Are they mutually exclusive? I know there are religious scientists, but do you believe that you can honestly hold theistic belief and be correct in claiming that science is your first priority in terms of beliefs?

I say yes.
I say that the physical world is a physical representation of the spiritual world and vice versa.

Science explains spirituality in physical terms, whereas spirituality explains the world in spiritual terms.

This is why so many physical concepts are used to help understand spiritual concepts (see many eastern proverbs).

The universe is the body of god. God is the mind of the universe.

Science offers no support for the existence of a deity. Thus, to believe in a deity you must base your belief on something nonscientific.

Science is based on observation. The "spiritual" can never be experienced by definition, so no science can never give you any support for spiritual realms/deities. There is a reason why we call these spritual people clinically insane.

If science has no proof for theism, that does not mean that there is a conflict.

The conflict arises with the widespread, but rather unscientific belief that if there is no proof for something, then it doesn't exist.

If there was a scientific proof against theism, then yes, it would be conflicting to someone who holds science as the first priority. Is there one?

Science deals with facts.

Theism is a way for less intelligent people to fill in the gaps between the facts so they can sleep easy at night.

What happens when I die?
Scientist - Your body rots away to nothing, same as all other plants and animals.
Theist - Part of your body (an invisible part) floats up to a magical place to be judged by an all seeing, all powerful wizard who will judge wether you have followed his teachings correctly and will thusly admit you into his wonderful magical kingdom.

The first is the truth - the second is what theists really, really want to be true.

"
If there was a scientific proof against theism, then yes, it would be conflicting to someone who holds science as the first priority. Is there one?"

Here's how it works: The people making the fucking ridiculous claim show some kind of proof that they're not full of shit, *then* we take them seriously. Until that day, anyone who looks at the world around them and says "You know what, there's nothing to indicate that some all powerful dude made this" doesn't have to "prove" shit.

That said, the fact that if religions were people they'd be giant walking logical fallacies roaming around the planet should be a big fucking clue as to the truthfulness of their claims.

"The conflict arises with the widespread, but rather unscientific belief that if there is no proof for something, then it doesn't exist."

If there is no proof for something, then there is no reason to assume that it exists. Do you understand this distinction? Most people don't seem to.

What happens when I die?
Scientist - Your body rots away to nothing, same as all other plants and animals.

Actually, the science is that all observed parts of the body rot away to nothing, same as all other plants and animals. Why? Because you can't have empirical evidence proving that unobservable things don't exist, so saying they don't exist is opinion. The science is that their existence is currently scientifically irrelevant.

However, scientifically irrelevant =/= nonexistant, so there is no conflict for a scientist to believe in life after death.

Actually, the science is that all observed parts of the body rot away to nothing, same as all other plants and animals. Why? Because you can't have empirical evidence proving that unobservable things don't exist, so saying they don't exist is opinion. The science is that their existence is currently scientifically irrelevant.

However, scientifically irrelevant =/= nonexistant, so there is no conflict for a scientist to believe in life after death.

Thats sort of right. Scientists don't go around making stuff up for the hell of it either. Just because someone says there is this unobservable thing doesn't make it true. Yes, it may be true, but lots of things may be true that are equally improbable. And more importantly, there is no evidence what-so-ever to suggest it is true in the first place.

Whats to stop someone saying "when you die, your soul turns into a fish"? It is just as improbable as the "wizard in the sky" belief, but most religious people wouldn't believe it.

Religious people just need comfort there is more out there after death, and their chosen sect is what works for them.

Here's how it works: The people making the fucking ridiculous claim show some kind of proof that they're not full of shit, *then* we take them seriously. Until that day, anyone who looks at the world around them and says "You know what, there's nothing to indicate that some all powerful dude made this" doesn't have to "prove" shit.

Take note of what is being argued here. It is not whether God exists, but whether it is mutually exclusive to be a scientific theist. And since you can't prove that something is not mutually exclusive, then a valid affirmative answer to the question must take the form of a proof that they are mutually exclusive.

That said, the fact that if religions were people they'd be giant walking logical fallacies roaming around the planet should be a big fucking clue as to the truthfulness of their claims.

The question is not, 'do specific religions conflict with science', so whether Christianity or Islam or whatever has any real or imagined logical contradictions is irrelevant. What would be relevant would be a logical contradiction between science and all possible forms of theism. Do you have one?

If there is no proof for something, then there is no reason to assume that it exists. Do you understand this distinction? Most people don't seem to.

Wrong. What do you think the purpose of a novel scientific experiment is? It's to gather proof for something that currently has none; why? because it's existence might be useful. Think of the tests against Aristotlean physics performed by Gallileo. Think of Einstein looking for bending light at the eclipse of the sun. As scientists, they would not bother to make these experiments if the lack of proof for their ideas meant they were wrong.

The scientific view on the existence of things with no proof is that their existence is scientifically irrelevant until sufficient proof can be provided. It is unjustified by science to say that these things don't exist.

However, because something is scientifically irrelevant does not mean that it is theologically irrelevant, so there is nothing scientifically flawed in having faith in the existence of something without proof.

Take note of what is being argued here. It is not whether God exists, but whether it is mutually exclusive to be a scientific theist. And since you can't prove that something is not mutually exclusive, then a valid affirmative answer to the question must take the form of a proof that they are mutually exclusive.

Thats the religious argument to everything. "You can't prove it isn't so, so it must be so". My 5 year old would try to argue something like that, whereas my 7 year old would see how silly it is.


Wrong. What do you think the purpose of a novel scientific experiment is? It's to gather proof for something that currently has none; why? because it's existence might be useful. Think of the tests against Aristotlean physics performed by Gallileo. Think of Einstein looking for bending light at the eclipse of the sun. As scientists, they would not bother to make these experiments if the lack of proof for their ideas meant they were wrong.

The difference is these scientists didn't just pick some random improbability out of thin air, and choose to believe in it with no proof at all. They had an idea based on previous experiments and observations, and then proceeded to either proove or disproove ther theory. If they disprooved it, they either discarded it, or modified the original idea slightly, and tried again.

You and I aren't even in the same league as some of these eminant scientists. Stop trying to act like you even approach their intelligence levels.

Why not proove there is a god then smart arse? I mean, you've set down your theory, now either proove or disproove it.

Scientists don't go around making stuff up for the hell of it either.

What scientists don't make up without proof are scientific facts; but only a small portion of religious beliefs claim to be scientific fact, and it is quite possible to be a theist without subscribing to ideas like creationism or intelligent design.

Just because someone says there is this unobservable thing doesn't make it true....

...And more importantly, there is no evidence what-so-ever to suggest it is true in the first place.

That's why the existence of these things are not scientific fact, but religious faith, ie. belief without proof. What is relevant is that science cannot comment on whether this faith is misguided or not, so belief without proof is not mutually exclusive with science.

Yes, it may be true, but lots of things may be true that are equally improbable.

Can you prove these things are improbable?

Whats to stop someone saying "when you die, your soul turns into a fish"? It is just as improbable as the "wizard in the sky" belief, but most religious people wouldn't believe it.

Sure, there is no scientific reason for a theist to choose one over the other, but this is not a scientific decision is it?

Can you prove these things are improbable?

Ummm.... Improbable =/= impossible.

I can see your agument, and it sort of makes sense. Religion has to do with faith, and science deals with facts. So the two are seperate.

The trouble is scientific people look at religion, see there is no proof, and move on. What you are suggesting is they should seek out scientific answers, yet simply believe religion. It just can't work that way. People are either one or the other. They either seek out answers, or believe what they are told.

In the book "1984", they use a word called "doublethink". The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Scientists just cannot do it.

Thats the religious argument to everything. "You can't prove it isn't so, so it must be so". My 5 year old would try to argue something like that, whereas my 7 year old would see how silly it is.

I never said that lack of proof against means God is real. What I said was that to say theism is mutually exclusive with science requires a proof against God.

The difference is these scientists didn't just pick some random improbability out of thin air, and choose to believe in it with no proof at all. They had an idea based on previous experiments and observations, and then proceeded to either proove or disproove ther theory. If they disprooved it, they either discarded it, or modified the original idea slightly, and tried again.

1. Theists don't pick random improbabilities out of the air either. They form ideas based on testimony, which unless they contradict science, there is no scientific position either way on whether said testimonies are true.

2. My point is: The scientific view on the existence of things with no proof is that their existence is scientifically irrelevant until sufficient proof can be provided. It is unjustified by science to say that these things don't exist.

Do you disagree with this?

You and I aren't even in the same league as some of these eminant scientists. Stop trying to act like you even approach their intelligence levels.

Why not proove there is a god then smart arse? I mean, you've set down your theory, now either proove or disproove it.

Interesting that you would stoop to ad hominem. Also, if you were paying attention, I never made any judgment on whether God exists, and as long as it is impossible to prove false, God's existence is irrelevant to the question at hand anyway.

Ummm.... Improbable =/= impossible.

Quite, but that doesn't really answer the question does it?

The trouble is scientific people look at religion, see there is no proof, and move on. What you are suggesting is they should seek out scientific answers, yet simply believe religion. It just can't work that way. People are either one or the other. They either seek out answers, or believe what they are told.

1. I'm not suggesting anyone should do anything. What I am saying is there is nothing unscientific about having faith in things without proof.

2. The line between theism and atheism is not so fine. In order to perform science, a scientist must make a number of unprovable assumptions including but not limited to induction and the existence of an external world. All a theist scientist does is take a few more things without proof than an atheist scientist. And when you look at the reasons that both make the assumptions they do, they are exactly the same, ie. they want to believe these assumptions are true.

In the book "1984", they use a word called "doublethink". The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

That's fine, but you have yet to demonstrate the existence of such a contradiction.

1. Theists don't pick random improbabilities out of the air either. They form ideas based on testimony, which unless they contradict science, there is no scientific position either way on whether said testimonies are true.
You're right - they have converged on one improbability, rather than picking random ones. Then they have built an entire institution around that singular improbability.


2. My point is: The scientific view on the existence of things with no proof is that their existence is scientifically irrelevant until sufficient proof can be provided. It is unjustified by science to say that these things don't exist.

