Science is limited

[livingwordlabels]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

Also when people use only what they can observe to explain how mankind was created. This inevitably fails, as they have to limit life to something physical and we get the absurd idea of life evolving out of matter. The Bible offers us a more plausible explanation - that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

[Star]

I'm not sure about that yet. But you certainly came across as someone that doesn’t really know what a non-sequitur is.

Nearly every argument you post either is a non-sequitur itself, or contains one or more non-sequiturs. Your conclusion that science is fallacious is a perfect example. A non-sequitur can be as simple as saying, for example, a woman must have a big house just because she has a lot of money. It might, but then, it might not. It's certainly true that there's a correlation between wealth and size of house, but there are exceptions. Maybe she doesn't want a big house.

Here's a demonstration of your non-sequitur...

Affirming the consequent is a fallacy when an incorrect conclusion is drawn from evidence, and science draws conclusions from evidence, therefore science is fallacious and always draws incorrect conclusions. Evolution must therefore also be incorrect.

Your logic doesn't follow. Science is much more sophisticated than that.

What was it I oversimplified? I demonstrated the logic you use, and by implication the logic all Evolutionists use presumably, to prove evolution is a fact is built on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Your response seems to be that I do not understand science.

As I explained, you're over-simplifying the methodologies science uses to test hypotheses and build theories, and you're doing it to the point of completely misunderstanding them. I even linked you up with information, which of course, you disregard. As explained, the scientific method doesn't necessitate fallacy, nor does science adhere only to the scientific method. Your ignorance of what scientists do for a living doesn't invalidate any of their work.

By the way, your computer doesn’t rely solely on science it relies on logic to operate.

Technology is an applied science. Computers wouldn't even turn on without science. Believe me, code can still run with flawed logic, just not as well. Flawed logic might provide an incorrect answer, or throw an exception, like a new Android app I'm working on. But without science, none of our hardware would even work. The pixels on our monitors wouldn't produce light. The touchscreen on our smartphones wouldn't accept input. We wouldn't even know how to use electricity.

[JohnA]

I have no issue with science that employs valid and sound reasoning.

Last time I checked there was only one 'science'.
Are you now building / practicing your fallacies to build a straw man science and beat it up?

So, which branches of science do you have issue with, and why?

Am interested in the headlines and the details.

[WinePusher]

Scientists and philosophers alike agree that the natural sciences are based upon faith based assumptions. So it's laughable to see atheists criticizing the concept of faith when the very own scientific enterprise that they claim to love and cherish is also based on faith.

To have faith means believing in something without evidence. What self-respecting scientist agrees that the natural sciences (astronomy, biology, chemistry, Earth sciences, and physics) are based on faith?

Name them.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opini ... d=all&_r=0

[Star]

Scientists and philosophers alike agree that the natural sciences are based upon faith based assumptions. So it's laughable to see atheists criticizing the concept of faith when the very own scientific enterprise that they claim to love and cherish is also based on faith.

To have faith means believing in something without evidence. What self-respecting scientist agrees that the natural sciences (astronomy, biology, chemistry, Earth sciences, and physics) are based on faith?

Name them.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opini ... d=all&_r=0

OK, so you have an opinion piece, written by one man, in one newspaper.

Do you have anything scholarly? I'm looking for information published in something respectable like a science journal, and wasn't torn to shreds by peer review.

Also, he's making a different claim than you. He's not arguing that science is based on faith, but rather that science isn't completely free from faith, particularly in theoretical physics. There's a difference. (Science isn't actually free from any human fault, unfortunately, but that's one of the reasons there is the peer-review process).

While I somewhat disagree with his argument, I wholeheartedly disagree with yours.

[JohnA]

Scientists and philosophers alike agree that the natural sciences are based upon faith based assumptions. So it's laughable to see atheists criticizing the concept of faith when the very own scientific enterprise that they claim to love and cherish is also based on faith.

To have faith means believing in something without evidence. What self-respecting scientist agrees that the natural sciences (astronomy, biology, chemistry, Earth sciences, and physics) are based on faith?

