Expressing bad attitudes to science without realising it

Faith & Science Conversation
222

That sentence doesn’t even make sense. How could an object be a question?

You can choose to apply the scientific method to questions you have about the creation. Again, it’s up to the person if they want to use science to answer questions for themselves.

Another aspect is convincing others. You may have your own set of criteria for what is compelling evidence and reasoning, but that is going to differ from person to person. For a lot of people, having strong scientific support for a conclusion is very compelling.

That would apply to every single theory in science. We don’t know how God interacts with weather or geology either.

2 Likes
223

Creation as in what was created. The word has more than one meaning or usage.

Also I have moaned at you before for introducing random scientific theories or models just because they are science!

Please do not try and compare meteorology with Evolution again

Richard

224

The question science is trying to answer is how things are created.

Evolution and meteorology are both scientific theories in the very same way all theories are scientific. Oops, I did it again.

Evolution and germs are both theories, and are both scientific in the very same way. Ooops, did it again.

If you don’t want other people telling you what you can or can’t post, then perhaps you should extend that same courtesy to others.

1 Like
225

And there I was thinking you were polite.

Ah well

Richard

226

That’s an interesting comment. You are complaining that others are telling you to post nothing but science, and yet you feel it is polite to tell me what I can or can’t write in my posts. How do you square this?

1 Like
227

Of course it was polite. We have discussed this before and you know perfectly well what I think on the subject. You were trying to be funny. I am not laughing. I respect your views, kindly respect mine.

…I have politely asked this one little thing. Is that rude?

Richard

228

I wonder if it’s a bad attitude to science to understand an infinite series cannot be formed through successive addition

229

Would it be rude if people asked you to only use science? Or is that a polite request?

1 Like
230

I have no time for your “innocent” retorts.

Forget it.

Richard

Edit. You have played the “dumb insolent” card too many times. You cannot be that dumb which only leaves one thing left.

231

How humans came to be – whether they descend from earlier species – is indeed a scientific question.

Of course it doesn’t mean that. But since science can indeed answer the scientific question above, other approaches should take account of what science says or risk being disconnected from reality.

2 Likes
232
  • It’s time for an unbiased opinion, and here are two of them … one from Gemini AI and one from Chat GPT:
  • Gemini AI:
    It’s not a bad attitude to science to understand the limitations of successive addition when dealing with infinite series. In fact, it’s a sign of a healthy scientific mindset to recognize the boundaries of our current understanding and to be open to exploring alternative approaches.

Here are some reasons why:

  • The nature of infinity: Infinity is a complex concept that challenges our intuitive understanding of numbers and operations. Successive addition is a finite process, and it’s not always straightforward to apply it to infinite quantities.
  • Convergence and divergence: Infinite series can either converge to a finite sum or diverge to infinity. Understanding the conditions for convergence is crucial, and it often involves techniques beyond simple addition.
  • Mathematical rigor: Many branches of mathematics, such as calculus and analysis, have developed rigorous methods for handling infinite series. These methods often involve limiting processes and other advanced techniques that go beyond successive addition.

By acknowledging the limitations of successive addition and exploring more sophisticated mathematical tools, we can gain a deeper understanding of infinite series and their applications in various fields of science and engineering.

  • Char GPT:
    It’s not a bad attitude to science, but it reflects a misunderstanding of how infinity and infinite series are treated in mathematics and science. Infinite series, by their nature, deal with concepts that go beyond finite processes like successive addition.

Here are some key points to consider:

Successive Addition and Infinite Series

  • Finite Processes: Successive addition is inherently a finite process—you add one term after another, and eventually, you finish. By definition, you cannot “finish” an infinite series through successive addition because there is no final term.
  • Convergence of Infinite Series: In mathematics, an infinite series is understood in terms of limits. When we say an infinite series “converges” to a sum, we mean that as you add more and more terms (a process that can conceptually continue indefinitely), the partial sums approach a specific value.

Example: The Geometric Series

Consider the infinite geometric series:

1+12+14+18+…1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{8} + \dots1+21​+41​+81​+…

No matter how many terms you add, you won’t “finish” summing them all. However, the series has a limit: the sum of the series approaches 2. This is a mathematical conclusion based on the properties of limits, not on actually performing infinite addition.

The Role of Infinity in Science

In science and mathematics, infinity is often a conceptual tool rather than something that exists physically. For example:

  • In calculus, we use infinite processes to define derivatives and integrals.
  • In physics, infinity can appear in models or calculations, but it often indicates an idealization or a need for refinement in the model.

Philosophical Considerations

Understanding infinity requires a shift from thinking about physical, step-by-step processes to reasoning in abstract, conceptual terms. It challenges intuition, which can make it feel counterintuitive at first.

Dismissing the possibility of forming an infinite series through successive addition isn’t wrong; it’s just incomplete. The key is to understand that the concept of an infinite series transcends the idea of “forming” it in the traditional sense and instead relies on the notion of approaching a limit.

  • Mulling those responses over inspired me to ask both this question:

    • Could one say that “trying to form an infinite series through successive addition would be like trying to build a tower of Babel to Heaven?”

  • Gemin AI responded:
    Yes, that’s a clever analogy.

Just as the builders of the Tower of Babel aimed to reach heaven, a finite process like successive addition cannot truly grasp the infinite. While we can add terms indefinitely, we’ll always be one step away from reaching the infinite sum.

The concept of infinity often challenges our intuition. It’s a reminder that while we can approach infinity through limits and series, we can never fully attain it through finite operations like successive addition.

  • Chat GPT’s ewponse:
    Yes, that’s a compelling metaphor! It captures the idea that attempting to “complete” an infinite process through finite means (like successive addition) is inherently doomed because the task fundamentally transcends the limitations of finite action.

Here’s how the analogy works:

The Tower of Babel

In the biblical story, humans attempted to build a tower high enough to reach Heaven—a task symbolizing ambition beyond human limitations. The project was ultimately futile because it was based on misunderstanding their own constraints.

Successive Addition and Infinite Series

Similarly, trying to “form” an infinite series through successive addition misunderstands the nature of infinity. Infinity isn’t a destination you can reach by stacking one block (or number) after another. Instead:

  • Infinity as a Concept: Infinity is a mathematical idea, not something you “reach” or “finish.”
  • Limits: Infinite series work because of the concept of limits, which describe the behavior of partial sums as they grow without end.

The Lesson

The metaphor suggests humility in the face of abstract or transcendent concepts. Just as the Tower of Babel project was doomed by a misunderstanding of divine or cosmic limits, trying to “construct” infinity through finite steps overlooks the mathematical tools (like limits) designed to deal with such problems.

In both cases, the deeper insight comes from recognizing the difference between what can be built step by step and what must be understood in a more abstract or holistic way.

1 Like
233

Really?

Science is the only diagnostic of our reality so must be considered?

Scientists can no more go back in time than anyone else.

All your “data” is subject to interpretation. You can pat yourself on the back as often as you like but your conclusions are limited by the type of data you accept and the way that you interpret it.

At the end of he day ToE is the scientific answer based on what science (scientists) sees. As we all know, science does not see god and therefore cannot factor Him in. Therefore scientists cannot claim that someone who does see God (figuratively or in some sort of actuality) must submit to, or take into account, the scientific view.

Richard

234

Science is not the only diagnostic. But it should be taken into account, along with any other relevant information, for the many topics where science provides some insight.

What exactly does “how” mean? We don’t have the necessary information to give much characterization of the nature of God’s interaction with matter and energy. We can say that He’s in control of what happens, based on theological considerations. Science can tell us how physical things normally behave, and thus tells us how in a physical sense. For example, fossil data, modern anatomical similarities, and molecular data all strongly agree that one answer to “How did God create freshwater mussels?” is “By mutation and natural selection from a trigonioid ancestor.” The science gives us useful information to understand the physical patterns involved. The science doesn’t tell us that God is involved, but if we know that on other grounds, we can use that insight for further understanding.

2 Likes
235

You see whst you are doing there St Roymond…it appears that tue only bible YOU read now is the Torah…you are shrinking the acceptable scriptures to minimise the evidence against your worldview there. Soon you will be writing your own bible.

The problem is, note the following about the Torah…

Rabbinic tradition’s understanding is that all of the teachings found in the Torah (both written and oral) were given by God through the prophet Moses, some at Mount Sinai and others at the Tabernacle, and all the teachings were written down by Moses, which resulted in the Torah that exists today. According to the Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for CreationTorah - Wikipedia

Another St Roymond unresearched claim goes up in smoke!

236

To date, science provides by far the most successful description of the physical world, a world of which humans are a part, while philosophical and theological arguments have quite a poor record. So yes, whatever philosophy or theology you’re undertaking, if it’s relevant to the behavior of the physical world, it would be a good idea to pay attention to science.