Do you disagree with this?
No, thats right. There is no proof that it doesn't exist. But the probability of it existing is so remote that it doesn't bare considering. And a scientist should be able to see that, and put it into the same league as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".


Interesting that you would stoop to ad hominem. Also, if you were paying attention, I never made any judgment on whether God exists, and as long as it is impossible to prove false, God's existence is irrelevant to the question at hand anyway.

Fair enough.


Quite, but that doesn't really answer the question does it?

I was merely pointing out improbable does not equal impossible. For something to be impossible, it has to be proven it cannot be so. For something to be improbable, no proof is required.

1. I'm not suggesting anyone should do anything. What I am saying is there is nothing unscientific about having faith in things without proof.

2. The line between theism and atheism is not so fine. In order to perform science, a scientist must make a number of unprovable assumptions including but not limited to induction and the existence of an external world. All a theist scientist does is take a few more things without proof than an atheist scientist. And when you look at the reasons that both make the assumptions they do, they are exactly the same, ie. they want to believe these assumptions are true.

It is extremely unscientific to believe something without proof. That is the exact opposite of what science is all about. Faith, by it's very definition, requires no proof.


That's fine, but you have yet to demonstrate the existence of such a contradiction.

I think for a scientist to believe in religion is an example of doublethink. Whats wrong with that?


Look, religion is just a means for weak minded people to fill in the gaps that science can't answer yet. The more science learns, the less relevant religion is becoming, and the more it has to scratch around the edges looking for a reason to exist.

Thats what I believe. And I can't understand how anyone would see things differently. But I also understand different people have learnt different things, and have different perspectives about science and religion. I personally can't see religion as being more than a stop gap until we find an answer....

You're right - they have converged on one improbability, rather than picking random ones. Then they have built an entire institution around that singular improbability...

...No, thats right. There is no proof that it doesn't exist. But the probability of it existing is so remote that it doesn't bare considering. And a scientist should be able to see that, and put it into the same league as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

It seems that the main assumption behind these lines of argument is that a theist's belief is improbable. Can you prove this?

It is extremely unscientific to believe something without proof. That is the exact opposite of what science is all about. Faith, by it's very definition, requires no proof.

How do you reconcile that with the scientific acceptance in both an external world and the validity of inductive logic, when neither of these assumptions have been proven?

I think for a scientist to believe in religion is an example of doublethink. Whats wrong with that?

Well nothing, but if you want to extend your opinion into an argument, you need to justify your premises. And a premise behind the idea of doublethink is that the two ideas are contradictory.

Take note of what is being argued here. It is not whether God exists, but whether it is mutually exclusive to be a scientific theist. And since you can't prove that something is not mutually exclusive, then a valid affirmative answer to the question must take the form of a proof that they are mutually exclusive.

Mutual exclusivity was only part of the question, the OP followed it up by asking if someone who prioritizes science first in term of their beliefs can be a theist.

Science itself does not conflict with theism, but the spirit of science does.

Let me clarify: The spirit of science is to accept things that have been empirically proven, and reduce other things to mere speculation (or to come to a logical conclusion through rational deduction), accepting theism would be accepting a belief without evidence, like accepting aliens without having any knowledge of the concept. The spirit of science does not approve of beliefs that are not founded in empirical evidence, but since it's a philosophy anyway, it can be bent to one's will.

It would be like asking "how can your pro-life views not confilct with your liberalism"? In reality, they might not, it all depends on your perspective.

If science has no proof for theism, that does not mean that there is a conflict.

The conflict arises with the widespread, but rather unscientific belief that if there is no proof for something, then it doesn't exist.

If there was a scientific proof against theism, then yes, it would be conflicting to someone who holds science as the first priority. Is there one?

I agree. It is unscientific to shut down the belief in a god right now. It hasn't even become close to being disproven.

I agree. It is unscientific to shut down the belief in a god right now. It hasn't even become close to being disproven.

But for that to be correct, any crack-pot theory should be considered as well.

The Spaghetti Monster, the Orbiting Tea Cup, or any number of theories would have to be considered as well in exactly the same manner.

Scientists don't have to dis-prove it. It is up to religious people to bring forth some sort of proof before scientist can even entertain the idea. Until they do, it is just an improbable theory made up by a group of people. In other words, not worthy of wasting time on.

All that is is your opinion. Alot of people obviously like to spend their time with religion. There are benifits in their life no matter what causes it. So I don't see how it's a waste.

All that is is your opinion. Alot of people obviously like to spend their time with religion. There are benifits in their life no matter what causes it. So I don't see how it's a waste.

Look - I agree. If it benefits the individual, thats great. Everyone has a right to do or believe what they want.

I was just saying that from a scientific point of view, religion is not worth investigating until someone comes forward with some sort of proof. The scientific method just doesn't work the way religion wants it to.

any crack-pot theory should be considered as well


As it has been said, all possibilities exist within the tenth dimension.

Look - I agree. If it benefits the individual, thats great. Everyone has a right to do or believe what they want.

I was just saying that from a scientific point of view, religion is not worth investigating until someone comes forward with some sort of proof. The scientific method just doesn't work the way religion wants it to.

