Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/15/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:05:58 -0600

Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> Albert said:
>
>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>>
>>>Albert said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Albert said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>robert j. kolker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Albert wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I would prefer this wording:
>>>>>>>>The universe behaves according to natural laws, and is therefore
>>>>>>>>consistent and interconnected. Mathematics is a useful invention for
>>>>>>>>describing those aspects of natural law that we have observed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We can only observe particulars. The laws of physics are universally
>>>>>>>qunatified propositions. Thus we do not -observe- them. We hypothesize
>>>>>>>them. You have stated the problem of induction. How to do you get from a
>>>>>>>finite set of particulars to a general law?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I understand what you are saying, Bob. As I said in a reply to
>>>>>>someone else, 'law' is a consensus term that we apply to theories
>>>>>>that have consistently over a long time matched our observations.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree, Albert. What we consider natural laws are simply those
>>>>>theorized formulas that have withstood enough experimentation that we
>>>>>give them an extermely high probability of being correct. I still
>>>>>believe that the actual natural laws are there independent of our
>>>>>theories and formulas.
>>>>
>>>>Such a belief is certainly understandable given the apparent
>>>>reliability of some theories. However, I am afraid that there
>>>>will never be any proof. We may still be in the Matrix.
>>>
>>>We may be in the Matrix, and yet, what evidence to we have for that, or
>>>reason to believe it?
>>
>>No empirical evidence at all. But there are rumors. Follow the
>>white rabbit.
>>
>>
>>>Such a theory doesn't explain any phenomena that
>>>can't be explained otherwise,
>>
>>Anything can be explained 'otherwise.'
>>
>>
>>>therefore I see that as an unnecessary
>>>conjecture.
>>
>>Of course it's unnecessary. But it might be important just the same.
>>
>>
>>>Besides, if we are in some non-reality,
>>
>>Who said anything about non-reality? The Matrix is a metaphor.
>>
>>
>>>there must be some
>>>actual reality to support it (hopefully not a human farm). It seems like
>>>the obvious answer, despite alternatives we can't disprove, that there
>>>are actually consistent natural laws whose effects we are observing.
>>
>>Sure. That view is called Science. It's a belief system like
>>any other.
>
> It's different. By nature it is an evolving belief system, not static,
> always looking for contradictions, rather than denying them.

Actually, the scientific community denies and buries
contradictions daily, hoping that they will never again become
visible. True, this is not the pure definition of Science and
the Scientific Method of dogma. But it is a fact nevertheless.
It is also a fact that Science has many articles of faith,
unproved and unprovable, just like any religion.

> Religiouys
> belief systems are of a different ilk, generally discouraging new ideas,
> especially ones that conflict with established dogma.

This is simply not true. You apparently have been bamfoozled by
the propaganda of religious fundamentalists and assume that
because they are loud and vocal that their lie that they
represent all believers is true. It is in fact false.
Christianity is also an evolving belief system, always on the
lookout for logical, spiritual and scientific error.

<snip> 

-- 
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the 
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally 
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
     -- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... That view is called Science. ... > especially ones that conflict with established dogma. ... Christianity is also an evolving belief system, ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... That view is called Science. ... > especially ones that conflict with established dogma. ... Christianity is also an evolving belief system, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Questioning scientific community credibilty
    ... >> How do creationists explain how countless extremely well ... >> educated, peer reviewed, professional scientists along ... > who has studied the history of science knows that if one ... > the dogma has already been proposed. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An atheist professor & his student
    ... Nobody is asking you believe in evolution as if it explains all things, ... Of course sometimes there is dogma in science, ... about why animal species change over time I think a biologist is a better ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Central Dogma HELP
    ... "What is the central dogma of biology ... I, personally, object to the word "dogma" ... The ideal of science, is to refute everything ... shot down among the things he said. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)