Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 15:45:36 GMT
What exactly do you like in the somewhat batshit crazy idea that science is capable of predicting the future?
Quehank
That's what scientific models do. That's what experimentation is. If we "do this," we "expect to see that." If we see what we expected to see, our prediction is correct and our model is more or less verified. These aren't "grand predictions of the future" (at the very least, chaos theory and all that), but..."if you take aspirin, your headache is likely to go away." That's a prediction of the future (as opposed to history, which documents, interprets, and explains what happened in the past).
I would argue that's the same mechanism a farmer with an 8th grade education uses to run his very successful farm.
And it's based on "We gave you aspirin in the past and your headache went away, so it should work in the future."
Which means history is doing the predicting ... not science.
Queshank
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 15:50:36 GMT
Let me expand on that a bit ...
99.999999% of people are simply doing what they were taught by people they trust as "experts." Even an 8th grade farmer who is trusting his dad ... the farmer who taught him everything he needed to know about farming.
If you want to predict the future ... you look to the past. Because that is where you see what will happen when you poke a person in such and such way. How they will react. How they will behave. Also when you threaten established institutions. That is the study of history. But we seldom call such men "scientists." Do you think "scientist" when you think of Dan Carlin?
How many predictions of the future have modelers gotten right by comparison?
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2020 16:01:50 GMT
Let me expand on that a bit ... 99.999999% of people are simply doing what they were taught by people they trust as "experts." Even an 8th grade farmer who is trusting his dad ... the farmer who taught him everything he needed to know about farming. If you want to predict the future ... you look to the past. Because that is where you see what will happen when you poke a person in such and such way. How they will react. How they will behave. Also when you threaten established institutions. That is the study of history. But we seldom call such men "scientists." Do you think "scientist" when you think of Dan Carlin? How many predictions of the future have modelers gotten right by comparison? Queshank Que, the big difference is that science is formalized. The process is not simply doing what people did in the past, but recording specifically how things were done, the exact conditions, so the process is repeatable. What you are describing is anecdotal transfer of information which tends to lose accuracy over time. The aspirin, for instance, may well alleviate the headache, but it also, being an acid, is harmful to your digestive system. If someone with an ulcer were to use aspirin regularly, because that's what they were taught to do, then they are harming themselves in the name of tradition. Freon |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 16:06:17 GMT
History on its own is a limited guide to the future because of the various strands of causation that become intertwined in the historical process. This is not to say you cannot learn from experience, certainly you can. This is to say that the kinds of questions you can answer this way are limited.
If you want to answer more complex questions, or get more rigorous answers to old questions, you need the scientific method and you need to isolate elements and document changes or implications from the alteration of this or that variable. Historical experience does not provide the right vacuum for this study.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 16:11:07 GMT
That is a valid point, but only for physical phenomena. I want to be careful, and respectful, of areas where there seems to be overlap, but in my opinion, really should be none. Creation being the most notable example. The concept of creation is not a scientific one, so science should not be used to try to explain, prove, or disprove it. Conversely, concepts like good and bad, and a soul, are not physical, so also are inappropriate to discuss with any type of scientific bent. Freon And yet Darwin incorporated metaphysics into his theory of evolution, insisting that the process was "unguided." That's unprovable. So it goes both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 16:11:52 GMT
I did not have a name for it, but this is my belief as well. All things in the universe are ultimately composed of the products of exploding stars. Humans, therefore, are composed of the universe itself. We ARE the universe, and we are somewhat unique in that we are conscious of our existence, and curious about the universe we live in. That makes Humans, the Universe trying to understand itself. I can think of no greater calling than that. Freon And yet I'm not sure that qualifies as "God." |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 16:12:45 GMT
I would argue that's the same mechanism a farmer with an 8th grade education uses to run his very successful farm.
And it's based on "We gave you aspirin in the past and your headache went away, so it should work in the future."
Which means history is doing the predicting ... not science.
Queshank
Science is what the farmer does...but systematized. Isolate influences. Replicate experiments. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 16:13:58 GMT
Let me expand on that a bit ... 99.999999% of people are simply doing what they were taught by people they trust as "experts." Even an 8th grade farmer who is trusting his dad ... the farmer who taught him everything he needed to know about farming. If you want to predict the future ... you look to the past. Because that is where you see what will happen when you poke a person in such and such way. How they will react. How they will behave. Also when you threaten established institutions. That is the study of history. But we seldom call such men "scientists." Do you think "scientist" when you think of Dan Carlin? How many predictions of the future have modelers gotten right by comparison? Queshank It's interesting because in the past 200-300 years we have gone from "look to the past" to "look to the future." That's not a bad thing. Prior to the Enlightenment, the default was to look to tradition as authoritative, even if it didn't work. I'm not sure that's the best way. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 16:15:58 GMT
History on its own is a limited guide to the future because of the various strands of causation that become intertwined in the historical process. This is not to say you cannot learn from experience, certainly you can. This is to say that the kinds of questions you can answer this way are limited. If you want to answer more complex questions, or get more rigorous answers to old questions, you need the scientific method and you need to isolate elements and document changes or implications from the alteration of this or that variable. Historical experience does not provide the right vacuum for this study. Right. And the scientific method has the ability of overcoming the blindness of our intuition, which works really well in the Newtonian world, but not so well at the scales of quantum mechanics and relativity. And yet...the microwave oven works! Yes, the oven that would never have been built if the scientific method hadn't pushed the process of inquiry beyond where we might "naturally go." The scientific method then results in a body of data, theories, and hypotheses that becomes "authoritative." It moves from "systematized experience generation" to "authority" (the sole proprietorship of which used to be "tradition"). Sometimes that "authority" develops its own orthodoxy, which can impede further scientific inquiry. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 6, 2020 16:25:03 GMT
There's no false choice between faith and science. The two are in different realms.
Like being a great singer and electromagnetism. and in no way in conflict. And what about when religion expects belief in things that are scientifically impossible? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2020 17:47:06 GMT
And yet Darwin incorporated metaphysics into his theory of evolution, insisting that the process was "unguided." That's unprovable. So it goes both ways. Here is where I think we have the biggest divergence of opinions, and I am basing this on what I perceive as your religious perspective. In religion, what is told to you, is what is. Those who told it to you, the prophets, G-d, etc, are perceived as authoritative, and therefore accurate. Science doesn't care who first came up with a theory. The fact that Darwin, or a better example would be Mendel's pea experiments in genetics, happen to be the originators of an accepted scientific principle is irrelevant. They may have planted the seed (pun TOTALLY intended), but it is iterations of other scientists following a scientific process that determined its veracity. In both cases, Darwin and Mendel, the original theories were elaborated on, to the point of (arguably) disproving the original. In other words, if Darwin knew what we know, he would likely agree with what we do. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2020 17:51:43 GMT
And yet I'm not sure that qualifies as "God." A conscious infinite universe is not G-d? The only alternatives that come to mind seem much, much smaller in significance. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2020 17:54:26 GMT
Science is what the farmer does...but systematized. Isolate influences. Replicate experiments. No, science is not what the farmer DOES, but HOW she does it. It is a formalized process of discovery and verification of discovery. The Farmer may use the scientific process to learn how to do her job better, and on a small scale, that is certainly possible, but at least historically (or at least until modern farmers came to be), anecdotal transfer of knowledge is how farming processes were passed to the next generation. Freon |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 19:40:29 GMT
You're not getting what I'm saying. That's on me for trying to force the conversation into this direction. I'll try to be clearer after work.
I have no argument with anything you or Freon are saying. It's a completely different mechanism I'm trying to illustrate. The relationship between the common man and "experts." The relationship between "religious fundamentalists and science" is still my focus. And expanding that to explain why our current crisis in confidence has nothing to do with religious fundamentalists. It's just a convenient and fun bogey man for those of us on the left and atheists. Not unlike the convenient "TRUMP!" bogeyman of leftists today. "Everything would be great if it wasn't for those meddling Trump supporters!" Scott Cooley is simply focusing on the religious aspect. "Everything would be great if it wasn't for those meddling religious fundamentalists!"
At its core it seems a rationalization for censoring the Luddites because Luddites are dangerous.
99.9999% of people do not know why aspirin works and it does not matter. When a mother gives it to her daughter, she's doing it because it works. She can see it works. She's taken it herself. That is what convinces her. You are likely to hear that same woman tell you she thinks her doctor is full of shit and misdiagnosed her on XXX tho. She might even be an anti vaxxer.
Science isn't why 99.9999% of people do anything. Science isn't why the people I encountered in atheist groups don't believe in God. That's just a lie they tell themselves.
They hold those beliefs because a credible expert told them to.
There is interference in that mechanism. Interference that has caused doubt and pulling away. Not just among religious fundamentalists but among people of all stripes and flavors.
And part of the reason for that is because those predictions of the future you guys are saying are "scientific" ... keep being wrong.
Queshank
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 6, 2020 19:40:35 GMT
Should not this thread be in the Religion Forum?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 21:15:45 GMT
A conscious infinite universe is not G-d? The only alternatives that come to mind seem much, much smaller in significance. Freon Conscious humans in the universe is not equivalent to the universe itself being conscious. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 21:16:51 GMT
Science is what the farmer does...but systematized. Isolate influences. Replicate experiments. No, science is not what the farmer DOES, but HOW she does it. It is a formalized process of discovery and verification of discovery. The Farmer may use the scientific process to learn how to do her job better, and on a small scale, that is certainly possible, but at least historically (or at least until modern farmers came to be), anecdotal transfer of knowledge is how farming processes were passed to the next generation. Freon Yes, that was the point of my post. The "but" qualifies the different between what the farmer does and what happens in the scientific pursuit. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 21:17:44 GMT
And what about when religion expects belief in things that are scientifically impossible? Impossible? Or unpredictable? |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 6, 2020 21:26:39 GMT
A conscious infinite universe is not G-d? The only alternatives that come to mind seem much, much smaller in significance. Freon Conscious humans in the universe is not equivalent to the universe itself being conscious.
Your foot is not conscious however YOU are.. Since we are indeed star stuff could it be said that the singular universe is conscious ..?
And on a deeper level .. Is the S or the C silent in 'scent' ..?
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2020 23:47:03 GMT
A conscious infinite universe is not G-d? The only alternatives that come to mind seem much, much smaller in significance. Freon Conscious humans in the universe is not equivalent to the universe itself being conscious. We ARE the universe. We ARE the very stars that you see at night, just permutated through nova to exist as we do today. To say we are IN the universe actually makes no sense. Can you go out of the universe?
With respect, your point of view, looking at Earth and humans as the end-all, be-all, is so incredibly minuscule compared to the incomprehensible vastness of infinity. Your religion likely claims you are part of something bigger, yet your belief is grounded on one little ball, in one little solar system, in one little galaxy among trillions of trillions. Whereas I am saying you are a conscious part of infinity itself. You are the universe trying to understand the universe. It is baffling that fictional stories are more impressive to you than this.
Freon
|
|
