Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[thedoc]

But some subjective narratives are better than others, yes?

YES. That's what science is designed to do. Science is "what works" and better science is "what works better". But there is no such thing as a science which can define an Absolute Truth. In the Kantian metaphysic this is the distinction between Noumenal and Phenomenal reality and conflating the two is not metaphysically kosher. The early pioneers of 20th century physics were mostly well schooled in the philosophy of knowledge and thus they well understood the shortcomings of what they were doing. Unfortunately for the past half century or longer the physicists have regarded metaphysics as we would regard somebody who farted in the elevator. By mistaking the map for the territory they've ontologised their toolkit.

As far as I know, science doesn't claim to find absolute truth, it just claims to provide the best explanation according to the data that we now have. Better data might provide a better explanation. Some Religions claim to have absolute truth, but they are usually wrong.

[thedoc]

"The Earth is an oblate spheroid", is an objective fact.

No it isn't. It is a definition predicated on a subjective interpretation of evidence. There is nothing objectively real about an oblate spheroid.

And I would say that you need to adjust your definitions to better match up with what everyone else believes. Start with objective and subjective.

[thedoc]

Hint,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral
"I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"

Subjective is the opposite of objective, which refers to things that are more clear-cut. That Earth has one moon is objective — it's a fact. Whether the moon is pretty or not is subjective — not everyone will agree. Facts are objective, but opinions are subjective.

subjective
[suh b-jek-tiv]

Synonyms Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6.
pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

[henry quirk]

Seems to me, all Sam is sayin' is humans can get a good bead on (form a decent description of) reality. Mebbe I missed it, but I don't recall him sayin' anything about absolutes.

[thedoc]

Seems to me, all Sam is sayin' is humans can get a good bead on (form a decent description of) reality. Mebbe I missed it, but I don't recall him sayin' anything about absolutes.

Hello Henry, ignoring this nonsense for the moment, how's the nephew? I don't remember if I told you, but my grandson decided to play in the school band, so he took my Cornet and started to learn for a few weeks last summer, and then started again when he went beck to school in the fall. I went to see his Christmas concert and even though I couldn't see him (he was sitting behind another player) I knew where he was because he had the only silver plated brass horn in the band. It seems horns haven't changed much in the last 60 or more years. When I started I took my grandfathers cornet, from the turn of the last century, in to school, and was told to put it back in the closet, so in the middle 50's my parents bought a new horn for me.

[Skip]

So, there is a class of facts supported by a preponderance of observed and reproducible evidence; another class of facts that have not yet acquired that baggage (but are nevertheless true); a class of propositions and theories that have advocate(s) collecting evidence in their behalf; a class of phenomena that are supported by one (or less) witness testimony but have collected secondary advocates; a class of purely subjective experience. Whatever is left can be safely ignored. The last two stated categories might be safe to ignore, too, just so their advocates hold no political power or potent weaponry.

[Obvious Leo]

As far as I know, science doesn't claim to find absolute truth, it just claims to provide the best explanation according to the data that we now have.

No. This is not what science is. The data itself can provide no explanation whatsoever because data is simply raw information with no intrinsic meaning. The meaning of the data is something which must be provided by the interpreter of it and this cannot be done without a predefined narrative which in science is known as a THEORY. Knowledge does not pop into human minds from out of a conceptual void but is constructed on a template of a priori assumptions. In the science of physics this methodology is known as model-building and as new data is acquired it can simply be attached to the existing model by expanding the theory using the tools of mathematics. The best example of the success of this methodology was Ptolemy's geocentric cosmology which survived for 1400 years. It was able to make astonishingly accurate predictions about the motions of the planets on the a priori assumption that the earth was at the centre of the solar system. The reason why this cosmology was eventually superseded by the Copernican heliocentric model was NOT because heliocentrism is in any sense "truer". It's merely a simpler model to work with.

Better data might provide a better explanation.

Invariably the opposite is the case. Ptolemy's system of epicycles ultimately failed because of Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter. It would have been possible to fit this new data into the existing model merely by devising new epicycles but by then Copernicus had come up with an alternative theoretical paradigm which allowed for a far simpler explanation. This is what Thomas Kuhn referred to when he spoke of major advances in science as not being the result of steady step-by-step progress. The real advances have ALWAYS resulted from major shifts in the way we think the world. An even more spectacular example of this was Darwin's theory of evolution. Although this way of thinking about causality is something which most of us nowadays take for granted, at the time it forced humanity to redefine the nature of physical reality in a profound way and the full implications of it are yet to be properly understood. Things are not the way they are because there exists some define plan which requires it.

The science of physics is yet to catch up with this breaking news.

[thedoc]

The science of physics is yet to catch up with this breaking news.

Do you believe the solar system is Geocentric or heliocentric?

[Obvious Leo]

The science of physics is yet to catch up with this breaking news.

Do you believe the solar system is Geocentric or heliocentric?

I'm a philosopher of science, doc, so belief is not part of my conceptual make-up. The heliocentric model is a better fit for the evidence because it is SIMPLER and should therefore be preferred on the grounds of Occam economy.

Try answering this question as a little test of logic. Does the moon orbit the earth or does the earth orbit the moon?

[thedoc]

The science of physics is yet to catch up with this breaking news.

Do you believe the solar system is Geocentric or heliocentric?

I'm a philosopher of science, doc, so belief is not part of my conceptual make-up. The heliocentric model is a better fit for the evidence because it is SIMPLER and should therefore be preferred on the grounds of Occam economy.

Try answering this question as a little test of logic. Does the moon orbit the earth or does the earth orbit the moon?

Both orbit a common center.

[Obvious Leo]

Both orbit a common center.

Your answer is a good approximation but technically wrong according to General Relativity. No such common centre actually physically exists because its precise location is itself impossible to determine.

[thedoc]

Both orbit a common center.

Your answer is a good approximation but technically wrong according to General Relativity. No such common centre actually physically exists because its precise location is itself impossible to determine.

The location has been determined to an acceptable level of accuracy, if you deny that you are a science denier and an idiot.

FYI Einstein didn't negate Newtons laws of motion, he just made them more accurate and explained why.

[Obvious Leo]

The location has been determined to an acceptable level of accuracy,

I'm not a science denier at all, doc, I'm trying to point out what science is and is not capable of doing and you are confirming this. Science is able to make predictions and calculations which are correct to a finite order of probability and no more. This is just as true of Einstein's physics as it is of Newton's and will remain true for all of science until the end of time. This is true because of relativity. Because the behaviour of all matter and energy in the universe is causally determined by the behaviour of all other matter and energy in the universe it is now and always will be utterly impossible to predict the outcome of ANY physical process with 100% certainty. This is of profound metaphysical importance in the philosophy of science because it means that there is no such thing as the "laws of physics". These are merely effective heuristics which can provide approximations to an underpinning reality which is exclusively self-causal.

[thedoc]

The science of physics is yet to catch up with this breaking news.

Do you believe the solar system is Geocentric or heliocentric?

I'm a philosopher of science, doc, so belief is not part of my conceptual make-up. The heliocentric model is a better fit for the evidence because it is SIMPLER and should therefore be preferred on the grounds of Occam economy.

Try answering this question as a little test of logic. Does the moon orbit the earth or does the earth orbit the moon?

NO, the heliocentric model isn't a better fit because it's simpler, it's a better fit because it fits the evidence better than the geocentric model.

[thedoc]

The location has been determined to an acceptable level of accuracy,

I'm not a science denier at all, doc, I'm trying to point out what science is and is not capable of doing and you are confirming this. Science is able to make predictions and calculations which are correct to a finite order of probability and no more. This is just as true of Einstein's physics as it is of Newton's and will remain true for all of science until the end of time. This is true because of relativity. Because the behaviour of all matter and energy in the universe is causally determined by the behaviour of all other matter and energy in the universe it is now and always will be utterly impossible to predict the outcome of ANY physical process with 100% certainty. This is of profound metaphysical importance in the philosophy of science because it means that there is no such thing as the "laws of physics". These are merely effective heuristics which can provide approximations to an underpinning reality which is exclusively self-causal.

Science doesn't claim to provide absolute accuracy, only an approximation of reality. I never claimed that science did anything else, stop putting words into my mouth that I did not say. To do so makes you a liar.

The laws of physics never claimed to be 100% accurate, only a close approximation.