I thought we agreed on that.
It seemed like we would agree on the possibility of a quantity proceeding to infinity and would disagree on the impossibility of a quantity being actually infinite.
This was an interesting comment. Hopefully all scientists will also think philosophically about what they do. To say that reality is rational is to say it is measurable and that each real entity is comprehensible by examining of what it is constituted. Did you have that in mind?
Of course not everything is measurable or countable but only where it is is it possible to pursue scientific inquiry. Where science does not apply, as in human values, there is still reality and ways to know it. Though they may not be as straightforward or certain as science they may still be important.
Noted though I won’t be joining your dissent.
- Kinda goes without saying, don’t it? I wouldn’t have dissented if I thought you’d have joined my dissent.
I guess I’m a little curious about what sparked your dissent if you’d like to elaborate: the suggestion that all scientists ought to be somewhat versed in philosophy of science, or, that science is only or mostly applicable where measurement/counting are possible? (My guess is the latter.)
1 Like
- Yes the latter. To begin to understand why I dissented, one would have to take a tedious, but brief look-see at a complete presentation of a bona-fide "scientific thought-experiment proposed by “professionals” to teach students about the relativity of simultaneity in Einstein’s special theory of relativity. A partial introduction is given starting oh, say … about Page 4 of Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames.
- Again, mind ya’ it’s only a partial introduction to the subject matter, for the very odd reason, IMO, that a complete reason would show that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is nonsense and never measured.
Space, like time, has dimensions, which makes it relational. Reality is relational, as is God, which how we can know both reality and God.
Honestly I’m not curious enough to put much time into it. I have a few other pans on the stove already and don’t want to lose track of anything. But thanks.
- Thanks for sparing me the tedious trouble of explaining something you’re not really interested in. Would that everyone was so easy to please.
1 Like
Its an interesting idea, and I think the distinction is subtle. Nobody is truly “theologically neutral;” even the absence of any religious instruction mean some religiously-influenced or secular instruction. As a result, no ideas can come from a “religiously neutral” source. Still, the methodology of science and philosophy often attempts to evaluate philosophical and scientific theories independent of the orientation of the person putting it forward. In other words, even if the source has some preconception for (or against) divinity, we often try to evaluate ideas based on their own merit and not on the presuppositions of the person proposing it.
The distinction may be subtle, but it is also glaring for how it is impossible for science to be neutral regarding metaphysics.
Or it’s hard to define the myth of religious neutrality, until it isn’t. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
I think the presupposition of a divinity belief makes a difference to how the nature of a theory’s postulates is understood. It’s a two step relation.
The argument is that scientific theories cannot fail to presuppose some view of the nature of reality (an ontology or metaphysics), and any ontology includes or presupposes some divinity belief or other. A divinity belief is a belief in something as the self-existent origin of all else.
There is surely a level of experience at which everyone sees things alike. We all add a column of numbers in the same way, regardless of what we regard as having divine (self-existent) reality.
But there is just as surely a level of experience at which we seek explanations in answer to questions that take us beyond what we experience in common, and at which we offer hypotheses to answer those questions. My argument is that theories in the specific sciences (math, physics, biology, psych, etc) include or presuppose a view of the nature of reality as a whole. Another way to put it is that a theory within a science can’t help implying a view as to how that science relates to the rest of reality. The second step is that a view of the nature of reality in general, in turn, includes or presupposes a divinity belief. A divinity belief is a belief in something (or other) as the self-existent origin of all else.
Hm, thanks for this. However, does divinity always have to do with origins? Justice, abstract reasoning, etc–I’m amazed at all the possible relations to what the divine/numinous may mean
Thanks.
1 Like
The one belief that is central to all religions (so far as we know) is a belief in something or other as the self-existent origin of all else. That is the central meaning of “religious belief.” There are also 3 auxiliary meanings: 1) a specific idea of the nature of the self-existent reality, 2) an idea of how the non -divine depends upon the divine, and 3) an idea of now humans can stand in right relation to the divine. Theism last one is what we ordinarily think of as religion.
Ok; yet, since I have become more comfortable with evolution, I no longer really feel it’s too important to me to believe in God as the source. I do, however, pray all the time; for wisdom with regard to doing right, and becoming more like Christ; as well as longing to mercy and grace for those who suffer. I’m not sure that the origins factor much into my perception any more. I wonder if that is the case for others.
Randal Rauser wrote about the various reasons some believe in God. It’d be a mistake to say there was a limited number, now I reflect on that more. It’s an interesting thought.
Thanks.
If you were to come back to this, I suppose it would be like saying a married bachelor could still fail to be self-existent.
One of the things I really do agree with the Postmodernists on (despite being a Christian and for the most part a scientific realist) is the notion that scientific inquiry is filled with value-laden choices and assumptions. To me there is no reason to brush this under the rug.
Whenever we decide to perform an experiment or write a paper, we are implicitly (or perhaps explicitly) saying that we believe such and such idea is worth exploring or this experiment is worth doing. This reason may be none other than “I like doing research, it is fun for me” but it is still there nonetheless. People generally don’t spend time trying to publish results they think are meaningless or not worth the time they put in to publishing.
Many of the assumptions science relies on in order to be “useful” involve non-scientific assumptions like the usefulness/applicability of mathematics, the existence of the past and an external world, the usefulness of falsifiability as a means to discovering “truth,” the general uniformity of nature, etc. It also generally assumes things about our empirical and mental faculties and their relationship to “truth.”