the laws of physics will remain the same tomorrow that they are today. Of course I can't know that for certain. I don't have any such "faith." I'll leave that to the gullible and people who need certainty so badly that they are willing to delude themselves into self-deceit.

The fact is that absolute certainty is not to be had. I can't "prove" that the laws of physics won't change tomrrow. All I know is that there is a vast amount of evidence that they won't. See, it's that whole quantity and quality of evidence thing. I don't need any "faith" to see that.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Certainly you are not naive enough to think that a laymen's dictionary is sufficient to settle questions about precise scientific meanings?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pure cop-out for several reasons. You equivocate on the meaning of random then pull out the "expert" excuse.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a statement of fact. It's 0% cop-out. According to your laymen's definition, it is indeed random. Settled?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

By making measurements


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you measure the future?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I do not waste my life making conjectures about the infinite number of things I cannot know about, for example if there are golden teacups orbiting pluto, if there are parallel universes that I cannot interact with, if there are leprachauns that are so wily that they can never be seen.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about conjectures, but knowledge. The comparison of a religion that has affected the lives of billions of people to leprechauns is childish.


[/ QUOTE ]

The belief in rain dances affected the lives of millions. The belief in the Roman or Greek Gods affect many many millions. Is it the number of people's whose lives were affected by a belief that we should use as a criteria for vetting its truthfulness? I don't think so.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Only in response to your repeated use of words like "meaning" and "validity".


[/ QUOTE ]

You really think those words are provoked by emotion?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

Really?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

You think all the philosophers were just emoting? You think all the attempts by science to establish validity were just expressions of emotion?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd better clarify your meaning of "validity", as it doesn't appear to me that you were using it in any sense that could be considered a scientific question.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe if I repeat myself, you won't ignore me again. You're trying to use one meaning of "faith" in a context different from which it is intended.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would quote the dictionary here but I don't want to give mantis 3 more reasons to post. So I'll give you my definition. Christians believe in God though we can't prove empirically 100% that He exists. Scientists believe in the order of nature even though they can't prove empirically 100% that it exists. You might want to check Hume on this and about a gazillion other philosophers. Both are faith positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's intentionally deceptive, or absurdly ignorant. 1e-12 and 1-1e-12 are both less than 100%, but comparing them on that basis is fraudulent.

"Scientists believe in the order of nature even though they can't prove empirically 100% that it exists."

And we don't need to! Which is why your repeated attempts to fall back on this "science is faith too!" argument is a bunch of hokum.

We are content to examine and build evidence that mounts every day in support of our position. We don't need complete, total, irrefutable, absolute proof of anything. Most of us who have been around this block a few times are pretty sure that such certainty is not available to us.

This doesn't leave me cowering in a corner, hoping for a God Of Absolutes to come along and save me from my horrible predicament, where I just can't know if the sun will rise tomorrow. Horror of horrors!

eastbay

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The fact is that absolute certainty is not to be had


[/ QUOTE ]

When did I make absolute certainty an issue?

[ QUOTE ]

See, it's that whole quantity and quality of evidence thing. I don't need any "faith" to see that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Quantity of evidence is meaningless if possibility is infinite. Quality of evidence is a value judgment that can't arise from the evidence itself.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't have to


[/ QUOTE ]

Another cop-out.

[ QUOTE ]

Is it the number of people's whose lives were affected by a belief that we should use as a criteria for vetting its truthfulness? I don't think so.


[/ QUOTE ]


Of course it is. The fact that multitudes are affected by a belief has some significance. But that was just one reason for why your comparison is silly. Judeo-Christian beliefs have a long history, the Bible is a unique collection unlike anything else in the world, the doctrines of Christianity are rationally defensible,thousands of very intelligent and very serious people have believed throughout history, people have given their lives for the faith, people have committed their lives and hopes to the faith - all of this and more make the leprechaun comparison facetious. It's a straw man argument whereby you pretend that Christianity is on the same level as an obvious absurdity - it only fools gullible atheists.

[ QUOTE ]

You really think those words are provoked by emotion?

Yes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That's intentionally deceptive, or absurdly ignorant. 1e-12 and 1-1e-12 are both less than 100%, but comparing them on that basis is fraudulent.


[/ QUOTE ]

You think Hume was a fraud? What about Russell who agreed with him?

[ QUOTE ]

And we don't need to! Which is why your repeated attempts to fall back on this "science is faith too!" argument is a bunch of hokum.


[/ QUOTE ]

Same question as above. Plus it isn't a question of need.

[ QUOTE ]

We are content to examine and build evidence that mounts every day in support of our position. We don't need complete, total, irrefutable, absolute proof of anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep trying to pretend I'm talking about absolute certainty. You can't make an argument against a position, but always have to manufacture a straw man?

[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't leave me cowering in a corner, hoping for a God Of Absolutes to come along and save me from my horrible predicament, where I just can't know if the sun will rise tmorrow. Horror of horrors!


[/ QUOTE ]

When you run out of straw men, dust off the sarcasm. Great science there. Looks like an emotional reaction to me.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

You think Hume was a fraud? What about Russell who agreed with him?


[/ QUOTE ]

You would have to tell me _exactly_ what claim of Hume's and Russell's you are claiming I am denying, without running circles around it or changing the subject every two seconds.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

We are content to examine and build evidence that mounts every day in support of our position. We don't need complete, total, irrefutable, absolute proof of anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep trying to pretend I'm talking about absolute certainty. You can't make an argument against a position, but always have to manufacture a straw man?


[/ QUOTE ]

"Scientists believe in the order of nature even though they can't prove empirically 100% that it exists."

Are those not your words? 100% does not imply certainty? How exactly do you use 100%, if not to denote certainty?

[ QUOTE ]

When you run out of straw men, dust off the sarcasm. Great science there. Looks like an emotional reaction to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only straw men here are ones you are creating. You invoked "100%" which I think is perfectly reasonably translated to "absolute" or "certain."

I am being sarcastic because you are being ridiculous.

eastbay