Accepting an imperfect universe: The Birth of Science and the primacy of observation

[Mr Spinkles]

This is good, I have you thinking (at least legalistically). That "God exists", a religious first principle, sounds like an assumption to me.

It is an assumption, because it is assumed to be true. However, unlike scientific assumptions, religious assumptions are not meant to be questioned or adjusted to find better ones. They are absolute "truth" even though there is no observational evidence to back them...thus they have the distinct label "first principles".

(PS, although your current view of me is bouncing electrons taking the form of a computer, in another realm, I am bouncing electrons taking the form of a woman.)

I beg to differ--the particles on my screen and the ones that make up your body occupy the same realm.

I guess we have different definitions.
To me, First Principles are assumptions that can not be proven, and are accepted on faith alone.

Yes, indeed we do have different definitions. The First Principles upon which the Catholic/Aristotelian models were based could have been proven, had they been true. In fact, some observational evidence suppported the Ptolemaic model of the universe (i.e. that the heavens appear to rotate around us). However, in stark contrast to science, observation that contradicts a First Principle does not mean that it is wrong...rather, the observation must be flawed/wrong (i.e. the Pope suggesting that, God being all-powerful, He might be tricking us into thinking the geocentric model is wrong). Science sides with observation rather than previous assumptions when the two come into conflict, hence "the primacy of observation".

So, can we prove the validity of the scientific method...
Step 1 of the scientific method is to make an observation, we'll call that "a priori" truth (it stands on the truth of it's word).
Next we form a hypothesis using inductive reasoning. Induction is essentially reasoning from the specific to the general. Now we are at the premise that inductive reasoning must be true. This is where Hume comes into the science picture.
This is what Hume argued: What rational justification do we have for making inductive inferences? .

He came up with what is called the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature: nature is uniform in such a way that the future resembles the past.
It has become the "First Principle" in Science.

No, it's not a First Principle, because it is verified (not contradicted by) observation, and if observation did contradict this assumption, it would be modified or thrown out to fit new observation. If the assumption that there is uniformity in nature was wrong, science shouldn't work...but it does.

Religion, on the other hand, is not in the business of making careful observations and modifying or throwing out its First Principles to fit new observation...that's what distinguishes it from science.

Hume's conclusion is called the Sceptical Conclusion about Induction: Since we have no rational justification for believing the principle of the uniformity of nature, we can have no rational justification for making inductive inferences. In science, inductive reasoning is accepted as a true First Principle by faith alone.

I agree, we can't prove logically that the future will resemble the past. That is why science relies on assumptions--not First Principles--that can be validated or invalidated by observation. It could be that the scientific assumption of uniformity has worked over and over for hundreds of years now as some massive coincidence in a universe that is otherwise completely contradictory and irrational...or it could be that the universe does have uniformity. Either way, it's a good temporary assumption to make to begin any investigation of the universe. As long as we're willing to modify or throw out this assumption in the face of contradicting observation, it is not the same as a First Principle.

Oops, sorry, if ghost-hunters want to be called scientists, so be it.

Like astrology, ghost-hunting is not scientific because it survives in spite of the observational evidence--not because of it.

Yes, science has accepted a concept of probabilities. Whether all propabilities occur..(shoulder shrug). Such are the theories of parallel universes (which IMO are as probable as something called heaven).

Who said anything about parallel universes? All I said was that we can be more certain of some things than others. More observational evidence = more certainty.

You're performing math logic here, not science.
Why does reason predict 3 apples? Because math is true.
Is math true? Yikes, now your getting into abstract thinking. Does a "3" exist? Or is it a figment of our imagination? I can't do a scientific proof of math, because I can't observe a "3".

The number "3" is a symbol that represents a distinct quantity, just as nouns are symbols for distinct objects. We first observe the quantity of "3", then we give it a symbol...not the other way around Math and science are inherently bound together, as math is the tool scientists use to organize data, construct models, and make predictions. Math is true because observation supports its predictions.