Name them.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opini ... d=all&_r=0

That link does not say science is based on faith. In actual fact, it states quite the opposite; science (not scientists) it is not based on faith.

The author then merely appeals to his own ignorance to make two mistakes:
1) Implying that scientists have no evidence / hypotheses for unsolved problems
2) Slapping the word faith on it, and masquerade it as bogus


That is a nice bit of authorship intellectual insolvency and incomprehension displayed by the writer.

But hey, you rely on authorities, so you probably believe this ignorant author.
Yes, the Bible also says there are Talking donkeys. I can understand that you believe this article since you buy into your dogma that is 10^100 x worse drivel.

[Star]

WinePusher lead us to believe this was a scientific consensus. I asked for names, but was directed to only one, Paul Davies, who actually received heavy criticism for this op.

One such critic, prominent evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, wrote:

With Paul Davies' article, the New York Times continues its tradition of soft-headed op-ed pieces that criticize science and, either implicitly or explicitly, bolster religion. I have just two comments:

1. Contrary to Davies' assertion, science is not based on "faith" that physical laws will apply forever, or in different places in the Universe. This is an observation—an observation that has not been contradicted by any other data. Davies is completely off base when claiming that "to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You've got to believe that these laws won't fail, that we won't wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour. " This is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of experience. In contrast, the tenets of religion are truly based on faith, since there is no empirical data to support them.

2. Davies claims that the "faith" of science is based on something outside the universe, like "an unexplained set of physical laws. " The lack of a current explanation for why the laws are as they are, however, does not make physics a faith. It only means that we don't have the answer. Indeed, Davies thinks we might be able to come up with an answer, one that does not involve supernatural intervention. So what, exactly, are scientists taking on faith here? What do we believe to be true without any evidence? I don't get it.

One of my favorite scientists, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, wrote:

Einstein once said that what most interested him about the Universe was whether God had any choice in its creation. He was, of course, not referring to a deity here, but rather asking the very important question: Can there only be one set of physical laws that allow for a consistent physical universe, or are there many possibilities?

This is precisely the question that Paul Davies suggests scientists do not generally ask, and moreover it demonstrates profound differences between the 'faith' of scientists, and religious faith. It is true that there is no purpose in carrying out scientific investigations if we are to believe that the laws of nature are capricious and can change from day to day in unpredictable ways. But this kind of faith is like having faith that because the sun rose at 6:57 this morning, it will rise at a predictably close time tomorrow. It is almost an insult to religious faith to suggest that this faith is on the same plane as faith in a divine presence who has endowed the universe with purpose and design, and in the case of most modern religions, is also vitally concerned with the day to day tragedies of humanity. It also misrepresents the scientific process.

The faith in something outside the universe, described by Davies as a common property of science and religion plays a central role in religion—God is the center of existence—whereas to the extent that scientists accept the existence of physical laws as being given, it is essentially peripheral to the everyday workings of science.

Moreover, the facts that (a) the scientific method continually refines and changes our understanding of physical law, whereas religious 'truths' have remained largely unchanged, and (b) scientists are now, as Davies mentions, trying to address questions of the origin of physical law, both suggest the comparison that Davies is trying to make between science and religious faith is strained at best.

Physicist Nathan Myhrvold wrote:

Paul Davies has done some interesting scientific work, and written some engaging popular books. However I think his NYT op ed is way off target. It is a brave attempt to carve out some intellectual respectability for religious beliefs.

Like many bad arguments, it is based on some kernels of truth, and that is worth examining. Small elements of faith do crop into science generally, and physics in particular.

A priori, there is no reason to believe that the universe has simple laws of physics. The entire endeavor of physics is based on the belief—Paul would say faith—that:

(a) The universe is governed by a set of laws. (b) We humans can figure them out.

On an individual basis, each physicist also has a third form of faith:

(c) That through my own hunches, guesses and hard work, I can figure out some aspect of physical law.

