arndt@lymph.DEC (04/01/85)
Could someone please explain (Ethan??) the difference between a
"Religious theory" and a "Scientific theory"????
In my view ALL theories, indeed ALL knowledge is based upon presuppositions/
axioms/assumptions that are basically 'religious/mystical' in nature.
Absolute knowledge, certainty, objectivity, concrete proof, etc. are constructs
or 'models' of what we call 'reality'.
Sort of "objectivity is a figment of our imaginations".
I see only more or less 'evidence' for one theory over another - religious or
scientific!
I believe that this stance in line with modern 'scientific' understanding as
shown by the quotes that I have sent in to the net from time to time. I see
here from SOME of the contributors a complete lack of understanding of science
when they speak against religious belief - just the way many religious people
show a complete lack of understanding of religion and science!
Remember Jastrow saying the scientists climbing up the mountain of knowledge
and finding the theologians there already? That's the kind of thing I mean.
Now Jastrow is NOT a Christian, remember. He's a scientist saying the same
thing I am about the way one goes about picking one's assumptions to build a
world-view. I've quoted other non-Christian scientists as well on this topic.
Even Lew Mamel,Jr. quoted F-------- about using 'models' in science.
Take a sentence like this recently posted in net.religion by 'Lord Firth'
(don't you just love the guy? Like to meet him.)
"There are similar ways to verify the validity of subjective experience
when they involve reality and concrete proof. Otherwise there is only
your subjective reality."
He speaks as if his knowledge of philosophy and science stopped at the year
1700. I mean, I've found interesting things in some of what he has posted
but this is very unclear - or clear that he doesn't understand modern thought.
How does one define and example 'reality'. What IS 'concrete proof'. Surely
these things ARE constructs of the human mind used as 'models' to explain the
world we perceive!
So many of the otherwise find minds here on the net parrot the cant that we
can 'prove' this or that thing and by that they mean there is no other
possibility of explanation that is legitimate or fitting to reason. They
don't seem to understand that what we are doing is CHOOSING our models
and testing them against our perceptions of whatever 'reality' is. To
limit 'reality' to only the physical world IS an assumption that it is not
NECESSARY to make. Only one that CAN be so chosen.
Let me just close with another comment by Jastrow. At a conference debate
revolving around the question as to the likelihood of intelligent
extraterrestrial life in the galaxy (Jastrow says yes) the moderator,
Dr. Frank Tipler reports that Jastrow leaned over to him and said, "Are you
aware that this is essentially a religious controversy on both sides?"
(correction - Tipler wasn't the moderator, he was on the panel)
I see too many people here who know nothing of the basis for science.
They can do the math, but don't know WHAT it is that they are doing!
What's the problem??? Had bad experiences with religion as children?
Had stupid teachers? Never took any liberal arts courses or ones taught
by the gym teacher? They act like know-it-all graduate assistants. The
larger minds in science don't hold to their Time-Life views. Of course
they are repulsed by some of the religious views put forward. So am I.
But again, it seems to me ALL knowledge is based on 'religious' assumptions
and the range of evidence for which little probability of doubt exists is
so small so as to hardly exist!
Keep chargin'
Ken Arndtpadraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (04/04/85)
Ken Arndt asked >Could someone please explain (Ethan??) the difference between a >"Religious theory" and a "Scientific theory"???? Some criteria for determining whether a theory is scientific or not are: a) Logical criteria: 1) Simple and unifying 2) logically consistent internally, 3) logically falsifiable, 4) clearly limited by explicitly stated boundary conditions. b) empirical criteria: 1) must be testable, empirically 2) make verified predictions and/or retrodictions 3) concern reproducible results 4) provide criteria for interpreting data as facts, artifacts, anomalies, or as irrelevant. This list is not exhaustive, and is taken from an article by Robert Root-Bernstein in "Science and Creationism". > I see only more or less 'evidence' for one theory over another - religious or > scientific! Indeed it is correct to point out that they are both theories, it's kind of like saying that cats and dogs are mammals. However, one doesn't enter a cat in the dog show, and vice versa :-) . Padraig Houlahan.
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (04/04/85)
[] > > Could someone please explain (Ethan??) the difference between a > "Religious theory" and a "Scientific theory"???? > > In my view ALL theories, indeed ALL knowledge is based upon presuppositions/ > axioms/assumptions that are basically 'religious/mystical' in nature. > > Absolute knowledge, certainty, objectivity, concrete proof, etc. are constructs > or 'models' of what we call 'reality'. > > Ken Arndt Padraig has posted a partial answer to this. Let me try to elaborate. Science does indeed rest on an assumption, i.e. that a reality exists whose nature can be learned by comparing our necessarily subjective experiences. The scientific method involves a bit more than this, like Occam's razor. The conclusions drawn in science are necessarily tentative and limited. The primary justification for pursuing it is that it works. That is that using the scientific method not only provides a way to make sense of previously made observations, but provides predictions for future observations and a basis more increasing the sophistication of our understanding I do *not* know how to define a "religious theory" except negatively or through imprecise common usage (e.g. "theories involving the existence of God or the afterlife"). Your quotes on the subject seem to indicate that at least some people think that "religious" questions are those we have no empirical basis for answering. "Scientific creationism" is not science for a variety of reasons. The one that most impresses me is that while it provides an explanation for the universe, it fails to explain *anything* in the universe. The order of fossils in the geologic record, the evidence concerning the age of the Earth and the age of the universe etc. all become meaningless coincidences. If one takes creationism to mean just the idea that God is responsible for the existence of the universe, and leaves out the parts involving a young Earth and divine creation of "kinds" etc, then the hypothesis no longer has the disadvantage of forcing us to regard most of modern science as lucky guesses and meaningless coincidences. However, it does not become science from that. The hypothesis of God does not allow us to predict future observations better. It is not an empirically necessary hypothesis. Of course, one cannot conclude from that the God does not exist. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas