Your second sentence defeats your first sentence. You make vague generalities about philosophies without really explaining them.
From what I can see, science uses a very simple set of axioms that no one really argues over. As Weinberg puts it:
“Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the teachings of philosophers.”–Steven Weinberg, “Dreams of a Final Theory”
The axiom of “the stuff around is real” is not something that required scientists to learn philosophy. As said before, philosophers really haven’t made much of a contribution to science in quite a while.
Perhaps the best response I can make is to ask who made you a spokesperson for the scientists of this world, and what qualifies you to evaluate philosophy and its practitioners .
But seriously, just what contributions have (let us say to make this entertaining discussion) biologists made to the field of mathematics, or chemistry? By this, I mean how many practitioners in one field are expected (and indeed can) make contributions to other fields?
I do not have to explain philosophy to you - if you need that, I am sure a qualified philosopher can help you. I have simply pointed out my experience as a scientist with regard to my reading of some philosophical works.
The multiverse may be an objectively true fact, but it is a purely mathematical construct with no conceivable way to empirically verify it by observation. How is that distinguishable from something that doesn’t exist?
By your criteria, an objective truth that scientific investigation cannot uncover is indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist. This says more about the limitations of our science than about the realities of our physical universe. Otherwise, you seem to be saying that atoms, for instance, did not exist until they were discovered.
1,000 years ago we had no conceivable way to empirically observe galaxies that were 10 billion light years away. Now we can. This is simply a matter of not having the technology right now. I don’t see why we couldn’t build the technology in the future to test for multiple universes, or even produce new universes of our own at some point in the future.
What others are saying is that no technology that can ever be built can detect what they are talking about (if I am understanding them correctly). That is a different beast entirely.
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that until we uncovered evidence for atoms we had no reason to conclude that they did exist. If someone had said 500 years ago that there were atoms, but he had no evidence to support the claim, then people would be right to tentatively not accept his claim as true. As an analogy, people are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Same concept.
I am talking about my own conclusions. If I am wrong, then please show me observations that contradict my conclusions.
Why are people so upset that philosophers have not made any significant contributions to science?[quote=“GJDS, post:62, topic:36189”]
I do not have to explain philosophy to you - if you need that, I am sure a qualified philosopher can help you. I have simply pointed out my experience as a scientist with regard to my reading of some philosophical works.
[/quote]
If you can’t show me the philosophers that are making these supposed contributions, then I can only conclude that even you can’t point to examples of philosophers making contributions to science.
Yes, which is why I said your statement has more to do with the limitations of our science than with what actually may or may not be truly said to exist. Expressing confidence that someday science will advance far enough to solve all known mysteries – including the possibility of multiverses – is a faith stance. All of us have them, whether we recognize them or not.
First, I never said that we definitely will develop technology to detect multiverses. Personally, I have no position on the existence or nonexistence of multiverses. I also take the position that there is no way that we can currently know if the universe we live in is the only universe in existence.
I also don’t see why it is a problem that our knowledge is limited to what we can demonstrate to exist. If something becomes knowledge by merely uttering the words, “I believe it is true”, then knowledge seizes to mean anything.
Because it eliminates entire categories of knowledge. Be that as it may, I’m sorry that I opened a can of worms that I don’t have time to debate. I’ll leave it to you to wrap a bow around it, if you want.
You should never feel obligated to respond to any posts, and your contributions are appreciated.
When you say that it eliminates entire categories of knowledge it only begs the question of what those categories are. That’s why I keep asking questions, to find out what this knowledge is, how it is acquired, and why people think it is true.
Fairly easily for a good many things as it turns out … and that is true for you too by the way. You believe that scientifically empirical evidence is the only way to have any confidence in any knowledge (or something very similar to that --tweak the words as you will). That “fact” is not itself a scientific fact, nor is it demonstrably true in any scientific or empirical sense since it is itself about the very empiricism that is in question. Yet here you are here claiming to believe it --not a bad thing, but a “mere” belief nonetheless. I believe I should love my family, friends, neighbors, etc. I can’t show you any scientific evidence why this should be true whatsoever. But I believe it to be true nonetheless (as I suspect you do too). We could go on. These aren’t just trivial beliefs. If we were to stop believing them, chaos would ensue; some would say it already has begun. If it continues, science will not be a winner --maybe not even a survivor in any such trajectory. That is why I think sites like this are so urgently needed. We need to reveal the lie for what it is that attempts to hijack science to take it down some ideological road toward Scientism.
