The Limits of Science

[Arising_uk]

Hi skakos,

"Faith" is different from what we call "blind faith". A huge difference actually.
Most religious people, as well as most scientists, use "faith", NOT "blind stupid faith".

Then they are using what when they say I have "faith"? "Confidence" I presume? If not they are using "faith" in the sense of belief from authority as knowledge and I'm dubious about this with respect to religion as compared to science as how do you check it?

When you say something based on some evidence, indications and/or logical arguments, then you are using "faith".

If you mean "faith" as "confidence" then I agree with you.

When you wake up in the morning and out of the blue say "I will rain frogs today", well... this is another thing...

If you say "There is one 'God' and no others 'Gods'" then you may well be confident but thinking this is a known truth appears logically inconsistent as if one 'God' can exist then there is no logical reason for others not to exist as well. My take is simple in these matters, show me one and I'll unhappily believe.

[Tesla]

Science is a great tool. But can science ("exact science" to be exact) investigate everything? Can it investigate things which cannot be replicated in a laboratory? Can it investigate things which cannot be measured? Can it investigate things which happen only once? What do you think are limits of Science?

The limits of science are the limits of knowledge and vision. But what is limited today may not be limited tomorrow. it is difficult if not impossible to list what science cannot do, because aside from the obvious ones mentioned, the unknown is so unknown, no question is available for unentertained ideas due to lack of sensory capabilities. i.e.: where does the universe end? Does it end?

Still, there is an issue with people believing science knows more or proves more than it does. That hinders true scientific work by limiting valid questions, or building on an assumption too fast, and then the one bad assumption can delay science from discovering the truth or even asking the right question for centuries.

There are still others that do not give science enough credit for what it does know.

Balance is essential, and that means researching for the truth, and coming to your own conclusions by examining what evidence you can find. The more honest you are with yourself, the higher potential you will find a stronger truth concerning what you examine. You have to be careful: the mind will believe anything you can convince it is true.

[jinx]

Good post. What do you do/study Tesla? (building wardenclyff lmao).

There are still others that do not give science enough credit for what it does know.

Science is so horribly misrepresented in the media mainly because the public is deceived by snake oil salesmen (David Attenbourough, Brian Cox etc) that 'evolution'=science and science='evolution' atheists come away with the belief that the only thing to 'science' is mutations, natural selection (not that they know what it really is) and 'evolution'. The model of the atom sure has a lot built on top of it, to change that would be to change mankind.

Skakos that Godel character seems pretty amazing based on his books on amazon/comments by people etc (obv never heard of him/read his stuff).

[Tesla]

Good post. What do you do/study Tesla? (building wardenclyff lmao).

There are still others that do not give science enough credit for what it does know.

Science is so horribly misrepresented in the media mainly because the public is deceived by snake oil salesmen (David Attenbourough, Brian Cox etc) that 'evolution'=science and science='evolution' atheists come away with the belief that the only thing to 'science' is mutations, natural selection (not that they know what it really is) and 'evolution'. The model of the atom sure has a lot built on top of it, to change that would be to change mankind.

Skakos that Godel character seems pretty amazing based on his books on amazon/comments by people etc (obv never heard of him/read his stuff).

I'm a student currently, about to enter the workforce after this semester. I will be finishing a Chemical Engineering AAS. from Austin Peay. I'm not anything special really, I'm about as valuable as anyone decides to value me.

Skakos that Godel character seems pretty amazing based on his books on amazon/comments by people etc (obv never heard of him/read his stuff

This statement is a little confusing, could you clarify it?

[jinx]

Just based on comments on his books/writings ( i havnt read his stuff)

http://www.amazon.com/Formally-Undecida ... ords=godel

http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6dels-Proof ... ords=godel

In case you are interested Tesla

http://www.learnerstv.com/

[Arising_uk]

Would the sentence "the Universe has a First Cause/ Primary Mover" be logical for you?

It would be logical metaphysics for me. I have no logical problem with Spinoza's 'God' nor much with Leibniz's 'Monads', I have a great problem with anyone who thinks they can ascribe any more meaning to a 'First Cause/ Primary Mover' than that there must have been one and as Kant and partly Leibniz pointed out, we can't know anything about it. Of course, quite reasonably, once you say this then the question arises, "But it must have had a cause?" I.e. 'Who was "God's' creator?". Me, I think it turtles all the way down.

[Tesla]

Just based on comments on his books/writings ( i havnt read his stuff)

http://www.amazon.com/Formally-Undecida ... ords=godel

http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6dels-Proof ... ords=godel

In case you are interested Tesla

http://www.learnerstv.com/

love the leanerstv.com link, I added that to favorites. thanks! I will find it of value later. right now my college workload is big enough.

[Tesla]

Would the sentence "the Universe has a First Cause/ Primary Mover" be logical for you?

It would be logical metaphysics for me. I have no logical problem with Spinoza's 'God' nor much with Leibniz's 'Monads', I have a great problem with anyone who thinks they can ascribe any more meaning to a 'First Cause/ Primary Mover' than that there must have been one and as Kant and partly Leibniz pointed out, we can't know anything about it. Of course, quite reasonably, once you say this then the question arises, "But it must have had a cause?" I.e. 'Who was "God's' creator?". Me, I think it turtles all the way down.

we can't know anything about it is not a very good position. it encourages cynicism. We can't say much about it at this time. but what is in the future? who knows. maybe...maybe... *grin*

[skakos]

Hi skakos,

"Faith" is different from what we call "blind faith". A huge difference actually.
Most religious people, as well as most scientists, use "faith", NOT "blind stupid faith".

Then they are using what when they say I have "faith"? "Confidence" I presume? If not they are using "faith" in the sense of belief from authority as knowledge and I'm dubious about this with respect to religion as compared to science as how do you check it?

When you say something based on some evidence, indications and/or logical arguments, then you are using "faith".

If you mean "faith" as "confidence" then I agree with you.

When you wake up in the morning and out of the blue say "I will rain frogs today", well... this is another thing...

If you say "There is one 'God' and no others 'Gods'" then you may well be confident but thinking this is a known truth appears logically inconsistent as if one 'God' can exist then there is no logical reason for others not to exist as well. My take is simple in these matters, show me one and I'll unhappily believe.

There seems to be a problem os words definition here. Faith is confidence in the trueness of a proposition without that being proven 100%. So I do not see the difference between "faith" and "confidence" which you are trying to pass here. And note that there is not ONE proposition being proven 100%...

Now as far as the "God" and "gods" questions you ask, I could solve your "problem" easily. Let's say God is the First Cause of the Universe. Would that solve your definition problem?

[Arising_uk]

There seems to be a problem os words definition here. Faith is confidence in the trueness of a proposition without that being proven 100%. So I do not see the difference between "faith" and "confidence" which you are trying to pass here. And note that there is not ONE proposition being proven 100%...

"I Am" is a pretty good one, "Either it is raining or it is not raining" is another, as are all the tautologies and the contradictions if you negate them.

The difference I'm pointing out is the religious faith that accepts a 'God' with zero evidence and the faith of confidence that has at least some evidence.

Now as far as the "God" and "gods" questions you ask, I could solve your "problem" easily. Let's say God is the First Cause of the Universe. Would that solve your definition problem?

Then, if you are going to use causality, I'd ask you what caused that? As saying its the 'first' is just a metaphysical assumption and one that appears not justified by the logic of causality.

[skakos]

There seems to be a problem os words definition here. Faith is confidence in the trueness of a proposition without that being proven 100%. So I do not see the difference between "faith" and "confidence" which you are trying to pass here. And note that there is not ONE proposition being proven 100%...

"I Am" is a pretty good one, "Either it is raining or it is not raining" is another, as are all the tautologies and the contradictions if you negate them.

The difference I'm pointing out is the religious faith that accepts a 'God' with zero evidence and the faith of confidence that has at least some evidence.

Now as far as the "God" and "gods" questions you ask, I could solve your "problem" easily. Let's say God is the First Cause of the Universe. Would that solve your definition problem?

Then, if you are going to use causality, I'd ask you what caused that? As saying its the 'first' is just a metaphysical assumption and one that appears not justified by the logic of causality.

But religion does not accept a God based on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever! There are many evidence. From the subtle parameterization of the cosmos for it to be able to sustain life, to the complicated designs which sustain life, from the DNA that encodes information that I dare you to create via random "noise"-making processes, to the very things you feel and which undermine every materialistic shallow explanation of the world. Not to mention the logical proofs of Godel and Aristotle for a First Cause. Would you call that "blind faith"? No...

PS. And I will gladly go into a discussion on the First Cause. For starters, would you think the Universe has a cause or not?

[Arising_uk]

But religion does not accept a God based on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever! There are many evidence. From the subtle parameterization of the cosmos for it to be able to sustain life, to the complicated designs which sustain life, from the DNA that encodes information that I dare you to create via random "noise"-making processes, to the very things you feel and which undermine every materialistic shallow explanation of the world. Not to mention the logical proofs of Godel and Aristotle for a First Cause. Would you call that "blind faith"? No...

No, in the main I'd call it confirmation bias.

PS. And I will gladly go into a discussion on the First Cause. For starters, would you think the Universe has a cause or not?

Do you think any cause must have a cause?

[skakos]

But religion does not accept a God based on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever! There are many evidence. From the subtle parameterization of the cosmos for it to be able to sustain life, to the complicated designs which sustain life, from the DNA that encodes information that I dare you to create via random "noise"-making processes, to the very things you feel and which undermine every materialistic shallow explanation of the world. Not to mention the logical proofs of Godel and Aristotle for a First Cause. Would you call that "blind faith"? No...

No, in the main I'd call it confirmation bias.

And how would you call "seeing that something is parameterized as it should be" and claiming that it is all due to chance? Do you produce science conclusions by chance?

PS. And I will gladly go into a discussion on the First Cause. For starters, would you think the Universe has a cause or not?

Do you think any cause must have a cause?

If it had, it wouldn't be "first" would it?

[Arising_uk]

And how would you call "seeing that something is parameterized as it should be" and claiming that it is all due to chance? Do you produce science conclusions by chance?

I don't produce any scientific conclusions at all.

I see this, "seeing that something is parameterized as it should be", as circumstance and the "should" as some kind of reverse teleology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg

If it had, it wouldn't be "first" would it?

Then theres no reason not to think this 'big bang' the first cause is there. As obviously we can't talk about anything before it as any such talk would be meaningless given what it says, what we are and language is.

[Kuznetzova]

We are creationists drawn to PHILOSOPHY forums?

(You know what? I should go ahead and make an entire thread on that question...)