Every discovery or invention is an unproven hunch or guess. You have to have faith in your own abilities, and your work, to move forward. But that is not capital "F" Faith of religion—it is the pragmatic working assumption that it is worth believing in yourself. Frankly, proposition (c) is far more important to a working scientist than (a) or (b). Any rational scientist with a bounded ego has to conclude that he or she is likely to be weak link in the chain. There may be a physical law, but are you going to be the one to understand it? Or, to be more mundane, will your funding grant be approved so you can even ask?

I think Paul is correct when he says that physicists have faith that (a)—(c) are true. It didn't have to be this way. The great physicist and Nobel Prize winner Eugene Wigner wrote a brilliant essay on this many years ago entitled "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences".

So I will concede that every physicist has (implicitly at least) faith that these propositions hold, else why waste your time doing physics? However, Paul conveniently overlooks the fact that time and time again, both propositions have indeed proven to be true! Furthermore, they are put to the test repeatedly by a process in which they can fail. A working physicist assumes that (a) and (b) hold because there is a 500 year history of propositions and tests. The net result is what we know about physics, which describes the world very well indeed.

The entire methodology of physics is to repeatedly test those propositions—both in the general sense, and specifically in terms of many individual theories put forth by physicists. If nobody could make sense of the laws of the universe, physicists would have given up. If mathematics had not proven to be an effective language for describing the world (in Wigner's sense) then people would have eventually lost faith and given up. As indeed they have given up on thousands of theories and hypotheses over the years which failed the acid test of experimental or observational verification.

http://www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html

[WinePusher]

OK, so you have an opinion piece, written by one man, in one newspaper.

Do you have anything scholarly? I'm looking for information published in something respectable like a science journal, and wasn't torn to shreds by peer review.

Star, I really don't think you understand the point. Science is based on faith, in the sense that scientific advancement could not be possible unless you assume an un provable assumption. This assumption is that the universe behaves lawfully, rationally and uniformly. The formal term for this is uniformitarianism, and this is a faith based assumption. Paul Davies is not the only one who has argued this. Gould, Polanyi and contemporary thinkers such as Dinesh D'Souza and David Berlinski also agree. Science is based upon a faith based axiomatic assumption that the universe is uniform and rational.

Also, he's making a different claim than you. He's not arguing that science is based on faith, but rather that science isn't completely free from faith, particularly in theoretical physics. There's a difference. (Science isn't actually free from any human fault, unfortunately, but that's one of the reasons there is the peer-review process).

No, like I said you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

Whitehead wrote, "All science must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals. These assumptions are justified partly by their adherence to the types of occurrence of which we are directly conscious, and partly by their success in representing the observed facts with a certain generality, devoid of ad hoc suppositions."[21]

In Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle, Gould discussed two assumptions - the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes - which he gave as examples for a scientist to assume before proceeding to do geology.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Philosophy_of_s ... ssumptions

[JohnA]

OK, so you have an opinion piece, written by one man, in one newspaper.

Do you have anything scholarly? I'm looking for information published in something respectable like a science journal, and wasn't torn to shreds by peer review.

Star, I really don't think you understand the point. Science is based on faith, in the sense that scientific advancement could not be possible unless you assume an un provable assumption. This assumption is that the universe behaves lawfully, rationally and uniformly. The formal term for this is uniformitarianism, and this is a faith based assumption. Paul Davies is not the only one who has argued this. Gould, Polanyi and contemporary thinkers such as Dinesh D'Souza and David Berlinski also agree. Science is based upon a faith based axiomatic assumption that the universe is uniform and rational.

Also, he's making a different claim than you. He's not arguing that science is based on faith, but rather that science isn't completely free from faith, particularly in theoretical physics. There's a difference. (Science isn't actually free from any human fault, unfortunately, but that's one of the reasons there is the peer-review process).