On a related matter – you seemed disturbed above (in a response to someone else) that anyone could refer to facts as opinions. Since that is probably me, I’ll respond. I don’t think the world is a black and white world of “facts” and “falsehoods”. Okay --to nuance that, Yes; if we had a God’s eye perspective then every well crafted proposition could be made to fit cleanly into one category or the other. I accept that (yet another non-demonstrated conjecture that I and probably you accept on belief alone …). But what I’m claiming is that from our human perspective we only have degrees of certainty or doubt. For the sake of casual communication I’m willing to call as “fact” things that most of us are 99% certain of. Along that continuum down toward the low-confidence end things drift gradually into that nebulous realm of opinion (which you seem to effectively treat synonymous with “falsehood”). There is no clean division line here --even on the certain end there will always be at least a little of it that is opinion. You can’t even prove to me in any empirical sense that we both exist (yet another of the boat load of propositions you quite readily accept even though science is helpless to demonstrate it). So it goes without saying you won’t be demonstrating much harder things like the existence or non-existence of God.
That’s not it. What I can do is demonstrate that something is true through empirical evidence. If you claim there is a different way to produce knowledge, then please describe it and why it is trustworthy.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:70, topic:36189”]
I believe I should love my family, friends, neighbors, etc. I can’t show you any scientific evidence why this should be true whatsoever. But I believe it to be true nonetheless (as I suspect you do too).
[/quote]
But why do you believe it is true, and how can you demonstrate it to be true?
What I am ultimately asking is what separates belief from knowledge, or are you saying that they are the same thing?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:70, topic:36189”]
But what I’m claiming is that from our human perspective we only have degrees of certainty or doubt. For the sake of casual communication I’m willing to call as “fact” things that most of us are 99% certain of. Along that continuum down toward the low-confidence end things drift gradually into that nebulous realm of opinion (which you seem to effectively treat synonymous with “falsehood”). There is no clean division line here --even on the certain end there will always be at least a little of it that is opinion. You can’t even prove to me in any empirical sense that we both exist (yet another of the boat load of propositions you quite readily accept even though science is helpless to demonstrate it). So it goes without saying you won’t be demonstrating much harder things like the existence or non-existence of God.
[/quote]
I can most certainly demonstrate empirically that we both exist since I can describe experiments where we both get the same results. What I think you are referring to is an epistemology where you call into doubt the existence of everything, which seems a bit silly to me.
This is where the demonstration of fact is important. If you think it is just opinion that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation I can describe experiments where you can directly measure that absorbance. It is a demonstrable fact. It isn’t an opinion.
If you think everything is an opinion because you call into the question the very existence of reality then I would have to ask why you would do so.
Yes. Direct (and indirect) experience is one such way (and revelation from a Divine entity interacting with us may feed into that too, though we’ll set that one aside here obviously.)
If my life is in shreds because of a lot of bad decisions on my own part or from others too (some would call this sin … but I realize non-Christians are squeamish about that word -another thing so many of you think is non-existent, but my personal knowledge of it informs me otherwise), and I am given religious instructions about how (or to whom) I can look to get things turned around and live my life in a better way; the results of that lead to a certain kind of knowledge. Not everybody sees this as knowledge, obviously, since it has highly subjective elements. And we can be experts at fooling ourselves too (as I certainly shouldn’t have to tell you as a professional scientist). But what you probably need to be reminded of is that this potential “fooling ourselves” doesn’t always just work in one direction (towards some formal religious faith). It also works in the other direction too. There are those who have tasted and yet turned away (I gather you may be just such a person)? And your personal experience in that regard you probably regard as knowledge. Or even if you hold it to be subjective, you effectively live by it as if it were knowledge now, no? That is the same kind of knowledge and testimony that others have too that can’t be denied or taken away from them just because some others turn away or seek different conclusions. That [personal experience] is one form of knowledge that transcends mere empiricism or Scientism.
Another is inter-personal knowledge. I know and trust my wife. That doesn’t mean that we never surprise or disappoint each other. But there are things that I know [she loves me!] even if I can’t give you a scientific treatise to demonstrate it. Yet I live day-to-day in the faith, hope, and conviction that it is true. We could probably go on to speak of beauty, aesthetics, or other things too --most or all of which (like love) end up dying with any attempted reductionistic analysis. There are all sorts of knowledge that I can’t demonstrate to you with 100% empirical certainty, yet they function as knowledge for me just the same.