Science doesn't understand how it truly benifits the individual.

Science doesn't understand how it truly benifits the individual.

Ever heard of psychology?

There are ideas but nothing has been disproven we don't actually know enough yet to disprove God. We can't.

There are ideas but nothing has been disproven we don't actually know enough yet to disprove God. We can't.

Science doesn't have to disprove god. Religious people have to offer a plausible argument before science even considers wether it's worth investigating.

You people just don't get it. The onus is on the one making the claim to justify why the claim is valid. Thats part of the scientific method.

We don't understand enough of the world around us yet. It can't be proven or disproven. With science I think we will understand alot more interesting stuff. Alot of the spititual is just the current unknown with alot of myth around it. So science and religion are not at all contradictory. It doens't even matter what God really is. Neither side have the right to speak with authority. Because nobody fucking knows for sure.

We don't understand enough of the world around us yet. It can't be proven or disproven. With science I think we will understand alot more interesting stuff. Alot of the spititual is just the current unknown with alot of myth around it. So science and religion are not at all contradictory. It doens't even matter what God really is. Neither side have the right to speak with authority. Because nobody fucking knows for sure.

Science speaks with authority because it is based on evidence.

Religion, and spirituality is the stuff made up by people to fill in the gaps left by science.

If you look at it like that, then they are seperate entities, and can exist side by side. But scientifically minded people don't generally believe in things without evidence. Religious people, on the other hand, can accept scientific facts, and shape their religion around it.

So, a religious person can believe science and religion go hand in hand, but a scientist really couldn't, and still be called a scientist. In my opinion (and yours is equally valid - I just don't understand it).

Science speaks with authority because it is based on evidence...But scientifically minded people don't generally believe in things without evidence.

How do you reconcile that with the scientific acceptance in both an external world and the validity of inductive logic, when neither of these assumptions are provable or able to be evidenced?

How do you reconcile that with the scientific acceptance in both an external world and the validity of inductive logic, when neither of these assumptions are provable or able to be evidenced?

What do you mean by an external world - the world we see and experience, or something else.

As to the validity of inductive logic, it is just probability dressed up in fancy terms. And probability is easily demonstrated through experimentation.

How do you reconcile that with the scientific acceptance in both an external world and the validity of inductive logic, when neither of these assumptions are provable or able to be evidenced?

We can observe the external world, if I understand what you mean by that. The use of inductive logic is also based on observation, at least with regards to probability which is where it applies in science.

ETA: Ha, chumpion, we just said the exact same thing...

In my opinion (and yours is equally valid - I just don't understand it).

Yeah that goes for both of us. I feel that a middle ground will be reached eventually as much confusion and misunderstanding as there is all around.

Yeah that goes for both of us. I feel that a middle ground will be reached eventually as much confusion and misunderstanding as there is all around.

lol - I doubt it. We'll all just keep putting in our 2 cents. I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine.

But it's good to hear all sides of an argument, I think.

We can observe the external world, if I understand what you mean by that. The use of inductive logic is also based on observation, at least with regards to probability which is where it applies in science.

ETA: Ha, chumpion, we just said the exact same thing...

Thats scarey.

Hold Me. Tightly.....

lol

What do you mean by an external world - the world we see and experience, or something else.


The external world is a philosophical term for a reality that exists apart from from one's mind. Since all we experience or perceive comes from our senses, then the question of an external world is really an extension of a more important question about the accuracy of one's senses.

Now, how would you test that your senses are giving accurate information? Any argument uses any kind of sense data as a premise begs the question and any argument that doesn't use sense data won't be valid as it is not logically contradictory to say 'the senses do not give an accurate portrayal of reality'. Hence:

1. It is impossible to prove that the senses are accurate.
2. It is impossible to prove the existence of an objective reality.

But for science to have any use requires that it make both assumptions that were just shown to be impossible to prove. Therefore it makes these assumptions without any proof.


As to the validity of inductive logic, it is just probability dressed up in fancy terms.

All probability is inductive logic, but not all inductive logic is probability.

Inductive logic uses token pieces of evidence to create scientific laws, theories or relationships about or between objects.

Consider the example of the colour of swans in about the 17th century. People made the following observations:

Premise 1. Swan A is white.
Premise 2. Swan B is white.
Premise 3. Swan C is white.
Premise 4. Swan D is white.
etc...

Therefore, all swans are white.

The reason that inductive logic is not self-justifying is that there is a jump between the premises and the conclusion. If all observed swans are white, it is not a logical necessity for all swans to be white.

So, how then would one justify this logical leap? You gave the example of experimentation, but this is circular reasoning as the form of your argument would be:

Premise 1. Inductive logic worked in case A
Premise 2. Inductive logic worked in case B
Premise 3. Inductive logic worked in case C
Premise 4. Inductive logic worked in case D
etc...

therefore, Inductive logic is justified.

Do you see that this kind of argument tries to use inductive logic to justify inductive logic? You can't do that.

So no one can prove that inductive logic is justified for use in science, yet every single scientific principle assumes it to be true.