No, like I said you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

Whitehead wrote, "All science must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals. These assumptions are justified partly by their adherence to the types of occurrence of which we are directly conscious, and partly by their success in representing the observed facts with a certain generality, devoid of ad hoc suppositions."[21]

In Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle, Gould discussed two assumptions - the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes - which he gave as examples for a scientist to assume before proceeding to do geology.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Philosophy_of_s ... ssumptions

Dear WinePusher,

I can completely understand what you are saying. Had I not known a little better (being familiar with Dinesh D'Souza, David Berlinski and Philosophy) I would think your nonsense above was true.


Firstly,
You do not seem to understand the definition of faith. Faith is holding cognitive content as true, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof or evidence.
What you proposed above is that Faith is assuming an un provable assumption. That is just blatantly absurd.

Secondly,
These assumptions that you refer to are assumptions that Philosophers make. Do not believe me? Check your own link, it is about Philosophy of Science. Philosophy is not science. Philosophy can not prove / disprove anything so it is only natural for them to try and impose unprovable assumptions on science. It's like a bus driver making unprovable assumptions on a Supermarket - it is irrelevant.
Science does not work on proving/disproving things either. It works on falsification and verification, and never states anything as 100% certain. So, even if Science wanted to prove these Philosophical Assumptions, it would not be able to.

Lastly,
These Philosophical Assumptions are placed on Scientific Knowledge, the knowledge accumulated and gained by science, not on the scientific method or process itself and certainty not on the scientists. Scientists ignore these Assumptions since as you stated they can not be proved or disproved so they are actually meaningless. The Scientific process caters for testing of assumptions to destruction. There are no assumptions in scientific theories, facts or laws. NONE.

Also, here is my answer to your little bogus article on faith.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 219#607219


I want to let in onto a little secret here.
Science is not an authority or Institution or Ideology or Sect or Cult or Denomination. A group/collection of scientists are not an entity called Science. Science is merely a process how to get to knowledge of the real world. People take this knowledge and build stuff. You and I use the stuff. When you criticize science you are criticizing your own stuff that you decided to buy yourself; you are criticizing yourself. So, you are kicking in the wind with your false accusations on science. Not only are your accusations false, you have completely neglected to understand that you are not accusing anyone here because there is nobody to accuse (authority or Institution or Ideology or Sect or Cult or Denomination) but yourself.

You can not compare science and religion. They are not in the same league. It is like comparing David with Goliath. The only thing you can compare is the process of how they derive at knowledge.
Religion declared truth by belief in faith using authorities.
Science never says anything is 100% certain by falsehood testing/observations of evidence using an established method - attempting to establish predictability that is only accepted once the source and originator becomes irrelevant to the knowledge obtained.



Science is a different way of thinking to get to knowledge. You clearly struggle with this, hence criticizing yourself is not the answer. I hope you find my post helpful.

[Star]

WinePusher and I are obviously using two different definitions of faith.

I'm using the correct definition of faith, which you can lookup in any English dictionary.

This reminds me when I debated JoeyK on whether theories are guesses. It's poor form to change the definition of a word to arbitrarily suit your own fancy, and then using that as leverage against your opponent for not understanding.

[keithprosser3]

Part of the problems is that theism keep coming up with these slogans like 'evolution is just a theory', 'science is based on faith' , 'science is based on a fallacy' which are not lies because they are worse than that - they are deliberately misleading part-truths.

All the above charges against science are 'technically' true, but they are true in the sense that Clinton famously said 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman'. A true statement deliberately and cynically intended to deceive. True, but hardly honest.

When a theist says 'Evolution is just a theory' he does not go on to correct any false impression that therefore evolution is a random guess, plucked out of the air with nothing to back it up. Of course not - creating that false impression is the whole point of saying 'evolution is just a theory'. It is not said with the intention of enlightening people as to what a 'scientific theory' is but said with the deliberate and cynical intention to mislead people, to create a false impression in the listener's mind and, most importantly, leave it there.

And now we have another brain-poisoning slogan. I won't bother to deconstruct the intention of 'inferring the consequent' here. The above paragraph will do for that as well.