Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Over the past thirty, perhaps even forty years, it's become increasingly clear to me how what is sometimes presented as "god vs science" or "creationism vs science" and so on, is actually the root of many of the perceived problems with these two areas of human thought. Because these are presented as contrasting, as alternative ways of interpreting the world, many people just assume that there is an underlying incompatibility.

But there is no incompatibility at all, there never was and the false implication that there is arose quite recently in fact. The vast majority of those who contributed to what we today call the scientific revolution and later the enlightenment, were not atheists - this might surprise some but it is true and should be carefully noted.

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion" and discrediting those who might regard "god" and "creation" as intellectually legitimate ideas, by implying that the layman must choose one or the other, you're either an atheist (for science) or a theist (a science "denier").

It is my position that there is no conflict whatsoever, for example God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe (a sophisticated amalgam of material and laws) and we - also intelligent agencies - are gifted by being able to explore, unravel and utilize that creation.

There is nothing that can disprove this view, there is no reason to imply that those who adopt it are deluded, incompetent, poorly educated or any of that, that attitude is a lie and its reinforced at every opportunity in this and many other forums.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #189]

One might choose to adopt materialism based on inquiry, observation etc but that inquisitive process is distinct from the inferences one makes from the process, likewise one can equally choose to adopt dualism after following that same inquisitive process.

The problem with this - as I have noted before and will continue to note - is that swapping positions doesn't equate to getting any better answers, because BOTH positions share the same problem, which is that they do not have all the best answers one way or the other.

Therefore, they cancel one another out, and other options have to be explored re finding the real answers.

This is not to suggest that either position doesn't have its relative points - but more a case of recognizing those relative points an seeing how these can be dove-tailed together so that the dots connect/ they phase in harmony together.

This cannot be made possible until the "We are right and they are wrong" battlements are withdrawn, and time/energy is invested in better things than warfare...even if that warfare is simply 'harmless' stuff argued about, on a small internet forum.

What are the two "positions" you refer to? is your position perhaps a third position?

[William]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #189]

One might choose to adopt materialism based on inquiry, observation etc but that inquisitive process is distinct from the inferences one makes from the process, likewise one can equally choose to adopt dualism after following that same inquisitive process.

The problem with this - as I have noted before and will continue to note - is that swapping positions doesn't equate to getting any better answers, because BOTH positions share the same problem, which is that they do not have all the best answers one way or the other.

Therefore, they cancel one another out, and other options have to be explored re finding the real answers.

This is not to suggest that either position doesn't have its relative points - but more a case of recognizing those relative points an seeing how these can be dove-tailed together so that the dots connect/ they phase in harmony together.

This cannot be made possible until the "We are right and they are wrong" battlements are withdrawn, and time/energy is invested in better things than warfare...even if that warfare is simply 'harmless' stuff argued about, on a small internet forum.

What are the two "positions" you refer to?

Theism and non-theism.

is your position perhaps a third position?

In as much as it sees how these battling positions can be dove-tailed together so that the dots connect/they phase in harmony together, yes - I think so.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #182]

Where did I say that? what did I say that you are interpreting that way?

This from post 175 (bolding mine):

"Creationists - like me - believe that God is the reason there's a universe, that God is the reason we can even do "science", that God is the reason the universe is structured and mathematically describable, none of these things can (even in principle) be explained "naturally."

I interpret that sentence as that you rule out any natural explanation for all of the things listed.

Can a thing be used to explain why that thing exists?

Since you used the singular, capitalized God in the first quote above I assume you believe there is only one. Can God be used to explain why God exists? If there were multiple gods then you could argue that one may have created another, but if there were only one God and it cannot create itself, then how did that thing come into existence? Since we have no idea what the original state was at the origin of this universe (if it had a beginning), then we can only speculate on the mechanism. Just like we can only speculate that gods exist.

Between a natural explanation of some sort (even if we don't yet know it), and a god being when their existence is just as uncertain as the state of "nature" at the origin of our universe, I'd bet on a natural explanation simply because science has been so successful to date of working things out that way. Philosophical arguments can't answer the question, and science has a very good track record.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #182]

Where did I say that? what did I say that you are interpreting that way?

This from post 175 (bolding mine):

"Creationists - like me - believe that God is the reason there's a universe, that God is the reason we can even do "science", that God is the reason the universe is structured and mathematically describable, none of these things can (even in principle) be explained "naturally."

I interpret that sentence as that you rule out any natural explanation for all of the things listed.

Right but that isn't the same as "making claims that things you don't understand must be caused by a god being because you can't fathom how they could occur naturally." There are many many things I do not understand, I do not by default attribute them simply to God.

I have reasons for regarding God as the cause for certain things, the reason is not because I "can't fathom how they could occur naturally" it is that I am satisfied that they cannot occur naturally, very different. If I convinced you that X cannot be due to natural laws then what would you do?

Can a thing be used to explain why that thing exists?

