|
Search this Blog:
Subscribe to Blog:
[ Friends ]
This blog sponsored by:
The views represented on this blog are not necessarily those of Higher Things, nor does Higher Things necessarily endorse them.
|
The following errors have occurred:
No data was found when trying to access the feed at: http://blog.higherthings.org/theboxingmop/latest.rss
No data was found when trying to access the feed at: http://blog.higherthings.org/darthpatty/latest.rss
|
|
|
Posted At: 2:51pm by FemLem1
|
Discussions from biology:
"To believe in something is to regard as absolute truth without asking for a test."
"True belief is believing in something despite test proving it wrong."
"Belief has a very high value in the field of Religion but has no value in the field of Science."
I'm not sure what to think about the first two, but I personally think the last statement is true. It kinda puts me in a weird place (as a wannabe student of both fields). Your thoughts?
Edited on: September 07th, 2005 2:51 pm
|
I am listening to Pearl Harbor
Martin Tillman, Diane Warren, Hans Zimmer, David Campbell, Gavin Greenaway, Heitor Pereira, Tim Pierce, Johnny Mori, Michael Fisher, Julia Migenes
|
|
Posted On: September 07th, 2005 at 5:52pm by Pr. Alex Klages [ + ] |
The first statement is OK.
The second statement is erroneous--if a test *proves* something wrong, that's not true belief, that's just silly. (note that most things of faith cannot be scientifically proven or disproven)
The third statement is an outright lie. Belief has huge value in Science. It's what scientists call "theory" or "working hypothesis". Since thus and such regularly happens, we believe firmly it will happen again.
Don't get suckered into "religion" vs "science" as though they are antitheses. Read your history books and see how many of the great scientists were so because of their beliefs.
|
Posted On: September 07th, 2005 at 9:45pm by john pawlitz |
That third statement does loom impressively. But I too have some problems eagerly accepting it. For instance, I don't know if I could take the statement:
"Belief has a very high value in the field of Religion" in and of itself, quite apart from what is said about science. Naturally, belief is a good thing, but if "value" is an issue, God has a very high value, not belief, and his is the glory, not ours. I don't know of any other way to read "value" except to assume that it means nothing. Ultimately, the third statement is correct, in the sense that science *should* not a statement of belief, but of experiment, etc. In practice, however, it is necessary as Pr. Klages said to have some beliefs and draw some conclusions. Plus, scientists twist "evidence" to their own sick designs all the time--they are not inherently credible or unaffecting. But who is inherently credible?
I'm not so ready to dish away the second statement...proof is forever limited in scope. It is always based on axiomatic systems. It is always "sight" not "faith." Something I read included some anecdote about Eistein when they asked him what he would do if his theories were disproved ... and he said something like: "then I would pray God, because they are true all the same" or something like that.
Sorry for going in reverse order like this, but in regards to the first, can someone define the difference between absolute truth and truth?
|
Posted On: September 07th, 2005 at 9:48pm by john pawlitz |
Too bad I can't spell Einstein...I felt bad about that.
|
Posted On: September 08th, 2005 at 2:01am by revcwirla |
Statement #1 is true - In analytic philosophy, statements of faith are non-falsifiable, therefore non-testable. (eg God is Triune; the Bible is the Word of God; God created the heavens and the earth) The word "absolute" is not necessary to this statement.
Statement #2 is false - A statement that can be proven false is testable, therefore not a matter of faith. (eg Jesus rose from the dead; Napolean lost the battle at Waterloo.)
Statement #3 is very deceptive. What does "value" mean? Objective facts are the name of the game, whether in Religion or in Science. You should read JW Montgomery's essay, "The Craft of the Theologian" where he demonstrates that the same line of inductive and retroductive reasoning is used in Theology and Science. In fact, Theology used to be called the "Queen of the Sciences."
If "value" means "utility," the statement is false Believing something to be true doesn't make it true, either in Religion or in Science.
If "value" means "relevence," the statment is again false. Objective observation demands that the observer be aware of his or her beliefs which may bias his observations or explanations, whether in Religion or Science. We call them "presuppositions."
|
Posted On: September 08th, 2005 at 1:02pm by FemLem1 |
let me add something futher from our discussion (to clarify what my professor was meaning):
She said it as "I don't believe in the theory of Natural Selection. Either I find this theory useful in making accurate predictions of events yet to come or I have high confidence in this theory." (that's not verbatum, but it's close).
here's a bit for you, pr. cwirla: She said it was a non sequitur question to ask a scientist whether they believe in a theory or not - yea or nea?
|
Posted On: September 08th, 2005 at 2:54pm by revcwirla |
She said it as "I don't believe in the theory of Natural Selection. Either I find this theory useful in making accurate predictions of events yet to come or I have high confidence in this theory." (that's not verbatum, but it's close).
