That's sorta the whole point of why the analogies fall apart.Originally Posted by Kidicious
Science has some theories. If they were ever provable perhaps we could make a substantive claim like that. There's a certain point before where science doesn't have anything approaching a good answer though. Science doesn't assume. (People misusing science may do so of course ... )Science assumes that everything is created, which doesn't make sense. Something has to have created everything.
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
That's sorta the whole point of why the analogies fall apart.
Science has some theories. If they were ever provable perhaps we could make a substantive claim like that. There's a certain point before where science doesn't have anything approaching a good answer though. Science doesn't assume. (People misusing science may do so of course ... )Science assumes that everything is created, which doesn't make sense. Something has to have created everything.
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Materialists assume. I don't think it's good science though. But anyway, what are the good theories? How would you judge whether it's a good theory or not when it can't be verified scientifically?
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
I'm not an astrophysicist and haven't even spent much time reading up on it in general. As such, my opinion about what the good theories in this regard wouldn't be worth much.
If (a hypothetical theory) really can't be verified, it's not a good theory. Falsifiability is a good thing in a theory.How would you judge whether it's a good theory or not when it can't be verified scientifically?
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
I think you are confusing philosophy and science, Aeson.
JM
(edit: there is no point in going over what Kid is confusing)
Last edited by Jon Miller; August 27, 2012 at 07:07.
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
At which point(s) are you suggesting that confusion occurs, and why?
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
For example "Science does not assume".
It definitely does make assumptions, important assumptions, and those really define the subset of philosophy known as science.
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
You are taking the statement out of context. I was not saying that there are no assumptions made in science (or the development of scientific method). Kid said "Science assumes that everything is created", and I quoted that specifically. It was his use of "assumes" that I was addressing, and specifically the (hypothetical) assumption about the creation of the universe. I do not think that science assumes (in the way Kid is using the term) anything about the creation of the universe. I remember KH addressing this previously:
http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/1...=1#post4691326
Also, I am confused about how could I possibly be confused on that point between science and philosophy? Even if we take the statement out of context, philosophy makes assumptions as well.Cosmology says nothing about the origin of the pre-expansion Universe. Maybe it was there forever. Maybe not. Maybe it had already expanded and contracted before. Maybe not. We have no data. We don't even understand the middle step (inflation) very well, so postulating about anything further back is pretty useless.
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Science is a branch of (natural) philosophy. (Different) (types of) philosophies make (different) (types of) assumptions. Philosophy (in general) has the means to investigate the assumptions, science (generally) does not.
One thing science does assume is 'there exists a natural explanation'. This is a good thing, if we didn't make this assumption then possibly our understanding of natural philosophy would never have gotten past 'lightening strikes is from angry gods'.
BTW, observational science is heavily dependent on assumptions, more so than experimental science.
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Yes Jon, I know all that.
That doesn't explain how taking "science does not assume" out of context could possibly result in an interpretation that the statement is confusing philosophy and science. Both of them make assumptions. Thus by (hypothetically) saying one does not assume, it can't be confused with the other which does assume.
For instance, take tomatoes and apples. Both fruits. If someone says tomatoes aren't fruits, they aren't confusing tomatoes with apples. Even if they've also said apples aren't fruits (which didn't have an analog in this case) ... there's still no reason to assume they are confusing tomatoes and apples.
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Your response to Kid was about how science does not assume/etc when he was talking about materialists/etc.
You were confusing science and philosophy, you needed to make a 'philosophy of science response' and not a 'science response'.
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
You are the one confused here Jon. Kid used the term "science" in the claims I addressed, in response to and quoting my use of the term "science". Kid had not even mentioned the term "materialist" until later posts. I certainly was not using "science" to mean "materialist". If Kid was meaning "materialist" when he made claims about "science", that would be his misuse of terms and mistake in addressing them to me. (I do not make the assumption that Kid was confusing the terms. There is not yet any evidence that it was the case.)
It was perfectly reasonable on my part to assume that his response to my post which used the term "science", his response using the term "science", was actually about science.
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Kid was obviously confused.
You had an opportunity to clear things up. I commented because I expect you to do so.
Philosophically materialism and science are very related.
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Uhm nope...
Creationism asumes that everything is created ...
Science assumes that the universe as we know it is the result of natural laws as well as a lot of random events (like, for example, Supernovae whose explosions create clouds of heavier elements which then hit somewhere else a star in being which finally forms planets ... or mass extinctions which make the way free for some species to become dominant.
Science doesnt´need a creator
Sigh.
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Kid struggles to complete sentences. Why would anyone bother to argue metaphysics with him?
Expecting me to drop the context of my original post where I specifically used the term "science" in regards to it's claims (or rather, lack thereof) in regards to the creation of the universe, and to address Kid's direct response to my post about what science claims in regards to the creation of the universe (in which was using the term "science"), and assume that by "science" he meant "materialists" is just absurd.
a) not my problem in any caseYou had an opportunity to clear things up. I commented because I expect you to do so.
b) unconfirmed assumption on your part that it even was a problem
c) your earlier attempt to "prove" your comment is not the same argument you're using now
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
I was pointing you to the place where you obviously went wrong.
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
So you aren't familiar (or aren't able to talk about) the "good theories" in science about how things exist? I'm only familiar with people saying "it just happened." Too me that's saying it was a miracle (which can't be verified). But I don't know of anyone who has ever said that who believes in miracles.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Ah yeah "created" was a bad choice of words on my part. Let me ask you this. How did the natural laws come to exist, and why do things randomly? I don't understand your belief in randomness.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
It's not my fault that the best explaination that you can give for your beliefs is that "things are just that way."
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
There's a difference between 'we think that happened but we don't know why yet' and a miracle.
What are natural laws? The way you're looking at it depends on the possibility that things could just easily have been another way, and that's not necessarily true. Whatever process was involved in the creation of the universe could well mean that the 'natural laws' are just a natural by product of the process. When people say 'if x was just slightly different the universe would implode in on itself' or 'if x was just slightly different life could not exist' they are already pre-presuming there was some kind of choice in the matter, and as we don't know how universes work that seems a pretty daft presumption.
Last edited by kentonio; August 27, 2012 at 16:05.
You really are thinking about this is such a limited way. How can things exist without being created? Your answer is "they can but we just don't know how yet." That's just unacceptable.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
You just misquoted me. I did not say 'they can', I said 'we think that happened'. Those are very different things.
It's only in the last half century that we've started getting the kind of tools that allow us to study space in a semi-decent way. It's a much more honest approach to create theories based on how we've witnessed the world/universe to work previously and build upon that than to just make up an answer like 'x deity did it'.
Btw, I edited my previous post to add a chunk. Didn't expect you to reply so fast.
It is your fault if you misunderstand my beliefs, however.
First, you just said "the creation of the universe." Thanks, now I don't feel so dumb for saying that you science guys assume that everything has to be created. But yeah, what I meant by that is that you believe there is a cause to every effect that can potentially be explained by science. What I'm talking about is a first cause. You call that big bang maybe, but you assume that something caused big bang? Don't you believe in cause and effect or what. You don't believe in miracles, but sometimes you talk as if you do.
Re: natural laws. I have never heard it suggested that the natural laws have been different. We generally say that anything that can't be explained by the natural laws is a miracle. Of course there are those who say that everything is explained by natural laws. Scientific discovery has led some to believe more in randomness which isn't caused by natural laws. That really confuses the matter. I don't see any reason to believe in randomness. Why isn't it just miracles?
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
I understand that you believe that the natural laws have always been, that there is no beginning to time. Thanks, I don't.
Last edited by Kidicious; August 27, 2012 at 16:27.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Ahem. Believing that the universe was created does not require that one not observe the natural world and study it. This has nothing to do with the question of how the universe exists. In fact, if you study the natural world you see the law of cause and effect. That should lead you to ask how can an effect exist whithout a cause. Ok, now we see that sometimes there is no cause (just randomness). This is my point. What exactly are you seeing in the natural world which leads you to the belief that it wasn't created?You just misquoted me. I did not say 'they can', I said 'we think that happened'. Those are very different things.
It's only in the last half century that we've started getting the kind of tools that allow us to study space in a semi-decent way. It's a much more honest approach to create theories based on how we've witnessed the world/universe to work previously and build upon that than to just make up an answer like 'x deity did it'.
Btw, I edited my previous post to add a chunk. Didn't expect you to reply so fast.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Sorry. Nope.
Oh well then. So what? That's what I remember you saying, but not going to bother to search for it. So what if I don't understand your beliefs even though I think you are a lying corward and a fool.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks