Philosophy of Science

[McCulloch]

There are those who argue that a belief in God is necessary for science. Without a belief in an intelligent powerful creator God who provides the laws of the universe, there would be no reason for the fundamental assumption of science, that is, that the inferences required to progress in science depend on there being a Creator God.

There are others who argue that science must at least be operationally atheistic. A belief in a supernatural being who can and does periodically intervenes in the universe would render every conclusion of science as being invalid. Such a belief would inhibit scientific inquiry, in that any unknown could well be answered with, "God did it."

Question for debate: Is a belief in God beneficial or detrimental to the pursuit of scientific truth?

[Sjoerd]

science does not provide truth, it provides power

So calculating the age of the earth via carbon dating isn't searching for truth it is trying to acheive power?

I don't see how thats possible.

The concentration of carbon dioxide was about three times as high during the Jurassic as it is now. Understanding the changes of CO2 during Earth's history will help us to predict the climate change that is happening in our age.

[Ruwayda Mustafah]

When I asked:

Is there a consensual agreement in the scientific community when it comes to the correct scientific methodology?

Yeah I was refering to the scientific process.

[ShadowRishi]

There are those who argue that a belief in God is necessary for science. Without a belief in an intelligent powerful creator God who provides the laws of the universe, there would be no reason for the fundamental assumption of science, that is, that the inferences required to progress in science depend on there being a Creator God.

There are others who argue that science must at least be operationally atheistic. A belief in a supernatural being who can and does periodically intervenes in the universe would render every conclusion of science as being invalid. Such a belief would inhibit scientific inquiry, in that any unknown could well be answered with, "God did it."

Actually, not quite true. Methodological naturalism is only assumed so that there are no gods, angels, spirits, or any other metaphysical beings which can interfere with the data you're collecting, and it's also assumed so that one has to actually answer the question "How does it work?" with something other than "Because God makes it so." --which isn't an answer.

But one could just as well argue that something like deism or naturalistic pantheism could fulfill the necessary criterion for science, also.

Question for debate: Is a belief in God beneficial or detrimental to the pursuit of scientific truth?

Neither, because it's grossly irrelevant to the work being done.

Newton was a theist, Einstein was a pantheist, Franklin was a deist, and Richard Feynmen was an atheist.

There're all sorts of diffirent religious philosophies, the only important part is that you assume that if there is a God, that he's not toying around with your results.

there is only one viable scientific methodology......methodological naturalism.

Some scientist maybe be motivated by a religoius conviction. Newton for instance. But the method....always naturalism. It is the only way science can be done.

There are no scientific presumptions or inferences that require God......none.

Actually, Newton probably would have argued that he saw God in all of his work. He even once posited once when one of his calculations was wrong, that it must have been God who continuously fixed the orbit of the planet he was modeling.

Of course, as it would turn out, that was utter bunk. But the good parts of what Newton did were, of course, methodologically naturalistic.

[Jakeypoo]

science does not provide truth, it provides power

So calculating the age of the earth via carbon dating isn't searching for truth it is trying to acheive power?

I don't see how thats possible.

These scientists would most likely not focus on the age of the earth to achieve power.

Also, knowing the age of the earth could lead to further scientific breakthroughs that allow one to gain power through science.

[Negative Proof]

Pseudo-science may claim that some mysterious force is the explanation for a phenomenon: proper science will then ask ok, but how does this force work, according to what laws, etc. A scientist with infinite curiosity will do this, but a scientist who just wants to explain it all might be tempted to invoke the ultimate explanation: God. Which is unscientific, not because it would be wrong, but because it ends all further inquiry.

Ending all further inquiry is not a problem for scientists so long as the discovery that does so is proven to be both extant and objectively verifiable. God cannot be proven as either, which is why the claim "god did it" is unscientific.

- Some scientists (preciously few) realize that science does not provide truth, it provides power. The goal of science is to give us a set of laws and models that give us predictive power over nature, allowing us to cure diseases and improve the quality of life. For these scientists, it doesn't really matter if they are theist or an atheist, although I hope that they at least adhere to some morals that compels them to use this power for the benefit of mankind.

I would argue your bolded point. Science does provide truth, and from that learned truth we derive power over nature.

On the morality point, it doesn't seem to be the discovering scientist's responsibility to ensure that his discovery is used for mankind's benefit. That burden would seem to fall upon whoever plans to utilize that discovery, whether that person is a scientist or a layman, atheist or theist, or anyone in between.

[Sjoerd]

Pseudo-science may claim that some mysterious force is the explanation for a phenomenon: proper science will then ask ok, but how does this force work, according to what laws, etc. A scientist with infinite curiosity will do this, but a scientist who just wants to explain it all might be tempted to invoke the ultimate explanation: God. Which is unscientific, not because it would be wrong, but because it ends all further inquiry.

Ending all further inquiry is not a problem for scientists so long as the discovery that does so is proven to be both extant and objectively verifiable. God cannot be proven as either, which is why the claim "god did it" is unscientific.

- Some scientists (preciously few) realize that science does not provide truth, it provides power. The goal of science is to give us a set of laws and models that give us predictive power over nature, allowing us to cure diseases and improve the quality of life. For these scientists, it doesn't really matter if they are theist or an atheist, although I hope that they at least adhere to some morals that compels them to use this power for the benefit of mankind.

I would argue your bolded point. Science does provide truth, and from that learned truth we derive power over nature.

On the morality point, it doesn't seem to be the discovering scientist's responsibility to ensure that his discovery is used for mankind's benefit. That burden would seem to fall upon whoever plans to utilize that discovery, whether that person is a scientist or a layman, atheist or theist, or anyone in between.

I agree with your morality point, but otherwise I completely disagree.

Your position is identical to a school in philosophy of science called "logical positivism", which went out of fashion more than half a century ago. Of course that doesn't mean that it isn't true, but it went out of fashion because very good arguments were presented against it, especially by Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.

If you are interested, we could have a head-to-head on this matter (science: truth or power?)

cheers

Sjoerd

[Negative Proof]

Sjoerd,

Thanks for your reply. After thinking on my comments while I was away yesterday and today, I've realized that my initial statements were too generalized. To say that "science is truth" is a mischaracterization of science. It would have been more accurate to say instead that "science strives for truth", rather than assert that science is always true at any given time. The changes in what is accepted in science over time is evidence that science is not always true.

That said, I do believe that there are truths to be found through scientific study, that science can and often does provide these truths, and that the goal of science is to discover these truths. Predictive power and recreatable experimentation seem to allude to the scientific capacity for truth.

Pseudo-science may claim that some mysterious force is the explanation for a phenomenon: proper science will then ask ok, but how does this force work, according to what laws, etc. A scientist with infinite curiosity will do this, but a scientist who just wants to explain it all might be tempted to invoke the ultimate explanation: God. Which is unscientific, not because it would be wrong, but because it ends all further inquiry.

My main issue with this statement is that you seem to imply that the goal of science is to ask questions just for the sake of asking them, which is why I replied as I did. Scientists are concerned with the answers to these questions, not merely with asking more questions. This is why an ultimate explanation that ended all further inquiry would not be a problem unless that explanation were untestable, unobservable, or unverifiable. These qualities make the god explanation unscientific, not because it ends further inquiry, but because it leaves unanswerable questions, like "where did god come from? How can it be observed? How can this being's actions in our universe be verified?"

If you are interested, we could have a head-to-head on this matter (science: truth or power?)

I realize you extended this offer before I altered my argument above about science being truth, so I will leave the decision to pursue a head-to-head on the matter up to you. If you're still interested, then I would be willing, given that we define and agree upon the terms beforehand.

As a side note, I had never heard of logical positivism before you referenced it in your post, but I will research the philosophy to determine whether or not your comparison was accurate. If I find that I identify, I will investigate Popper and Kuhn's arguments as well before declaring any position on the matter.

Thanks again, Sjoerd.

[Miles]

The only benefit I can see is a personal one. If a scientist is so mentally constructed that he or she needs the comfort derived from a religious belief in order to function properly, then by all means subscribe to it.

[Sjoerd]

Sjoerd,

Thanks for your reply. After thinking on my comments while I was away yesterday and today, I've realized that my initial statements were too generalized. To say that "science is truth" is a mischaracterization of science. It would have been more accurate to say instead that "science strives for truth", rather than assert that science is always true at any given time. The changes in what is accepted in science over time is evidence that science is not always true.