If you emphasize the word "believe" you will get the gist. One does not "believe in" an hypothesis or a theory. One "believes in" non-falsifiable statements (it's all you can do with them). Hypotheses or theories are falsifiable, therefore testable. Your teacher is using one criterion of testability, namely, predictive value. Does an hypothesis or theory accurately predict an event not yet observed? This is good scientific method. Her "high confidence" in a theory is her subjective response to a theory's predictive capability. She means to say that she is convinced on the preponderance of the evidence that Natural Selection is a valid theory because it accurately predictes events not yet observed.
You might want to ask for some clear examples of the predictive value of Natural Selection.
The primary criterion of an hypothesis or theory when you cannot do controlled variable experiments (the gold standard in scientific method) is how well the hypothesis or theory accounts for all the observed data. Does the hypothesis or theory adequately and reasonably explain all the observed facts?
Of course, in empirical science, the gold standard is the controlled variable experiment, in which an hypothesis is tested by controlling the variables and observing the causal relationships. This is the stuff of physics and chemistry, not of history, paleontology, etc. Whenever you can't do an experiment to test your hypothesis, you are in a slightly different realm of science. It's actually more like history or detective work.
I'm not sure the question is actually a non sequiter, since non sequiter is a fallacy of reasoning, and a question is not an argument per se.
I think what she means is that it is irrelevent to ask a scientist whether he or she "believes in" a theory, since theories are not believed in but proven. What you should ask a scientist is, "What is the data that causes you to accept this theory?"
|
Posted On: September 08th, 2005 at 7:23pm by revcwirla |
Additional thought:
When you cannot do a controlled variable experiment, it is impossible to test the predictive capacity of an hypothesis or theory. That's the whole basis behind a controlled variable experiment in the first place. Your theory causes you to predict something else, and then you go to the lab and try it. The problem is, you can't test Natural Selection under laboratory conditions any more than you can do an experiment to show that George Washington was the first president of the US. You can only observe the results and attempt to formulate a reasonable explanation that fits the facts. Just like Sherlock Holmes. He can't recreate the murder in the lab; he can only gather the evidence and make a reasonable case.
I'd be very interested to find out what the theory of Natural Selection has predicted that causes one to have a "high degree of confidence" in it.
The better criterion to test Natural Selection is whether or not it adequately explains the observed facts.
|
Posted On: September 09th, 2005 at 12:15am by revcwirla |
One more thought...
Then again, you might be able to design an experiment to demonstrate Natural Selection on at least a "micro" level. I would be interested to know if such experiments have been done.
But Natural Selection on a micro level is still not the level of Natural Selection that drives the theory of evolution. Of course, time is one variable you don't have on your side. If it takes "billions and billions" of years, you won't be around to see the results of your experiment.
|
Posted On: September 09th, 2005 at 9:46am by john pawlitz |
It seems a little bizarre, if she really said "high confidence" to differentiate that from belief. For instance, one might have a high confidence that rolling fifteen 6-sided dice will result in at least one 5. I guess it seems like "high confidence" or any such definition of scientific credibility would be a mathematicized judgment of probability.
Maybe this is so...but...
I tend to think there is more to the theory of gravity than, well, we dropped a book 15 times, it fell 15 times and we infer that books have a high probability of falling. It just seems like a simplistic tactic to make science seem more mathematical than it really is...
Why am I talking so much about math? Anyways, it seems like she is suggesting she has high confidence in a theory. Fine, a theory is a great and noble thing. But theory has to constantly be developed...if it becomes stagnant it is no longer theory. Even Newton had to be improved. That's why she has the odd differentiation between utility and confidence (which isn't that just believability anyways?). Newton is "useful" and Einstein on rare occasions useful, but ultimately, Einstein wasn't useful by himself, (neither was Newton) their principles had to be developed into practical technology. So ultimately, confidence in science is like saying "I think this hydrogen bomb will explode" or "I think my BMW can make it up this hill" or "I would be willing to bet that this species of bird will die out under these conditions"
That does not make it more credible or less of a personal thing. Even poker could be reduced to a science of sorts, but it would still benefit from ingenious skill and good luck--the same could be said of physics and chemistry. In any case, scientific thought is an investment in practicality, religion is an investment in an idea (or "Word" cf. dabar) Why do scientists develop science? So they can kill bacteria or build skyscrapers. Why do preachers "develop" doctrine? No reason, just protects us from stupidity and makes us go to heaven.
|
Posted On: September 09th, 2005 at 9:56am by john pawlitz |
What did I just do to lex orandi, lex credendi?--oh well, simple musing.
|
Posted On: September 09th, 2005 at 6:24pm by revcwirla |
I find no problem with the "mathematicized" notion that one has a high degree of confidence in something based on probability. Since scientific reasoning is always inductive and retroductive, there will always be an element of uncertainty. It's similar to juries who are held to being certain "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "to the preponderance of the evidence." Heisenberg and Einstein pretty much destroyed the notion of being absolutely certain about anything empirical. We cross the street and climb into elevators on less than absolute certainty, and a reasonable probability of making it through alive.
As a former research chemist, and now a practicing theologian and pastor, I can attest that while utility and practicality are important (especially for grant proposals), they are not what drive science. That is more of an engineer's way of looking at things. The scientist is in constant pursuit of pattern, knowledge, explanations for the facts.
The same might be said of the formulation of doctrine by the theologian. While there are practical benefits of doctrine (protection against stupidity, innoculation against heresy, but certainly NOT what "makes us go to heaven" (solus Christus!)) the chief motivation for the formulation of doctrine is praise - "orthodoxy."
JW Montgomery sees the scientific and theological enterprises running in parallel. Science has data; theology has Scripture. Science deals with gestalts (patterns): hypotheses, theories, and laws; Theology has speculations, confessions, and creeds. And the method of each is similar: Construct various gestalts (theories/confessions) that best fit the observed facts (whether data or the texts of Scriptures).
The more I think about the original comments posted at the top, the more I realize that scientists are not very critical about the logic and philosophy of what they are doing. I can attest that the typical undergraduate science major is not normally exposed to formal logic, the history of science, or analytical philosophy. In day to day life as a chemist, these consideration weren't very important. We were dealing with the "stuff" of atoms and molecules and how they interacted. But when scientific observations lead to theological or philosophical conclusions, this ignorance on the part of scientists becomes a potential problem, especially when they don't understand the limitations of the scientific method.
|
Posted On: September 09th, 2005 at 6:37pm by revcwirla |
Eureka! I found it! (And not in my bathtub!)
The article you definitely want to read is: "The Theologian's Craft: A Discussion of Theory Formation and Theory Testing in Theology," John Warwick Montgomery in The Suicide of Christian Theology (gotta love that title!) Bethany Fellowship, Inc. 1975 (3rd printing). pp. 267-313.
I would consider this a must-read for the scientist/theologian.
|
Posted On: September 12th, 2005 at 12:27pm by john pawlitz |
hmm...let me restate my theory this way, because I gave it a half-hearted love above:
Scientific knowledge or knowledge that pertains to the world is not an end, but a means, whereas theological knowledge or knowledge that pertains to God is not a means, but an end.
I think all the scientific thought, whether pragmatic or theoretical, would be fruitless...unless we used it--I know that's a "duh really" statement, but is there any humanistic (not meaning atheistic) value to learning? There's only practical value. Whereas theological knowledge is the end of the badness of the human plight, a salvation...unless they find themselves not believing it, so to speak.
(It doesn't mean that God himself rules more or less in one or the other.) But theology, properly, ought to be God's Word, whereas science is our word or human scientia. We have a liturgy, confession, and creed, but that is the substance of our faith--it may be the method of our speech--but it isn't a method of believing, is it? Isn't it the thing that we believe?
After Wordsworth and Keats have had their songs, and Gould his lectures, Newton his physics, I don't know that knowledge of the earth and all its laws is rewarding. Instead, such knowledge is ultimately methodic--as a prelogomena to the technological method (or moral) by which good happens, a practical result (albeit like foul rags) that happens and then is useless until such time arises in which it will be good again. But all the ingenious articulations of science must produce good (albeit like foul rags), because they do not hold any value intrinsically, just the wonder of potential. The Word of God, on the other hand, does not arouse curiosity but holds intrinsic merit. So the opposite could be said that we (albeit miserable sinners) have a good that lasts eternally in the Word of God (even though we are the ones "receiving" it).
Lest I should seem to have thought this through...I am sort of following my interpretation of that laughable scholarly name: Francis Bacon.
|
Posted On: September 13th, 2005 at 12:04pm by Rick Ritchie [ + ] |
When the evolutionists talk about proving evolution, they have a different idea of what a test is than some of the above discussion about the laboratory. I think it has more to do with "What would we expect to find true if this hypothesis were true?" And they can offer many things.
The question for us is, have they offered enough to be convincing? The question they ask themselves is, is our research program justified by its results in continuing. For them the answer is yes. (Most research programs are not as promising as evolution.)
The main reason I'm saying the above is that if you don't know that some of them have different accounts of why what they do is scientific, you can get blindsided in a discussion, especially if they have a lot of philosophy under their belt.
|
Posted On: September 13th, 2005 at 1:12pm by Stan [ + ] |
If I can recommend "Drawin's Black Box", it's an interesting read which touches some of this.
|
Posted On: September 15th, 2005 at 8:29pm by Rick Ritchie [ + ] |
I've read Darwin's Black Box, and thought it was a really good book.
I've also been to an Intelligent Design conference where Behe spoke, among others. His collegue William Dembski used the same terminology as I did above when discussing what made things scientific. He said that Intelligent Design, if it fails, will likely fail not for being false, but for being a theory that is not productive of a compelling research program. (I think he has hopes that it will produce such a program.) That is what will win future generations into an alternate theory. Not so much that they can go into the lab and prove or disprove it. But that they can use it to formulate further hypotheses which bear fruit in the lab.
|
Comment on entry entitled "Belief in Science vs. Religion"
You may use BBCode within your posts, a reference is available here.
|
|
|
|