I note that you still seem to think I am joined with you in your black and white world where everything must be either regarded as 100% fact or 100% opinion. Until you can break out of that black-and-white outlook, we will continue to talk past each other on that. You effectively speak as if 0% and 100% are the only numbers that exist on that scale, and I’m here to keep reminding you: just ain’t so. And I’m willing to call that my (non-scientific) knowledge of a fact!
Added edit: I said above "There are all sorts of knowledge that I can’t demonstrate to you with 100% empirical certainty, yet they function as knowledge for me just the same. " Let me add to that here that the reason I trust this [you asked why] is 1. the world would turn into a real hell-hole if I or we all started to question some of these basic intuitions --things would quickly devolve into a hellish morass of Nietzschean brute contests of will and neither formal religions nor the highly-revered science would long remain in this world. And 2. because I believe (yes, believe) they are true! There is always the logical possibility that I am wrong. I’m willing to live with that. In fact, on the entire myriad of everything I do believe, it is nearly certain (just on probability alone) that I’m wrong on some things. I see how wrong geniuses can be about a lot of things, and I’m no genius.
Mr. T, there is a category of human belief that shapes our futures… even though there is no objective evidence. The evidence is entirely Subjective … though it can be described and shared with others.
This is what Hume taught us … about beliefs and feelings. The fact that the vast majority of humanity that ever existed rejected, and continues to reject, atheism is also a part of this Subjective realm.
I choose not to strike out against my human nature… especially that part of my human nature that cultivatescwithin me a Hope for the future, and the best parts of my Hope for my fellow brothers and sisters.
How do you determine that you are interacting with a Divine entity?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:72, topic:36189”]
Another is inter-personal knowledge. I know and trust my wife.
[/quote]
You can demonstrate that your wife exists. Not exactly the same thing.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:72, topic:36189”]
I note that you still seem to think I am joined with you in your black and white world where everything must be either regarded as 100% fact or 100% opinion. Until you can break out of that black-and-white outlook, we will continue to talk past each other on that. You effectively speak as if 0% and 100% are the only numbers that exist on that scale, and I’m here to keep reminding you: just ain’t so. And I’m willing to call that my (non-scientific) knowledge of a fact!
[/quote]
What I am looking for is a justification for your position. Until such a justification is given, all I am really seeing is a rationalization for treating opinions as facts.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:72, topic:36189”]
the world would turn into a real hell-hole if I or we all started to question some of these basic intuitions --things would quickly devolve into a hellish morass of Nietzschean brute contests of will and neither formal religions nor the highly-revered science would long remain in this world.
[/quote]
That is an Argument from Consequence, which is a logical fallacy. Also, we can say that we have opinions of how the world should be and that works just fine. We don’t need to call them facts
I am asking about knowledge, not belief.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:73, topic:36189”]
This is what Hume taught us … about beliefs and feelings. The fact that the vast majority of humanity that ever existed rejected, and continues to reject, atheism is also a part of this Subjective realm.
[/quote]
That is an Argument from Popularity, which is a logical fallacy. 1,000 years ago, the majority of people believed that the Sun moved about the Earth. That didn’t make it true.
Let’s just start with your last assertion here. If all our discourse boils down to the semantics of what should be allowed to be called a fact, then I think we should be able to agree about our understandings at least even if we can’t agree on what all is a fact. So you want only the scientifically demonstrable assertions to be admitted as “facts”; is that right? Maybe you’ll even allow for a few other non-scientific things in there, such as the “fact” that an intelligible reality exists that is amenable to such examination, and furthermore that empirical demonstration is the best, if not the only access we have to any knowledge. I understand your position. I also do not plant my flag there. I hold that there are truths (facts) beyond what we can demonstrate, perhaps many that we will never be able to demonstrate. My inability to produce scientific proof or evidence to your satisfaction does not make a true assertion any less true, any more than the inability of everyone five centuries ago to produce evidence that the earth moves would somehow defeat the “facthood” of a moving earth.
I would be happy to answer all your prior questions too – and will on request. But first, since we’ve been over so much of this, I want to be sure you actually are curious in any open sort of way. I know you want to “know” all things with scientific confidence, but things of God are just not going to lend themselves to the kind of inspection you seek (at least not on my command). This is a Christian site where most of us have already accepted that there will be things like trust and faith that transcend (and yet include) the scientific way of learning things. If you are already determined that you are stuck in the “science only” manner of beholding and describing the universe, and just want to expose any uncertainties you can find here for polemical purposes, then maybe this isn’t the site for you. We already know we have uncertainties. We get that. For those who are Christians here, we are willing to live with some of those uncertainties --sometimes more than other times. I’m sorry if you can’t abide the thought of any uncertainty at all. Good luck with that. I already know well about fallacies of utility and such … which is why we aren’t convinced by those things alone, but don’t ignore them either when they stand along with other (non-scientific) kinds of experiences in our lives when we survey all the testimonies that impact us.
I don’t want to turn you away if you continue to be genuinely curious. Don’t get me wrong. But I also don’t want to continue to invest a lot of time responding if every response is met only with the same repeated demand for empirical justification that asks me to assume and endorse a form of Scientism that I have already rejected. Others here may have different or more accommodating responses, but such is mine here.
If you have a better method, then I am all ears.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:78, topic:36189”]
I hold that there are truths (facts) beyond what we can demonstrate, perhaps many that we will never be able to demonstrate. My inability to produce scientific proof or evidence to your satisfaction does not make a true assertion any less true, any more than the inability of everyone five centuries ago to produce evidence that the earth moves would somehow defeat the “facthood” of a moving earth.
[/quote]
You seem to be equivocating. I would agree that there are truths that we have yet to discover. However, that is not the same as things we believe, either through faith or opinion. Just because we believe something to be true does not make it true. If you believe something is true simply because you don’t want it to be false, then that doesn’t seem like a very good method for discerning truth.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:78, topic:36189”]
I know you want to “know” all things with scientific confidence, but things of God are just not going to lend themselves to the kind of inspection you seek (at least not on my command).
[/quote]
This is also a feature of things that are not true or made up. Things that are not true or made up also do not lend themselves scientific investigation, or at least a demonstration of their truth through independent means. If a claim is indistinguishable from something that is either not true or made up, then why believe it is true?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:78, topic:36189”]
We already know we have uncertainties. We get that. For those who are Christians here, we are willing to live with some of those uncertainties --sometimes more than other times. I’m sorry if you can’t abide the thought of any uncertainty at all.
[/quote]
I don’t think I am the one who is bothered by uncertainties. Rather, it is those who try to blur the line between fact and belief that are trying to justify their beliefs in uncertainties. That’s all I am trying to address.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:78, topic:36189”]
I don’t want to turn you away if you continue to be genuinely curious. Don’t get me wrong. But I also don’t want to continue to invest a lot of time responding if every response is met only with the same repeated demand for empirical justification that asks me to assume and endorse a form of Scientism that I have already rejected. Others here may have different or more accommodating responses, but such is mine here.
[/quote]
What I am seeking is any justification. If you think there is a better method for gaining knowledge then describe it, and show that it is better.
[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:79, topic:36189”]
Just because we believe something to be true does not make it true. If you believe something is true simply because you don’t want it to be false, then that doesn’t seem like a very good method for discerning truth.[/quote]
Nor does the fact that it is mere belief (non-demonstrated empirically) make it false. That is the error of yours I am trying to help you see.
That a belief shares this in common with falsehoods does not mean that the belief in question is untrue. Another fallacy.
You are the one who persists here – could have fooled me.
[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:79, topic:36189”]
Rather, it is those who try to blur the line between fact and belief that are trying to justify their beliefs in uncertainties. That’s all I am trying to address.[/quote]
There is your honest recognition I think. You want us to justify our beliefs to you on your narrow scientific terms. We tell you that there are issues here bigger than science or materialism, and we share with you something of our non-scientific justifications. But then you predictably come back with dissatisfaction – your dissatisfaction with our justifications because they are outside where you can go or what you allow yourself to accept. In many ways, many of us here share your skeptical tendencies. Science is the best way to know a lot of things about this physical world. It is not (and never will be) the best way to know absolutely everything that is worth believing. I’m not disturbed that I believe things to be true that I can’t scientifically justify to you. I will continue to believe them, and to feel I have warrant and justification to believe them even if that warrant is outside the reach of your Scientistic leash. I am well aware that these harder and higher questions reside in a larger domain fraught with many falsehoods too, and that our beliefs can and often are in danger of being false. That is why we don’t blindly adopt them, and why we would even test them scientifically if or when such a thing ever becomes possible. None of this is new to most Christians who’ve been around here for a while.
Do you have anything to add other than hoping that we’ll just drop everything and lock ourselves with you into a Scientistic prison? I’m still hoping that someday you’ll spring a jail-break! You can always still go back to visit the place you know. It does have a lot of useful stuff in it and frankly I know the appeal. But I also enjoy the wider world all around it too.
.