Since you used the singular, capitalized God in the first quote above I assume you believe there is only one. Can God be used to explain why God exists? If there were multiple gods then you could argue that one may have created another, but if there were only one God and it cannot create itself, then how did that thing come into existence? Since we have no idea what the original state was at the origin of this universe (if it had a beginning), then we can only speculate on the mechanism. Just like we can only speculate that gods exist.

That's one of the most blatant evasions I've seen here so far! very well, don't answer the question.

Between a natural explanation of some sort (even if we don't yet know it), and a god being when their existence is just as uncertain as the state of "nature" at the origin of our universe, I'd bet on a natural explanation simply because science has been so successful to date of working things out that way. Philosophical arguments can't answer the question, and science has a very good track record.

Well the question was quite simple - can a thing the used to explain why that thing exists? Is the explanation for you, you? or something external, distinct from you? (yes it is your parents).

[brunumb]

So I have never advocated the supernatural as being a scientific explanation. What I do say is that science - as a mode of inquiry - can be used to infer the supernatural (as Faraday did with his conviction that electricity and magnetism were somehow intertwined) that is if one can infer the supernatural by the pursuit of science then we should not make up rules denying this or prohibiting such conclusions (which is exactly what the AAAS inserted clause does).

Infer: deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

Faraday had a prior belief in the supernatural which informed his conviction. There was no element of the supernatural involved in his scientific method or discovery.

[brunumb]

But in my example we can connect the dots in a multitude of ways, we can see whatever we want to see in the data...

Sure, but some ways of connecting the dots would have better resemblance than others. You can make a car or a house or a boat, we can rank the different ways in accordance to how nice of a car/house/boat to determine "best."

Not at all, take the image, print it and you can connect some of the dots in a multitude of ways outlining all sorts of shapes.

So you are essentially saying that scientific data is pretty much the same as a bunch of random, unrelated dots that you can connect in any way you choose. Sorry, but that is not how it works.

[brunumb]

This is misleading, all scientific explanations just move the ball, once the light flash during a storm was due to "God" now it is due to the high temperature of the air through which huge electric currents flow, these flow because of electric charge, electric charge exists because of --- "God" - see? God is still there. No scientific explanation ever eliminates God, is just reveals other incredible things between God and what we are explaining.

Primitive views of God had him directly involved in phenomena like thunder and lightning. Science put paid to that. If you want to follow the turtles all the way down to say that "God is still there", you will have to demonstrate the truth of that statement rather than leave it hanging there as an unsupported claim. Science can't eliminate a God that has never been shown to be there in the first place.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #194]

... the reason is not because I "can't fathom how they could occur naturally" it is that I am satisfied that they cannot occur naturally.

It is always good to be personally satisfied ... but it has no bearing on whether anything can or cannot occur naturally.

If I convinced you that X cannot be due to natural laws then what would you do?

I supposed I'd be convinced if you actually did that. But I seriously doubt that you could because in the history of humankind the supernatural (or non-natural) has never been demonstrated to exist. So you have a very high hurdle to clear to prove that it does.

That's one of the most blatant evasions I've seen here so far! very well, don't answer the question.

Oh, it's not an evasion ... it is refusing to beat a dead horse. This issue has come up before in these S&R threads and all you did was run around in circles, hands waving, making philosophical arguments as to why a god being must exist. No need rehashing that again.

Well the question was quite simple - can a thing the used to explain why that thing exists?

Been there, done that.

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=38699&start=110

[alexxcJRO]

If I convinced you that X cannot be due to natural laws then what would you do?

Natural laws->Axioms are the rules that are contained within a context.
They are fabrications of human minds, with no necessary linkage to the natural world. Context can change, our contrived things can change based upon new findings, experimentations.
If something break some natural law it would mean there exist a different context of our reality where it does not apply.

Example: String theory coupled with Eternal inflation says there may be huge set of vacuum like states any one of which may fill a specific pocket universe. According to Eternal inflation concept we may have different pocket universes with different kinds of vacuum inside them which would be determined randomly as this pocket universes break of from inflating backbone. You would have different vacuums from the set, different laws of physics and different particles depending on the pocket universe.

[Bust Nak]

Not at all, take the image, print it and you can connect some of the dots in a multitude of ways outlining all sorts of shapes.

Yes? What does that have to do with my point that you can rank said multitude of ways according to resemblance to shapes and items?

There are no rules other than those you invent or choose to apply, the data is the dots, the scattered dots and the hypothesis is that these dots represent surviving trace remnants of some image, the dots are all that are left. Any curve can have a set of points placed upon it, then the cure removed, all you'll see are the remaining dots.

Again, yes? So what?

Right which is what I, Berlinski and numerous others have done with evolution. But when we do that the emotional outrage expressed, the vitriol, the accusations of "pseudoscience" all soon follow.

Sure, Let me start: that's pseudoscience, creationism in disguise.

So did Faraday, Newton, Maxwell, Sedgwick, Joule, Lister, von Braun and many many more, seems I'm in good company.

You say that yet none of the people you mentioned strayed from naturalistic explanation in their scientific works. You've affirmed as much when you said Faraday didn't use God as a scientific explanation, you've confirmed it again when you said the supernatural is inapplicable as a scientific explanation. Which of these people you mentioned, would you accuse of being thoughtless enough to have used an inapplicable explanation in the scientific context?

Materialism is not defined that way though, look...

We've been through this, that's two definitions out of many. Here we are just arguing semantics. You've already agreed with me conceptually when you presented your own definition of a scientific explanation as a reductionist model assuming laws and material quantities. It sure looks like the same assumption as materialism to me, so at this point it doesn't really matter if we use the "materialism" label or not.

Had they been materialists they'd be unable to consider supernatural factors as a possibility. So their context was not one (e.g. materialism) that prohibited the supernatural.

That's a denying the antecedent fallacy. (Materialists -> prohibited supernatural) does not imply (¬materialists -> ¬prohibited supernatural.)

And in light of what you said below re: prohibited vs inapplicable. (Materialists -> supernatural inapplicable) does not imply (¬materialists -> ¬supernatural inapplicable.)

I did say that, what of it? Do you think I am not able to use the term "correct" because of this?

Maybe, it raises the question of what you mean by "correct," and why your "correct" is any better than an alternate "correct."

Not prohibiting, more inapplicable I'd say.

What's the practical difference between "supernatural is inapplicable as a scientific explanation" and "supernatural is prohibited as a scientific explanation?" Aren't inapplicable explanation, prohibited? Either way, rephrase instances where I used words like prohibited with inapplicable and meat of my argument remains the same, as the example above. If you invoke the supernatural in an explanation, then it is unscientific, whether it is unscientific because it is prohibited or because it is inapplicable. Sounds to me you are forced by your own defintion to accept this.

This is what I wrote:

It presupposes the impossibility of the supernatural, something that none of the hundreds of scientists (Faraday et-al) ever had imposed upon them, and it serves no purpose other than to provide a means to label some "pseudoscientists" and thereby discredit them and their claims.

If to attribute some observable thing to the supernatural is deemed by all as "not doing science" then that leads rather quickly to labelling such a person a pseudoscientist.

By the AAAS definition we'd have to regard Lemaître (the man who first proposed the "Bag Bang" theory after studying Einstein's new theory) as a pseudoscientists because:

The young Lemaître was already beginning to think deeply about the beginning of the universe, in the context of his Christian faith. On May 28th, 1917, he wrote to his friend van Severen from the trenches: “I have understood the ‘Fiat Lux’ [Latin for “let there be light”] as the reason of the universe.”[2] An unpublished document from the early years after the war (God’s First Three Declarations, also translated sometimes as The First Three Words of God, written around 1921) shows him taking great pains to establish an elaborate concordism around the idea of light at the origin of the universe inspired in Genesis 1:3.[3]

Here he clearly associates the Genesis creation story with the reason the universe exists, ergo he must be a pseudoscientist because he fails to adhere to the AAAS rule "seeking natural explanations".

Do you regard Lemaître as a pseudoscientist?

No, and neither would the AAAS. Because just like Faraday, Newton, Maxwell, Sedgwick, Joule, Lister, and von Braun, Lemaître did not invoke the supernatural in his scientific explanation. He could associate whatever he wanted with with the reason the universe exists, as long as he kept it away from his scientific explanation. He, like the others mentioned, sought natural explanations, just as the AAAS definition demanded.

Not sure why you thought a private letter to his friend would work as an example of Lemaître breaking the AAAS rule. I mean, would you call sharing his thoughts in a letter, in a trench, in the middle of WWI no less, an example of "doing science" or "not doing science?" If you are seriously suggesting that Lemaître had presented an supernatural (and therefore inapplicable by your own definition) explanation in the scientific context, then it's not AAAS that's branding him a pseudoscientist; it would be you calling him a pseudoscientist.

As an aside, you still haven't explained why "supernatural therefore pseudoscience" presuppose the impossibility of the supernatural.

I don't understand your point.

Why don't you think you can make predictions about God? Alternatively, if you think you can, then surely God would qualify as "natural" because he is predictable?

Yes, those attributes when embodied in a living organism are indeed referred to (by some people) as natural, I was referring to the case where these attributes are claimed to play a role in situations that exclude living organisms, find me a materialist who would classify such an explanation as "natural".

You are speaking to one right now; there is also a certain Richard Dawkins, you might have heard of him. If it can be empirically shown that we are somehow the product of intelligent agency, then the agent(s) that created us are by definition natural; whatever method they used to create is by definition naturalistic; the explanation incorporating these points is by definition a natural explanation; the people did the work to show this are not pseudoscientists since they sought and found a natural explanation.