marmalade

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/op...&oref=sl ogin

Its a short article. The basic issue is about rationality. Obviously, scientific theories are predictive of reality and predictability leads to practical application whether in technology or research. But...

Is reality itself rational or is it merely our minds that explain reality rationally?

Is reality absolutely objective?

Are scientific laws immutable?

Is science primarily about observation or theory?

Are scientific theories explanatory or descriptive?

AB517

We need to keep “scientist” and “science” separate.

Scientist are human ... just like me.

NotConvinced

Our minds, no, no, and partially explanatory but more descriptive.

Believing that reality is subjective is the first step toward enlightenment.

__________________
Everything you think you thought, the water's gone...every drop.

marmalade

Scientist are human ... just like me.[/quote]

I agree.

I was only speaking of science in general.

You're human?

AB517

I agree.

I was only speaking of science in general.

You're human?[/quote]

to_hobbes

Its in our minds. But science understands, through observation, that something exists outside of one's own mind, including other minds, which can observe the same things happening. The question is, are these other minds separate from our own?
No, we don't know what happens outside of our own mind. So everything we know that is absolutely true is only true if we assume that we are not crazy.

By definition, no. Scientific laws are constantly under revision. You could argue that old scientific laws that are inaccurate are still "true but inaccurate" but science maintains that nothing we know is really true, it is only "well defined" and experimentally provable. A scientific truth can always be replaced by something that is more true (more accurate) -- e.g. Einstein's physics replaced Newton's physics.

Both, but observation is key. Theories are mathematic expressions based on mathematic axioms. In mathematics, axioms are absolutely true, but are understood to be ideas which may or may not exist in real life. In science, axioms are based on observation. If the observation changes, or if a new observation is made that shows an existing theory is wrong, then science must reject the old theory and make a new one that explains the new contradictory observation. Observation, I would say, is the primary thing.

Both. In science, you have to be able to describe an observation, then explain your description using mathematics.
___________________________________

Now, let me respond to the article.

According to this article, "...until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."

I disagree. The definition of faith is that you believe in truth without having observed evidence. The definition of science is that you believe the universe has a fundamental logic which can be observed and explained. But believing in science itself requires not faith, but observation. We observe that the universe has order, we observe that we can predict that order using mathematics. Therefore, we have observed that science is rational and not based on faith. Science and Faith are by definition mutually exclusive -- they are two completely different ways of thinking about the universe.

If we could observe a miracle to occur, for example: someone prays to god to be able to fly and is immediately pardoned from the laws of gravity for no apparent reason, then one would be tempted to say that God answered the prayer. But a scientist never accepts "God" as the answer to any question. By definition of the word "Science", a scientist must assume that God did not make that happen. Instead, the assumption is that may be some intimate connection between the human mind and the laws of physics that allowed a prayer to be converted into observable physical behavior. A scientist assumes that if they can make the "miracle" happen again, they may be able to observe something in the universe that makes it happen.

In other words, science doesn't have all the answers, and never will, and that is by the definition of the word "Science". Because even if we figured out the one equation that explains everything the entire universe, we may yet discover situations where that rule is wrong, and would therefore have to further refine our equation using more scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry must never end.

2500 years ago, we didn't know why the sun rises and sets, so we said "a god makes it happen." But, now we know better. Today, we don't know why the universe exists so some of us say, "god makes it exist". But tomorrow, we may know better, and religions of the future would claim divine knowledge of some other aspect of the universe which we didn't yet understand.

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)

romansh

Hi Marm... thought I would have a look a the article too, some points:
True up to a point... As a scientist I have faith/belief that science is a good way to interpret the universe and the evidence contained therein. Whereas science proceeding on assumption.... it does that all the time....if the assumption 'fails to hold true' then back to the drawing board. ....and as Paul Davies says .... And so far this faith has been justified.
It may seem this way but not at all true. If I stumble across something that does not fit theory (usually more a hypothesis in my case) then after eliminating all the probable causes...back to the drawing board. The laws of physics are continually being revised and tested!
Yes.

This is an emotive supposition (that is not necessrily true) and trying to attach to our collective need to believe.
When one starts a sentence with clearly very often, as it is this case, it isn't. Whatever science is, it is as Og would put it, not outside of this universe.

I think Davies's article does science a disservice... in that science does recognize it's own weaknesses and does its best to overcome them. There are realities of human existence ...getting more funding balancing with over-selling the product.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

marmalade

to hobbes and romansh,

Fundamentally, I have no disagreement with either of what you said. I'm sure I could nitpick about one thing or another, but I feel no need to defend the article. I was just using the article as a jumping off point to consider some questions.

If you want to know my views on science and religion, then I'd direct you to integral theory.

Here is an example of a discussion about this on an integral forum:
http://opensourceintegral.ning.com/f...3ATopic%3A7561

A site that has much info about the integral perspective:
http://www.integralscience.org/

WilliamBlue

I do not believe that this is a valid comparison as one is based on observation and testability and is subject to change as new observations are made. The other is based on faith and in most cases are not subject to change as new evidence presents itself, for faith needs no evidence. I think the religious among us would like to use this argument to muddy the waters.

Science requires faith
Religion requires faith
Science = Religion (not!)

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?

romansh

nice one William...
taking it a step further...
I would argue:
science requires reproducability
and
religion does not require reproducability
marmalade ...my question .....does integralism require reproducability?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams