If you read my chapters on what a theory is, you’ll find that I made the same distinction between theories that postulate an entity of some sort (neutrino, e.g.) and theories that postulate a perspective for interpretation. And you need to take into account my original statement where I said that it’s not the postulates that are religiously regulated, it’s the understanding of their nature that is driven by what is regarded as divine,
And, yes, they do the same experiments & calculations - which doesn’t alter the fact that the results of them are also understood to have different natures - natures that vary with their divinity beliefs.
Sorry, I misunderstood your opening sentence, then. (“The Myth of Religious Neutrality defends the position that it is not possible to construct a theory in philosophy or the sciences that is not regulated by some religious belief or other.”) In my terminology, scientific theories are not regulated by worldview even if their metaphysical interpretations are. In practice, I suspect many (most?) scientists don’t in fact have a single interpretation in mind when in comes to the relationship between theory and reality. Quantum mechanics has a wide range of metaphysically very different interpretations and I have no idea which if any of them is correct. That uncertainty had no effect on the physics I did and very little on anything else in my life.
I’m replying here to the comment that condensation is a theory… etc. This is shifting the meaning of “theory.” By saying It’s not a theory that condensation takes place, mean to affirm that it is not a hypothesis we invent to explain something. You are using “theory” in a wider sense and assuming that anything mentioned in such an account is a theory. That’s why I said that the regulation exercised by divinity beliefs effects how the nature of a theory’s postulates is understood. Whatever theory-makers propose as an explanation - our invented hypotheses, or postulates - are what are effected.
I am not a practicing scientist, no. But philosophy of science has been central to my interests for a long time. I’m aware that most scientists don’t like being asked to reflect on what they’re doing, how they do it and what assumptions they bring with them to the entire enterprise. As many of the thinkers who were both scientists and philosophers have pointed out (Whitehead, Heisenberg), scientists are frequently unaware of their assumptions - just as they are often unaware of some of a theory’s entailments.
Some of this discussion has gotten to the point where I would have to reproduce the book to answer your questions. Why don’t you (all) have a look at it and then tell me what you disagree with.
I’m enjoying the discussion and taking notes. My mind was wandering and I thought of this and wanted to clarify something.
Viewed from an empirical perspective can it also be infinitely divided?
Something I’ve been thinking about for awhile, and would like to read and write about, is how the immediate effect of an uncaused cause appears to come from nothing. Can you think of anything offhand? I can email you if you prefer.
This is close to what I’m going after, but I’m trying to explain it in more detail. I think divinity beliefs regulate worldviews, too, but it’s harder to see how they elect theories. Part of that is also what Dale notice.
But, anyway, the criteria for what goes on in science is not what scientists are aware of while they do science - any more than the criteria for what goes on in the law, or in theology is whatever lawyers, judges, or theologians were thinking of while they did their work.
Yes, it is specialized. One of the topics everyone avoids today in discussions of science & religion is what counts as a religious belief. I didn’t dodge it, and to my surprise this one was widely held in the ancient world, during the middle ages and by influential thinkers during the Renaissance and up to the 19th cent. It has been revived in the 20th cent., but only by philosophers and specialists in comp religion. (Eliade, Wach, et al).
We do have scientific theories that explain why we can go from an atmosphere with water vapor to an atmosphere with precipitating water droplets. These theories deal with molecular forces, transfer of energy, and so on.
Then how does that affect our hypotheses and theories of how water droplets form in the atmosphere, as one example?
The assumptions concerning the nature of a theoretical postulate are usually admitted/agreed with by a scientist once they’re pointed out. Keep in mind here that: 1) the assumptions can be unconscious, and 2) the assumptions can be unwelcome. But it has often turned out that a particular hypothesis has assumptions the theorist wishes to deny or has entailments that re equally unwelcome.
What a thinker approves of, or values, or welcomes has often been other than the assumptions or entailments of a hypothesis the thinker has proposed.
I thought I was arguing for a positive point!
I’m arguing that among the assumptions a hypothesis may have there is always an assumption of an ultimate (divine) reality. So if you ask a philosophical materialist for an explanation of why he has postulated a purely physical X to explain something, he may or may not be aware that his view that X is purely physical reflects his commitment that the self-existent part of reality is purely physical.
This would take longer than I’ve time for in this mode of communicating. Can we use one of the examples that I already researched and used in MYTH?
BTW gents, I’m leaving the country Saturday and won’t be able to pursue this discussion beyond Friday. My apologies, as we’re off to a good start. I return March 5.
This is not much difference than claims that objectivity, justice, love, unselfishness, etc… is not possible. It is an impoverished black and white way of thinking. Just because you cannot do something perfectly does not mean that you cannot do it at all.
It reminds the way Terry Pratchett (in “The Hogsfather”) calls them lies which we need to believe in order to be human. But this is an gross exaggeration to call them lies, appropriate only for comedy.
The reality is that we live by ideals – things we strive for whether we can do them perfectly or not. And it is worthwhile to make such efforts and strive for those ideals regardless.
Attacking ideals in this way is a typical tactic of extremists – an excuse to disregard those ideals for their own blockheaded aims. It is an attack on human civilization and our very humanity. It is evil.
Where in the theory of water condensation is there an assumption of ultimate divine reality?
I would say that it has more to do with the rule of parsimony, as discussed by Romanes in relation to the theory of evolution.
We could invent a supernatural cause for each and every phenomenon that acts just like a natural cause. However, we would have to throw out any attempt at rationally explaining how nature works if we adopted such a method. It isn’t materialism that drives the use of parsimony. Rather, it is pragmatism.