Your premises are correct but your conclusion does not follow from them. Science cannot say anything about God’s role in the physical world, but it can say that living things overwhelmingly look like they are the product of evolution.

5 Likes
237

We use forensic evidence in murder trials. The forensic scientist can’t go back in time, yet we think this scientific approach to reconstructing the past is solid enough to determine guilt and determine if a person’s freedoms will be taken away.

Do you think we should throw out forensic evidence because the forensic scientist can’t go back in time, is using “dogma” as you describe it, and is using an interpretation of what the scientist considers evidence?

It’s based on what anyone can see. It’s based on empirical observations.

Since science can only use empirical observations it isn’t surprising that non-empirical observations don’t make their way into science.

4 Likes
238

It is precisely ToE that I contest. I do not dispute what science sees. Neither do I dispute that there is an evolutionary change mechanism… What I dispute is the ToE extrapolation Theory) that makes us a cosmic fluke.

That has never been disputed. What is disputed is that Science therefore is correct in an area where God could be. The consequence being that the theory produced can be challenged without insulting the integrity of scientists. IOW ToE can be wrong (Any of it, if not all of it.).

Richard

239

Do I really have to explain why this analogy is nonsense?

There is no make of car (that I am aware of) called St Andrews.

Once again, context matters.

It’s not that scientists don’t understand analogies. It’s that scientists understand something about analogies that people who love analogies don’t.

They are often inaccurate, or imprecise, or both.

Analogies are good when you are trying to explain complex scientific concepts to people whose minds are better attuned to the vagaries of humans and other living beings than to exact subjects such as Maths and Physics. But they are absolutely useless if you’re trying to put the concepts in question to work, to drill down into the details of what happens, to put them to the test, or to use them to put anything else to the test.

Science is not the only diagnostic, but it does provide some important features that no other diagnostic provides.

In particular, it establishes a set of rules, principles and standards that one has to meet if one is to challenge its findings, and provides strong, compelling and reproducible evidence that those rules, principles and standards work as expected, right across the board, in multiple different contexts, with a degree of precision that is usually quantifiable and can at times reach very high degrees of both accuracy and precision.

The rules are not arbitrary, they are not just some kind of made up invention, and they are not designed to “stack the deck” against anyone (other than people who want to make things up and invent their own alternative reality). They are rules that have been tested by multiple people in multiple contexts over hundreds or in some cases thousands of years and that have been proven time and time again to work as described.

Most bad attitudes to science have one particular thing in common: they stem from an unwillingness to operate within the constraints of those rules.

Sometimes people even go so far as to flat-out reject the concept of rules altogether. They dismiss them in terms such as claiming that they are just “your rules” or assuming that they are somehow “stacking the cards” against their own “interpretations.”

People who take this line rarely if ever even bother to ask me what kind of rules I am referring to. Even after I point out to them that they are simply the basic rules of mathematics, measurement, logical consistency, and honest and accurate reporting of material facts, they just respond with shenanigans such as putting the word “measurement” in scare quotes.

No, it’s the kind of question on which science thrives.

@heymike3 You’ve brought up this subject quite a few times now. Why not start up a thread of its own to discuss it? There are a lot of interesting things we could say about it, in terms of mathematics, philosophy, and how it relates to reality.

6 Likes
240

So you didn’t get it.

You chose St Andrews and Cambridge not me. That is the only connection between the two.

St Andrews could be the place in Scotland, but it culd also be A church or school anywhere in the Country, unless you s pecify the context.

Cambridge could the the City, or the University or a make of car. The Name is valid for all of them.

WHenyou are talking about something it has conteext and a fact that you claim for St Andrws the place does mot apply to a church.. When you talk about Cambridge the car any fact will not apply to the city or the university.

When you talk about Evolution in Scinece, any fact does no nevessarily apply when you talk about Theistic Evolution. The parameters are different. The data may be the same but the facts are not. Science has a contest and an understanding of “facts” that does not (always) apply when considered from a different perspective.

Scientists cannot take offence or claim insult when a Christian or philosopher does not accept a fact in the same way that the scientist does.

All the rest of your answer was posturing and repetition.

Richard

PS (edit)
I politely suggest that you try and avoid analogies,. and if you are confronted with one you find someone to .interpret it for you.

241

Contradiction in terms!