Huh, now I'm lost? Are you saying science claims to be subjective and not objective? Yikes, what are they teaching in school?

No, science does not claim to be subjective...however, you said science assumes objectivity. It certainly doesn't assume objectivity--scientists are meant to question the objectivity of other scientists (and themselves) all the time.

I don't remember ever seeing this as some doctrine of religious faith. It may have been the opinion of some people, and no doubt was discussed by theologians. If the Church specifically taught this idea as a religious truth, I'm an unaware of it.

Not only did the Church teach it as truth, the Inquisition imposed punishment on those who would deny it.

Even 500 years ago, religion and science were separate subjects of study.

I disagree. In my first post, I tried to establish why the rejection of the Ptolemaic model of the universe was the birth of science as it is defined today--the rejection of First Principles and the primacy of observation. 500 years ago, what were then "scientists" insisted upon First Principles (like geocentricity and circular orbits). Science and religion were only seperate subjects as long as science didn't say anything that contradicted religion. Today, the situation is a bit reversed--people accept religion as long as it doesn't contradict science (well...most people).

No, you've just added words in my mouth. I was talking heliocentric theory only.

I have not put words in your mouth--the heliocentric model of the universe included the characteristics I mentioned.

Galileo couldn't prove the heliocentric theory as he couldn't observe the predicted parallax shifts.

Yes, he could prove the heliocentric theory...one notable proof was his observing Venus go through a gibbous phase which would be impossible unless Venus orbited the Sun (not Earth).

Today's scientists no longer need to see something to believe it (wow, It sounds like I'm talking about religion...believing without seeing), e.g. radiowaves, photons, electrons.

The naked eye is not the only valid method of observation. We can detect radiowaves, photons, and electrons and observe their behavior....so we still need observation.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Step 1 of the scientific method is to make an observation, we'll call that "a priori" truth (it stands on the truth of it's word).

Au contraire my friend. An observation does not stand on the truth of it's word, rather, it stands on empirical knowledge. In logic, this is known as A Posteriori knowledge.

A priori truths (knowledge) stand on their own word (revealed faith). HUGE difference.

Chlotide - your argument for the truth of a priori knowledge almost exactly parallels the arguments of Immanuel Kant, while Spinkles is taking the position of John Stuart Mill, who rejected the "truth" of a priori knowledge completely.

TVOR

PS - for what it is worth, Spinkles is dead nuts on in this debate. His defense of the scientific method as opposed to revealed faith is clearly carrying the day (in my opinion).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

John Stuart Mill, eh? I have no idea who that is, lol. Damn past philosophers....they're always stealing my ideas.

I have heard of Immanuel Kant though...I flipped through a book on him at the bookstore the other day...Neitzche referred to him as the clever fox who broke out of his cage, then wondered back in.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Actually, you would probably be very interested in the evolution of the terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" as they relate to your position on scientific knowledge. Aristotle was the first to use "a priori", and it has kind of evolved over time. It really gained popular exposure in the writings of Descartes (even though it predates his writings - he was the first to use it extensively in his arguments and writings).


Aristotle - "a priori" knowledge is knowing what is the cause of something.

Descartes - argued that knowledge can only be gained through reason - leading to the famous "Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think, therefore, I am). He is actually saying that you don't need to experience something, your mind can get there using only reason and not experience.

Immanuel Kant - brought "a priori" to the meaning that we use today. He maintained that some propositions are necessarily true, and empirical knowledge is contingent upon these truths.

John Stuart Mill - holds that all truths come strictly from experience (empirical knowledge) and are "a posteriori". He rejected (completely) the idea of "a priori" knowledge as we know it today.

If you get a chance while in college, I'd strongly recommend that you take an entry level course in philosophy and one in logic. You have an extremely keen mind, and an inquisitive bent. I'd give a dollar to be around in about 50 years to see what you do with your life.