In conclusion, there are a number of things that scientists accept without proof, so there is not a fundamental difference between the mind of a scientist and a theist; therefore, it is possible to be a theist scientist.

There's a difference between proof and evidence. There is lots of evidence that our senses are accurate and that there is an objective reality. We cannot prove these notions with absolute certainty, but, using inductive logic (Bayesian inference), we can form a degree of certainty in our beliefs. That would be the scientific approach...certainty in belief is proportional to the evidence that supports it.

Why is there any reason to believe there is another reality apart from the one we know? People can postulate all sorts of crazy things, but in the end there is no reason to deviate from the current, known reality. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. When and if there is, it will be assessed alongside all other related knowledge.

And I don't see how Inductive Logic has anything to do with any of your arguments so far. Correct scientific method would state:

Premise 1. Swan A is white.
Premise 2. Swan B is white.
Premise 3. Swan C is white.
Premise 4. Swan D is white.
etc...

Therefore, in the given sample, and until further information comes along, all swans are white.

And then when the black swans were discovered, the scientific standpoint would have changed. Big deal. Until the black swans were discovered, everyone had no reason to think swans could be any colour but white. But that little "in the given sample, and until further information comes along" is always tacked on the end in a scientists mind. It is always implied.

Science is a fluid thing, and is definitely not set in stone. Thats a good thing. Thats what sets it apart from religion, IMO. Science takes all the current data, and makes a theory based on it. If the data changes, the theory changes accordingly.

Religion is the opposite - it picks one of a million possible outcomes, and grips onto it with both hands, never to let go.

Perhaps thats one of the reasons religious people can't understand simple scientific concepts - they are not used to looking at new evidence and changing their mind based on it. They believe they are right, everyone else is wrong, and thats the end of the discussion. I mean, their bible buds say it is true, therefore it must be!

There's a difference between proof and evidence. There is lots of evidence that our senses are accurate and that there is an objective reality. We cannot prove these notions with absolute certainty, but, using inductive logic (Bayesian inference), we can form a degree of certainty in our beliefs. That would be the scientific approach...certainty in belief is proportional to the evidence that supports it.

Talk about being on the same wavelength.....

Where abouts is Cuntsville? If it's anywhere near Sydney, I'll have to buy you a beer one day. I'll ask my wife if we can go sarging (you being a real PUA and all...)

There's a difference between proof and evidence. There is lots of evidence that our senses are accurate and that there is an objective reality. We cannot prove these notions with absolute certainty, but, using inductive logic (Bayesian inference), we can form a degree of certainty in our beliefs. That would be the scientific approach...certainty in belief is proportional to the evidence that supports it.

1. Can you give me an example of such evidence?
2. Inductive logic has been shown to be unjustifiable.


Why is there any reason to believe there is another reality apart from the one we know? People can postulate all sorts of crazy things, but in the end there is no reason to deviate from the current, known reality. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. When and if there is, it will be assessed alongside all other related knowledge.


The onus is on the one making the claim to justify why the claim is valid. Thats part of the scientific method. If you claim that an external world exists, you need to prove it - I don't need to prove you wrong.

And I don't see how Inductive Logic has anything to do with any of your arguments so far. Correct scientific method would state:

Premise 1. Swan A is white.
Premise 2. Swan B is white.
Premise 3. Swan C is white.
Premise 4. Swan D is white.
etc...

Therefore, in the given sample, and until further information comes along, all swans are white.

And then when the black swans were discovered, the scientific standpoint would have changed. Big deal. Until the black swans were discovered, everyone had no reason to think swans could be any colour but white. But that little "in the given sample, and until further information comes along" is always tacked on the end in a scientists mind. It is always implied.

Quite wrong. You see, the scientific principle of falsifiability means that if your theory can't be proven wrong, then it is not useful and not science. If you say that in the given sample, all swans are white, then this theory cannot be proven wrong by the discovery of a black swan (because it would not be part of the sample), so this theory is not science. Even if it were science, it is still quite useless, as it holds no predictive power, meaning you can't use it to predict the colour of a swan.

Not to mention that very few scientific theories limit themselves as you say they should.

1. Can you give me an example of such evidence?
2. Inductive logic has been shown to be unjustifiable.



The onus is on the one making the claim to justify why the claim is valid. Thats part of the scientific method. If you claim that an external world exists, you need to prove it - I don't need to prove you wrong.



Quite wrong. You see, the scientific principle of falsifiability means that if your theory can't be proven wrong, then it is not useful and not science. If you say that in the given sample, all swans are white, then this theory cannot be proven wrong by the discovery of a black swan (because it would not be part of the sample), so this theory is not science. Even if it were science, it is still quite useless, as it holds no predictive power, meaning you can't use it to predict the colour of a swan.

Not to mention that very few scientific theories limit themselves as you say they should.

I think your starting to clutch at straws here......

There are two types of falsifiability. One is called Naieve Falsification (NF), and it considers scientific statements individually. This is not good science.

The other type is Sophisticated Methodological Falsification (SMF), which looks at groups of statements and theories. This is good science.

NF is what religious people practice - they look at a single theory, find an example that breaks it, and pronounce all science bad. The correct scientific method (or SMF) is to look at a theory, envisage and test different results, and modify the original theory with additional hypothesies and theories. The better theories are falsifiable, and eventually evolve into better and better theories.

Take your swan example. The original statement was "All swans are white". This was proved wrong, so is no longer valid. A new statement like "Swans are white everywhere except in Australia" could now be made, which is better than the first. Thats an example of an evolved theory. It is better than the first one. Thats SMF.

I think it was a guy called Popper that went through all this - you probably should look him up sometime. It makes for interesting reading.

And I think you are the one claiming there are options to the current, visualised reality. Please show us some of these options, and provide some evidence. It was you that brought it up initially, now come good with some evidence.

EDIT::

I just looked under falsifiability on Wikipedia, and got the following example:

"Claims about verifiability and falsifiability have been used to criticize various controversial views. Examining these examples shows the usefulness of falsifiability by showing us where to look when attempting to criticise a theory.

Non-falsifiable theories can usually be reduced to a simple uncircumscribed existential statement, such as there exists a green swan. It is entirely possible to verify that the theory is true, simply by producing the green swan. But since this statement does not specify when or where the green swan exists; it is simply not possible to show that the swan does not exist, and so it is impossible to falsify the statement.

That such theories are unfalsifiable says nothing about either their validity or truth. But it does assist us in determining to what extent such statements might be evaluated. If evidence cannot be presented to support a case, and yet the case cannot be shown to be indeed false, not much credence can be given to such a statement. However, you can also look at this case from another perspective. Let's say that the statement is "all swans are not green". An attempt to verify this positively would require a search for non-green swans, which you are sure to find. However, having rounded up and examined every known swan, there is always the possibility that there is at least one more swan but we will never know for sure until we find it and if we do, there may be yet, one more swan, and it may be green. On the other hand, we may say that "all swans are not green" but instead of attempting to positively verify this statement we attempt to falsify it by looking for a green swan. In that case, we need only find one swan (a green one), in the absence of which we can accept the original statement as a working hypothesis until such a swan is discovered."

I guess if you substitute "Swan" for "God", and "Green" for "Is Real", you'll see what my argument is.

1. Can you give me an example of such evidence?
2. Inductive logic has been shown to be unjustifiable.


1. Reproducibility of observations among different observers.
2. Explain how Bayesian inference is not justified. We use the tools of bayesian inference to make lots of real world predictions.

And I think you are the one claiming there are options to the current, visualised reality. Please show us some of these options, and provide some evidence. It was you that brought it up initially, now come good with some evidence.


Actually no. I'm saying that one can't know if it exists, and you can't provide proof that it does because of several aforementioned reasons. I am not asserting any kind of alternate reality.


There are two types of falsifiability. One is called Naieve Falsification (NF), and it considers scientific statements individually. This is not good science.

The other type is Sophisticated Methodological Falsification (SMF), which looks at groups of statements and theories. This is good science.

NF is what religious people practice - they look at a single theory, find an example that breaks it, and pronounce all science bad. The correct scientific method (or SMF) is to look at a theory, envisage and test different results, and modify the original theory with additional hypothesies and theories. The better theories are falsifiable, and eventually evolve into better and better theories.

Um...I know what falsifiability is. And the statement "in the given sample, and until further information comes along, all swans are white." is about as falsifiable as tossing a coin that lands on heads and then declaring that it came up heads.

Popper believed that inductive reasoning was unjustifiable and in SMF he tried to create a method of science that would be completely deductive. However, few modern philosophers accept this conclusion because the idea that a theory has been universally falsified can only be supported using inductive reasoning. Meaning that Popper just built a sandcastle that covered the boulder of the problem of induction and then proclaimed that said boulder didn't exist.


NF is what religious people practice - they look at a single theory, find an example that breaks it, and pronounce all science bad.

Irrelevant strawman.

Take your swan example. The original statement was "All swans are white". This was proved wrong, so is no longer valid. A new statement like "Swans are white everywhere except in Australia" could now be made, which is better than the first. Thats an example of an evolved theory. It is better than the first one. Thats SMF.

The theory that "Swans are white everywhere except in Australia" was derived using inductive logic, which you have yet to justify. All you've done in this post is go back on the nonsense about not attempting predictability, but without addressing the issue that caused you to fall back on it in the first place, justifying inductive logic.

I guess if you substitute "Swan" for "God", and "Green" for "Is Real", you'll see what my argument is.

"That such theories are unfalsifiable says nothing about either their validity or truth."

Just because the existence of God can't be scientifically investigated does not mean that their is a universal position on whether scientists think God exists or not. And science gives absolutely no preference to either side.

1. Reproducibility of observations among different observers.

Nice try, but the only way you find out about observations done by different observers is through the senses. And since the senses are being challenged here, this evidence is quite useless and could conceivably exist even if the external world didn't exist.

Explain how Bayesian inference is not justified.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bayesian inference calculates how the support for a hypothesis has mathematically changed after taking into account a piece of evidence. This means that it implicitly assumes that evidence from the past can be used to describe the future. As far as I know, the only way to justify this assumption would be inductive logic, which you have yet to justify.

