— Has anyone ever met someone who has a dogmatic belief in science reminiscient of the former belief in Religion? Don’t get me wrong, i think Science is a wonderful thing, i just don’t think it capable of creating it’s own values, but some people seem to think that it can do just that. We are making amazing technological discoveries every day that will require a greater role for philosophy, witness the current stem cell research debate. Philosophy is no longer ther handmaiden of religion, but it should remain the servant of science for some time to come. What do you think?
its odd, i sometimes base alot of my theories about everything on the belief that all matter will eventually be found out to be made of some sort of material which everything else in the universe is made of. i dont know this to be true. but i since i dont know this for scientific fact, i can do nothing but believe… but it does seem to make sence to me.
— That’s just it! The actual scientist doesn’t base his views on belief, he operates from the reverse, doubt. If he can find one falsifying instance of his theory, then it’s toast. Some of the scientific adherents, on the other hand, maintain an entirely different paradigm.
Hey guys,
I don’t mean to interrupt, but I wanted to share something that your conversation reminded me of. One of the canons of science has been that a genuine science must be falsifiable. Yet there are instances of scientific systems or facts that prove to be unfalsifiable. Those that are unfalsifiable have shown to be, possibly, verifiable. One such example that comes to mind is one I heard about in university. If a person was to say to you “there are three consecutive sevens in Pi”, you may notice it to be a genuine assertion (either true or false). This statement is referring to a scientific system we call math, or one aspect of it. Because Pi goes on to infinity, the statement “there are three consecutive sevens in Pi” can never be falsified, since the only way to falsify it would be to know all the numbers in Pi and show that there is no 777 within Pi, but the fact that Pi goes on to infinity means you will never know all the numbers in Pi - hence, unfalsifiable. What you can do, possibly, is to work out the numbers far enough where, let’s assume, you find three consecutive sevens wherein you will have VERIFIED the statement.
What’s your take?
— reminiscent of Popper’s falsification theory. Yes your example is not falsifiable… fascinating.
— Godel was able to prove that in mathematics there may be things that are true yet nevertheless unprovable. This too seems characteristic of your example.
— Magius. I would just like to say that in your post to the thread: question, that you really listened to the questions and assumed no hidden meanings, that to my mind is very scientific.
Reply to Magius
With regard to your example about the sequence “777” in Pi: To me this has to do more with mathematics than science. Scientists have discovered many instances where the real world behaves in conformity with mathematical relationsips. Yet, the real world is separate and distinct from both science and mathematics. Whatever the truth may be in your example, it is a truth about mathematics, and not necessarily a truth about the real world unless that is somehow specifically demonstrated.
Marshall,
thanks for the kind comment.
f7u2p stated:
I couldn’t agree more. I had a similar thought when I heard the example in one of my philo classes. I would go further to say, as you did later in your post, that this example not only doesn’t need to relate, it is my opinion that it actually doesn’t relate to reality. Moreover, as I have often made mention in many of my posts, the very concept of infinity, in my opinion, is extremely ambiguous, problematic, and absolutely not needed whatsoever in our lives.
What’s your take?
I recall a math class where we briefly discussed the notion of an infinity of infinities and derived some properties. I think that “infinity” is a useful word, but I agree that it’s application to the real world is problematic in it’s mathematical sense. Of course, in the sense of a very very large number it does apply to the real world. In math class I could never grasp the distinction they made between infinity and a very very large number.
f7u2p,
I respect your thought on the matter, specifically because I respect your thought on the matter is what makes me inquire further. You say that you think ‘infinity’ to be a useful word. Now please understand, for myriad posters on ILP confuse my questioning to be arguing against them, it isn’t. Hence, I would like to ask you to explain in your own opinion what the usefulness is of infinity. Maybe you may want to elaborate upon the definition itself. Moreover, you say that infinity, in the sense of a very large number, does actually apply to the real world - I would, again, be interested to hear your further thoughts on the matter, maybe some examples to help guide me along, and so on.
f7u2p stated:
Funny you mention that, not too long ago I was sitting in one of my philo classes and we came across a reading where one of the philosophers, the name escapes me at the moment, argued that many people confuse infinity with a very big number. Put another way, their definition of infinity is just a number that is so big that it is nonsensical to try to articulate it. Like you, I myself wonder whether there isn’t more to this apparent confusion.
What’s your take?
Reply to Magius
I enjoy nonabusive repartee. I say “infinite” when descibing the extent of outerspace or the number of stars in the sky or the number of neuron interconnections in the brain. It is symantically eligant to use an appropriate word instead of a phrase even a short one. From my examples you see that I sometimes apply the word loosely to any very large number of things where the sum is unknowable although logic tells us the sum is constrained to be finite. That there are an infinite number of grains of sand on the beach is a useful description even though the number is technically constrained to be finite. It is rare that we need concern ourselves with constraints on very very large numbers.
My explanation for the mathematical infinity confusion is based on my need to relate all ideas to the real world. Mathematicans feel no such contraint. Having postulated infinity they can construct logical relationships with no compulsion to provide examples in the real world. To the amazement of themselves and everyone else their constructs sometimes prove usefull in describing the real world. I suppose someday the general public might need to make sense of an infinity of infinities, but I won’t worry about it now.
“A workable falsehood is better than an incomprehensible truth”
“Better to be right within 10% and have an answer, than to not know any answer at all”
And
“Science is the act of taking a theory which is wrong and replacing it with one that is more subtlely wrong.”
These are engineering credos that demonstrate an observation on purer science. The critical element of them is that science has to keep in mind it’s own falsifiability, but that fact doesn’t neccessarily remove the consequences of their (wrong) model. If scientists lose this (easy enough, we all have cherished beliefs), then it is simply a religion of matter and energy.
I bring this topic up partly because infinity and it’s real world meanings came up. It would seem that there was a huge difference between finite and infinite, but as was pointed out, eventually that difference becomes less and less meaningful. The distance to the car outside is well within grasp, the distance to Sao Tome less so, the distance to the sun is almost meaningless, but still within xomprehension. As you get further the distance merely changes from lotz n’ lotz, to zoggin’ lotz n’ lotz until you reach infinity which really adds no particular meaning to the distance since one has already exceeded conventional rationality.
There’s one of them on this board, I won’t name names… 
im interested in the philosophy of science… stuff like scientific revolutions and stuff linked with epistemology.
i view science as an interpretation… “there are no facts, only interpretations” scientific “truths” change with paradigm shifts.
i would like to participate in the arguements posted but unfortunately i dont understand them.
Science, or rather empiricism, I think, is the greatest tool of inquiry the human mind has yet developed. However, even hypothesis confirmed using the scientific method are not absolute. Just because an experiment produces a the same result 1 million times in row, we cannot be certain it will produce the same result at attemt #1 million and 1.
Down with Positivism!
Actually you can. Though when a hypothesis has been shown to be accurate 1 million times over, it’s a theory, not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is the first stage in trying to to relate at least two observed events. Once something props up that discounts the hypothesis, theory, or law, that’s when it’s necessary to modify it so that it accounts for the new observation of discrepancy.
I’m surprised to not see a re-post of the scientific method in this thread. Faith from thought-out and logical science is truly established when hypotheses, theories, and laws prove their worth time and time again. It is easy, in fact defined, to have faith in something that has a high probability of happening in the future as you expect based on observations of similar circumstances in the past.
The ultimate distinction between religion and any science - whether it’s economic, biological, musical, chemical, motion, behavior, et cetera - is that religion requires a faith in something that has not been shown to be true through universally replicable observation, vwhile scientific faith rests on something that has consistently been shown to be true. The latter is a mutable faith or a cautious faith since whatever you have faith in as true, could be wrong, and need amending in the future. This is how the building of knowledge over time is done. Religion has no such luxury. It’s either true or it isn’t from the get-go. And every time religion changes its tune - Episcopalians and Bible editors take note - there is a major upheaval and resulting chaos within the community. A scientist who forgets the tenets of the scientific method is, in no short words, bastardizing the foundation of the principles that’s allowed scientific knowledge to be established. A true, committed scientist will never forget this.
I think science has philosophy integrated in it. In my opinion, science is the evolution of universal understanding which derived from philosophy which derived from religion.
Simply put though, nothing explains the universe more acurately than science.
Those that would have a dogmatic belief in science would include myself. But I think if we took a good look at this forum, we would notice that such dogma is just as prevelant in philosophy as well. I enjoy philosophy, but I feel it doesn’t do much in regard to establishing values much anymore. Science is taking over this duty and those who have dogmatic beliefs in philosophy are reluctant to accept this just as those who have dogmatic belief in religion are as well.
But there isn’t anything that can be done because you cannot argue with results and with science we are getting results. Many of the main tenets of philosophy and religion haven’t been resolved at all and have just branched into more intricate problems, but when you look at science, we have more answers to what this universe is really about. Answers that philosopy and religion have promised for ages but never delivered. Science delivers.
Of course I am biased because I have such a belief, but I much prefer to explore and understand the evident collectively and objectively rather than stew over questions that probably will never be answered which philosophy and religion spend most of their time seeking out.
Science is knowledge or a system of acquiring knowledge. What you write is not the definition, but one of the many traits of science.
I wouldn’t haggle with yourself for being biased in this way. After all, your bias is based on direct, replicable observations by yourself or people who’ve documented their observation. You really shouldn’t feel self-conscious about the analysis of events in our existence.
‘Bias’ is not the bad word that so many would like you to think it is.