Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?

From: Altruon Zardephax (altruon7_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/11/04 

Date: 10 Jul 2004 22:39:29 -0700

Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?

"Robert J. Kolker" <robert_kolker@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9RTHc.62756$Oq2.22541@attbi_s52>...
> Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> > Science is either just another belief system or it is not. If it is
> > just another belief system, what is it in detail? And how does it
> > compare to other belief systems?

This is an interesting statement, and I am going to dissect it.

It follows standard attack mode, and it proceeds as follows:

A: Implied truth:

Belief systems are evil.

B: ('Bait', or, less questionable statement put forth as a substitute
for the implied truth. (tempered by being placed in question format)
The Bait generally provides the basis for the sentence, in order to
allow the communication to proceed, and it is followed by the
'attack', but usually the purpose of the statement is to try to make
the listiner accept the 'implied truth', if nothing else, from habit.)
[Tempered as a question.]

Science is just another belief system.

C: Attack: (proceeding logically)

[Therefore, science is evil.]
(Distorted by intermixing with the implied truth.)

Now, when it comes to the attack, I think that it is reasonable to say
that any particular thing, can be evil, especially when it is out of
balance.

It would be nice to go back to before the existance of civilization,
and live in a primitive simplicity, and at least a seemingly
theoretical bliss.

Nonetheless, if one were able to do so, somehow, one would probably
end up getting into a situation where one might be charged at by large
sabre-toothed cats with fangs, or end up skewered by a charging wooly
mammoth. Then at least some primitive aspects of science would seem
rather nice.

Now Bob Kolker here in another branch of the thread deflected the
'implied truth' and said that it was a 'belief system', but then
qualified it by division with a seperate term, 'constraint', and then
said that the 'constraint' was one of being empirically testable.
 
> It is a belief system plus a constraint. The constraint is that all
> conclusions from the belief system are empirically testable and that the
> conclusions are corroberated by observation (experiment). Science
> differs from religion in that it does not have a built in set of excuses
> for its failures to coincide with what is seen.
>
> There is no doubt a set of unverified assumptions at the base of
> physics. Among these is the assumption that physical laws are the same
> everywhere and in every direction. Physics based in New York is the same
> physics as is based in Paris or Moscow or on the star Sirius.
>
> Bob Kolker

Now at the beginning of this response there is the statement 'it is a
belief system'.

The question, however, is, is it really a belief system, if it is
based upon observation, and admits that it is a system that is
modifiable based upon observation, if these observations bear
themselves out and show themselves to be true?

I looked up the term 'belief' in Webster's New World Dictionary,
Second College Edition, and came up with a word listing for comparison
which I will quote:

belief, the term of broadest application in this comparison, implies
mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty
may be absent.

faith implies complete, unquestioning acceptance of something even in
the absence of proof and, esp., of something not supported by reason

trust implies assurance, often completely intuitive, in the
reliability of someone or something

confidence also suggests such assurance, esp. when based on reason or
evidence

credence suggests more mental acceptance of something that may have no
solid basis in fact (see also opinion)

It is difficult to say wheather I was once a vehement supporter of A
or not, regardless of more current conditions. (Anyway, it was not a
'belief'.)

Nonetheless, there might still be said to be somewhat of an arguement
against B, which Kolker has accepted, with qualifications.

Coming from at least a partial possible standpoint of complete
neutrality, maybe or maybe not for the sake of arguement alone, what
arguements can persons here give in favor, or against, either or both,
A and/or B?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?
    ... There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil? ... for the implied truth. ... Science is just another belief system. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?
    ... > 'attack', but usually the purpose of the statement is to try to make ... > the listiner accept the 'implied truth', if nothing else, from habit.) ... Then at least some primitive aspects of science would seem ... Physics based in New York is the same ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?
    ... > 'attack', but usually the purpose of the statement is to try to make ... > the listiner accept the 'implied truth', if nothing else, from habit.) ... Then at least some primitive aspects of science would seem ... Physics based in New York is the same ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... science and technology. ... It is whatever physics wants it to be. ... >>>aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test ... >> physicists to explain it to them. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ scientific methods ]
    ... > That may be true for your science, and for some possibly Post Modernist ... of physics are like that eg the law of conservation of energy is no more ... should not be used - its context is not well defined. ... >> training but not of the type used in philosophy which is along the lines ...
    (sci.physics)