Nice try, but the only way you find out about observations done by different observers is through the senses. And since the senses are being challenged here, this evidence is quite useless and could conceivably exist even if the external world didn't exist.

The point your making is superfluous. Whatever is being observed is what we are talking about, regardless of whether it is the external world or not. Science makes no distinction between the external world and some hypothetical virtual world that looks exactly like what an external world would look like.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bayesian inference calculates how the support for a hypothesis has mathematically changed after taking into account a piece of evidence. This means that it implicitly assumes that evidence from the past can be used to describe the future. As far as I know, the only way to justify this assumption would be inductive logic, which you have yet to justify.

What it says is what is the probability distribution of some hidden variable (hidden meaning something that we inherently cannot observe) based on the observations we have. The only thing it describes about the future is a probability. Going with your all swans are white argument, we could use bayesian inference to calculate the frequency of white swans based on the observation of just 4 white swans and no black ones. What you would get is a line going from 0 to 1. We wouldn't say all swans are white, we would say we have 95% confidence that the frequency of white swans is 0.8 or higher. (I just made those numbers up, too lazy to do math right now.)

The point your making is superfluous. Whatever is being observed is what we are talking about, regardless of whether it is the external world or not. Science makes no distinction between the external world and some hypothetical virtual world that looks exactly like what an external world would look like.

If there is no external world, then scientific theories and principles like natural selection or the laws of thermodynamics are no better or more true then things like creationism or time cube. You might say that a theory of electricity is more useful than just calling it magic, but without assuming the accuracy of the senses, one can't even know which theory is most useful.

What it says is what is the probability distribution of some hidden variable (hidden meaning something that we inherently cannot observe) based on the observations we have. The only thing it describes about the future is a probability. Going with your all swans are white argument, we could use bayesian inference to calculate the frequency of white swans based on the observation of just 4 white swans and no black ones. What you would get is a line going from 0 to 1. We wouldn't say all swans are white, we would say we have 95% confidence that the frequency of white swans is 0.8 or higher. (I just made those numbers up, too lazy to do math right now.)

Deriving a probability distribution in the manner you have done here is projecting current observations in order to describe (yes, a probability is a description, even if it's not absolute) the nature of future observations, and that is inductive reasoning.

If there is no external world, then scientific theories and principles like natural selection or the laws of thermodynamics are no better or more true then things like creationism or time cube. You might say that a theory of electricity is more useful than just calling it magic, but without assuming the accuracy of the senses, one can't even know which theory is most useful.

It's usefulness is based on the predictions it makes. Whatever makes more accurate predictions is more useful. It's rather useless to assume we live in a simulation or that our senses are inaccurate, unless you can come up with predictions based on those theories.

Deriving a probability distribution in the manner you have done here is projecting current observations in order to describe (yes, a probability is a description, even if it's not absolute) the nature of future observations, and that is inductive reasoning.

It predicts future observations, not describes them. The probability distribution is for the hidden variable (not future observations), which in this case would be the frequency of white swans. I agree with the fact that it is a form inductive reasoning, but I don't see how it is not justified. All we are stating is the degree to which we are certain.

It's usefulness is based on the predictions it makes. Whatever makes more accurate predictions is more useful. It's rather useless to assume we live in a simulation or that our senses are inaccurate, unless you can come up with predictions based on those theories.

Let me get this straight, you are going to make an assumption that is incapable of being evidenced or proven, simply because you think that assumption is useful?

Also, if it is a job of science to determine which of two theories is the more accurate, then the senses must be first assumed to be accurate, as it is impossible to observe how accurate a theory's predictions are without using the senses.

Third, if scientists don't take things by faith, then no scientist is going to accept an unevidenced or unproven theory simply because it is useful. You don't see NASA replacing Einstein's theory with another that doesn't limit space-travel to the speed of light, so why should scientists assume the senses are accurate?

It predicts future observations, not describes them.

Predicting is a kind of description, but whatever, neither word is harmful to my argument.

The probability distribution is for the hidden variable (not future observations), which in this case would be the frequency of white swans. I agree with the fact that it is a form inductive reasoning, but I don't see how it is not justified. All we are stating is the degree to which we are certain.

Ok. We agree that it is inductive reasoning as it projects current observations in order to predict future observations. This notion of projecting in order to predict probably appears to be intuitively true, but no scientist is going to rest on his intuition, so let's charge forward into looking at how someone could argue it is true. All arguments would fit under two branches:

First, one might argue that it is true deductively. However, since it is possible that our sample was poorly chosen, it is possible that one could project observations and get an incorrect prediction, so it does not conserve truth, so it is not deductively justifiable.

Second, one might argue from experience, saying that in a large number of cases, projecting observations has led to accurate predictions therefore there is a high chance that this assumption is justified. But this argument takes as a premise that observations can be projected in order to predict, as it attempts to use past successes to predict that this assumption will work in the future. This presumes what it is trying to prove - a circular argument, hence one cannot justify it inductively.

So, despite seeming to be intuitively true, the idea that 'one can use current observations to predict the future' is unjustifiable.

Let me get this straight, you are going to make an assumption that is incapable of being evidenced or proven, simply because you think that assumption is useful?

Also, if it is a job of science to determine which of two theories is the more accurate, then the senses must be first assumed to be accurate, as it is impossible to observe how accurate a theory's predictions are without using the senses.

Third, if scientists don't take things by faith, then no scientist is going to accept an unevidenced or unproven theory simply because it is useful. You don't see NASA replacing Einstein's theory with another that doesn't limit space-travel to the speed of light, so why should scientists assume the senses are accurate?

It's not an "assumption" it's a model of the world. One that is supported by observations. It's useful because of the accuracy of it's predictions. Again there is a difference between evidence and proof, any observation that supports a theory is evidence for that theory. I have plenty of observations that support the theory of an external world and the accuracy of the senses.

If your theory is that the senses are inaccurate, you need to come up with some prediction based on that theory. If it makes no predictions, then it is a useless theory. My theory is that the senses are accurate, this theory has predictions.

If a theory predicted that the speed of light could be surpassed, and then it was, that theory would be useful. It made an accurate prediction. Scientists would certainly look at that theory.

Predicting is a kind of description, but whatever, neither word is harmful to my argument.

Ok. We agree that it is inductive reasoning as it projects current observations in order to predict future observations. This notion of projecting in order to predict probably appears to be intuitively true, but no scientist is going to rest on his intuition, so let's charge forward into looking at how someone could argue it is true. All arguments would fit under two branches:

I would phrase it differently. I would say the current observations are used to infer the probability of a model/hypothesis, this model can then make predictions. It's considered inductive reasoning because the inference doesn't have to be correct.

First, one might argue that it is true deductively. However, since it is possible that our sample was poorly chosen, it is possible that one could project observations and get an incorrect prediction, so it does not conserve truth, so it is not deductively justifiable.

That's where the uncertainty comes in. The possibility of an unrepresentative sample size it taken in to certainty of the model.

Second, one might argue from experience, saying that in a large number of cases, projecting observations has led to accurate predictions therefore there is a high chance that this assumption is justified. But this argument takes as a premise that observations can be projected in order to predict, as it attempts to use past successes to predict that this assumption will work in the future. This presumes what it is trying to prove - a circular argument, hence one cannot justify it inductively.

We aren't trying to predict the future per se, we are trying to create a model. The model can then be used to predict the future--if it's correct. In science we are most certain when something has been proven false.

Science and religion can and should coexist peacefully. It's like saying you can't be a musician because you're an auto mechanic. Nonsensical. 40% of American scientists believe in a God that answers prayers. Are they stupid? If you said yes, let me know what you've contributed to society and what exactly makes you better than them.


edit:

Moreso, science deals with the physical. Religion and theology implies that there's something behind the physical, or something more to the physical. If there's a drought, a Christian doesn't pray for God to drop down with his flaming bucket of water and splash it on their crops. He prays for rain. The religious think there's more than the physical and more to the physical than can be observed. It's as simple as that. They are completely different subjects and should be treated as such.

40% is still much less than the rest of the population. The top scientists, like members of the NAS, believe in god even less so than the rest of scientists.

If 40% of scientists think prayers are answered then they are gravely mistaken. This could be easily tested in a scientific experiment (and has been, and shown to be false).

It's not an "assumption" it's a model of the world. One that is supported by observations. It's useful because of the accuracy of it's predictions. Again there is a difference between evidence and proof, any observation that supports a theory is evidence for that theory. I have plenty of observations that support the theory of an external world and the accuracy of the senses.

In order for any observations to be counted as evidence, we need to know that those observations were accurate, or else they evidence nothing. But one can't know if observations are accurate without first assuming that your model is true, a circular argument.

In order to know if your model has accurate predictions, you need to have a way to test it's predictions, and in this case none exists, unless you assume that your model is accurate in the first place, a circular argument.

So, the only way to accept this model is without evidence.

If your theory is that the senses are inaccurate, you need to come up with some prediction based on that theory. If it makes no predictions, then it is a useless theory.

I'm not saying that the senses are inaccurate, but that we don't know their accuracy. This is not a theory, but a negation of a theory. It does not have to make predictions, it's purpose is to show that other predictions are unfounded.

It's considered inductive reasoning because the inference doesn't have to be correct.

That's the point. If it doesn't have to be correct then it's use needs to be justified, but it can't be.


That's where the uncertainty comes in. The possibility of an unrepresentative sample size it taken in to certainty of the model.

One can't calculate the chance that one's sample is unrepresentative, because you don't know the true distribution; so one can't take that uncertainty properly into account.


We aren't trying to predict the future per se, we are trying to create a model. The model can then be used to predict the future--if it's correct. In science we are most certain when something has been proven false.

These semantics are irrelevant, you have just described, not justified, your model.

If 40% of scientists think prayers are answered then they are gravely mistaken. This could be easily tested in a scientific experiment (and has been, and shown to be false).

Yeah but it has also been shown to work as well. Still unproven.

Yeah but it has also been shown to work as well. Still unproven.
*Truly believes in Jesus Christ the savior*

*Prays to Jesus for a puppy*

I'll reply tomorrow and tell you guys how it goes. :p