Now, if I could only convince you of the evils of Bush...

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[chlotilde]

[QUOTE
PS - for what it is worth, Spinkles is dead nuts on in this debate. His defense of the scientific method as opposed to revealed faith is clearly carrying the day (in my opinion).[/QUOTE]
If that is how it appears to you, then I'm simply not getting my point across. I am not trying to win a debate here.
I have tried to not be legalistic in my words, as semantics are more important. As Mr. Sprinkles hasn't used more appropriate scientific terms, I assumed he wasn't a scientist, and I wasn't going to hold him to some legalistic definitions. But apparently I
must now take that route (you know, this is something I really hate about the internet, I'd rather know what a person thinks, not what Webster thinks). The best I can make out with what is happening here, is that he doesn't realize what the word Principle means to a scientist.
I am not arguing against the scientific method here, if that is what he thinks. Why would I do that? I am a scientist. I am trying to explain something about the philosophy of science. I assumed he was unfamiliar with it. However, he keeps mentioning the scientific method, not realizing, he is arguing apples to my oranges. The philosophy of science and the scientific method are not the same thing. If what I have just said does not make sense, then a review of scientific terms will be necessary. I have no desire to get into a "I'm right, you're wrong" debate.

PS, I would hope science appears to winning out over revealed faith, because I wasn't even try to defend something called "revealed" faith. I was only trying to explain the actions of the Church as concerns Galileo.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

chlotilde-- I agree with you, I do not want to get into a "I'm right, you're wrong" debate either. I hope my posts have not come across as combative, as I have made an effort to have a cordial, reasonable discussion. I'm merely trying to distinguish science from all other methods of understanding the universe by explaining how modern science came about and why this was important.

I was only trying to explain the actions of the Church as concerns Galileo.

I believe I explained the actions of the Church as concerns Galileo in my initial post. Do you mean to say you were trying to defend the actions of the Church?

 

[chlotilde]

chlotilde-- I agree with you, I do not want to get into a "I'm right, you're wrong" debate either. I hope my posts have not come across as combative, as I have made an effort to have a cordial, reasonable discussion.

I'm merely frustrated with myself :bonk: for not sticking to the point of my first post before bringing up Galileo in my second. I ended in a place where I was discussing them in tandem.

I'm merely trying to distinguish science from all other methods of understanding the universe by explaining how modern science came about and why this was important.

I'm thinking of your title here...a more curious question to me is, what was it about how man viewed nature that allowed what we today call modern science, to form in that culture and not another.

I believe I explained the actions of the Church as concerns Galileo in my initial post. Do you mean to say you were trying to defend the actions of the Church

I'll get back to you on this one...my only "fun" computer time lately has been with either my morning cups of coffee, or when I can't get to sleep at night (I suspect there is a relation between the two ).

 

[chlotilde]

Sorry to take awhile to get back. I've been busy with kids and Halloween.
Plus, whenever I go to send a message, I'm logged out somehow (arrgh, I must have a cookie problem)

I believe I explained the actions of the Church as concerns Galileo in my initial post.

Yeah, you're right, wrong choice of words. I should have said, I was presenting additional detail. The Galileo Affair can hardly be summed up in a paragraph.

Do you mean to say you were trying to defend the actions of the Church?

Then I would be presuming something was under attack.

If I were to defend something, I would have to first make a moral judgement. Was the Galileo Affair right or wrong? What scale of morality would I use for judgement?

As science claims no morality, what scale of right or wrong do I use? Science only claims something called "logic". Somebody thinks the sun spins around the earth. That thought is not without logic. If I knew nothing else, I would use some "primacy of observation" and see the sun rise in the east, move across the sky, and set in the west. Since I can't feel myself moving, I would assume that it was the sun moving, not I. Copernicus questioned the relativity of this motion. (There is a
thought pattern here of relative motion that influenced Newton's thinking and Einstein.) That Galileo had additional information, and the Pope choose to ignore it, I could fault the Pope with scientific ignore-ance.

Heck, I was reading some time back, that there are still adults (30+some%) that think the sun revolves around the earth. I don't know if that is ignore-ance, unawareness, stubborness or what.


If I am judging the affair by some morality of human behavior, then I'd probably resort to some religious morality. So, what behavior do I see happening here. I see two guys arguing some "I'm right, you're wrong". People get PO'd and the Pope pulls rank...I don't know, maybe some sin about the corruption of power.

I don't see the Galileo Affair as some science trumps religion debate, but rather a debate over the interpretation of scripture. I could get long winded and over analytical here, and explain to you how I come to this conclusion, but the essence of that argument is...if that is where the debate/heresy ended, then that is also where it began.

Many a "good" theological debate ends at one point, in an appeal to authority. So the Pope was forced to make a decision. The end result came some years later at the next Council of the Magisterium (the one thing the Cath. Church is never get accused of, is moving too fast.)

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Heck, I was reading some time back, that there are still adults (30+some%) that think the sun revolves around the earth. I don't know if that is ignore-ance, unawareness, stubborness or what.

I think, beyond question, that we can safely categorize this as stupidity. And I very rarely use that word.

TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It was not my intent to "attack" the Catholic Church, so much as present the overall conflict between science and religion in the context of how it began. To be honest, I didn't really feel that in this day and age I needed to say it was wrong of the Church to put someone under house arrest for the rest of his life for his beliefs. I thought the Church's actions spoke for themselves.

The conflict between Galileo and the Church was many things...I'll concede that an interpretation of Scripture was one of them. But it was also the birth of modern science and the first conflict between the two, and it did show that observation and not First Principles is the best method of understanding nature. I would think that you would give Galileo some credit for offering a new interpretation of Scripture to fit reality (rather than rejecting Scripture altogether in favor of the observed reality).

 

[DeepShadow]

I would argue that we are imperfect, and therefore our knowledge is imperfect. Science, in stark contrast to religion, admits this fact.

In stark contrast to some religion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In stark contrast to some religion.

Which religions would be the exceptions?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which religions would be the exceptions?

Religious naturalism, religious humanism, Daoism, Buddhism, ...

 

[NoName]

I think all christian religions accept that humans (and therefore human knoledge) are imperfect, as well.

 

[Fatmop]

Arguably, Christians also believe in perfect creation.

 

[DeepShadow]

I can't speak for any other religions, but Latter-Day Saints take very seriously the fact our knowledge is imperfect.

2 Ne. 28: 30
For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

In other words, we don't get our knowledge all at once, and we're expected to correct misunderstandings in former doctrine in the light of new revelation. It's the ninth Article of our Faith:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

We sing about it every six months or so at our General Conferences:

The Lord is extending the Saints' understanding....(Hymn #2: The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Religious naturalism, religious humanism, Daoism, Buddhism, ...

Fair enough.

I can't speak for any other religions, but Latter-Day Saints take very seriously the fact our knowledge is imperfect.

So you're saying that Latter-Day Saints are open to the possibility that the Book of Mormon was not divinely inspired?

 

[Aqualung]

No, he wasn't saying that. He's saying they're open to the fact that that little 531 page book does not contain every single fact or figure or peice of data in the entire universe, from its beginnings to its ends and everything in between, and that there might possibly be something little thing that it happens to not contain.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, he wasn't saying that. He's saying they're open to the fact that that little 531 page book does not contain every single fact or figure or peice of data in the entire universe, from its beginnings to its ends and everything in between, and that there might possibly be something little thing that it happens to not contain.

That's not at all what I meant when I spoke of imperfect knowledge.

 

[Aqualung]

That's not at all what I meant when I spoke of imperfect knowledge.

Well, that's what I and obviously (based in his post) Deep Shadow thought you meant.