That said, I do believe that there are truths to be found through scientific study, that science can and often does provide these truths, and that the goal of science is to discover these truths. Predictive power and recreatable experimentation seem to allude to the scientific capacity for truth.

Pseudo-science may claim that some mysterious force is the explanation for a phenomenon: proper science will then ask ok, but how does this force work, according to what laws, etc. A scientist with infinite curiosity will do this, but a scientist who just wants to explain it all might be tempted to invoke the ultimate explanation: God. Which is unscientific, not because it would be wrong, but because it ends all further inquiry.

My main issue with this statement is that you seem to imply that the goal of science is to ask questions just for the sake of asking them, which is why I replied as I did. Scientists are concerned with the answers to these questions, not merely with asking more questions. This is why an ultimate explanation that ended all further inquiry would not be a problem unless that explanation were untestable, unobservable, or unverifiable. These qualities make the god explanation unscientific, not because it ends further inquiry, but because it leaves unanswerable questions, like "where did god come from? How can it be observed? How can this being's actions in our universe be verified?"

If you are interested, we could have a head-to-head on this matter (science: truth or power?)

I realize you extended this offer before I altered my argument above about science being truth, so I will leave the decision to pursue a head-to-head on the matter up to you. If you're still interested, then I would be willing, given that we define and agree upon the terms beforehand.

As a side note, I had never heard of logical positivism before you referenced it in your post, but I will research the philosophy to determine whether or not your comparison was accurate. If I find that I identify, I will investigate Popper and Kuhn's arguments as well before declaring any position on the matter.

Thanks again, Sjoerd.

Dear Negative Proof,

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry for replying not sooner, for I have been very busy this week and this will unfortunately go on for some time.

You took great care to clarify your position to prevent misunderstandings, and I appreciate that. Still, I am forced to disagree with you. I believe that the goal of science is to gain predictive power over nature, and that science is fundamentally unable to provide truth.

We may not completely agree what truth is. In common language, things got often confused. But I believe that absolute truth is a very different thing from a working hypothesis such as "all swans are white", which is IMO all that science can provide. Some of these working hypotheses are very useful and reliable, but there no truth in there, only power.

I would very much appreciate a head-to-head on this, if you like. So if you have time, please have a look at Popper and Kuhn, and if you aren't convinced by that, let's get started. This week I will be busy, but I should be able to make an initial post describing the question before Monday, and next week I will have much more time.

cheers

Sjoerd

[Negative Proof]

Dear Negative Proof,

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry for replying not sooner, for I have been very busy this week and this will unfortunately go on for some time.

You took great care to clarify your position to prevent misunderstandings, and I appreciate that. Still, I am forced to disagree with you. I believe that the goal of science is to gain predictive power over nature, and that science is fundamentally unable to provide truth.

We may not completely agree what truth is. In common language, things got often confused. But I believe that absolute truth is a very different thing from a working hypothesis such as "all swans are white", which is IMO all that science can provide. Some of these working hypotheses are very useful and reliable, but there no truth in there, only power.

I would very much appreciate a head-to-head on this, if you like. So if you have time, please have a look at Popper and Kuhn, and if you aren't convinced by that, let's get started. This week I will be busy, but I should be able to make an initial post describing the question before Monday, and next week I will have much more time.

cheers

Sjoerd

Hey Sjoerd,

I humbly apologize for taking this long to get back to you. At the end of last month I started a string of oral surgeries that will culminate in a nearly total extraction followed by partial top and bottom dentures. Not only is the process expensive, forcing me to work my tail off, but the anesthesia from the surgeries completely destroys any chance of concentration I might have for several days afterward... not to mention the pain medication after that.

I don't know when all of this will be over with, and I remember you saying that you're pretty busy as well, but right now I'm at a lull in the process and wanted to take the opportunity to touch base with you about the head-to-head I agreed to. I'm definitely still willing, though I must warn you that my responses may be very few and far between until this process is concluded.

If you would like, we can start establishing the terms of the debate via PM, as well as joining the group required to participate in the head-to-head subforum.

Thanks for your patience, Sjoerd, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.