These are 5 foundational assumptions of science (Given by Kitty Ferguson's "the Fire in the equations) are ....

the universe is rational - can be determined by systems of logic
the universe is accessible - we have the means to interact with the universe
the universe is contingent - relationships of cause and effect operate within parameters
the universe is objective - exists independent and indifferent to sense perception
the universe is unified - nothing can be "separated" from the universe


as an example, empirical science focuses on the second assumption - but when science moves on to subjects beyond the senses (like theoretical physics), the first assumption is called upon

JamesR states

Provisionally,(the nature of science is to) determine that things for which there is no evidence of existence are mythical

The challenge is, what is the evidence for these 5 foundational assumptions of science.

JamesR offers

For example, the fact that your computer exists is testament to the fact that the universe is rational and acceptable.

this doesn't address the challenge because he is saying that the evidence of the first and second assumptions is addressed by the third (IOW evidencing an assumption by relying on another assumption is begging the question)

no true evidences, all can be contradicted with lack of facts

I for one thing don't believe in a unified universe belief...but my belief cannot be proven or disproved

no true evidences, all can be contradicted with lack of facts

I for one thing don't believe in a unified universe belief...but my belief cannot be proven or disproved

it's certainly difficult to indicate anything outside of the universe
:shrug:

the universe is unified - nothing can be "separated" from the universe
[/LIST]


I think your tack is improving on this issue. I'll be interested to see the debate it creates. I singled out that last one because I would almost say scientists more commonly do the opposite: they assume that they CAN separate out pieces, that pieces are separate and that separating them out does not change them or miss other levels on which they function. Reductionism, for example, is a word that often comes up in such debates. But actually your wording made me think of this more all ecompassing pattern. I think some cultures have tend to analyze things in terms of their relationships. The thing's separation is not emphasized.

I can see the way science does what you are saying also.

it's certainly difficult to indicate anything outside of the universe
:shrug:


lightgigantic,

Many cultures do not even believe in something called a 'universe'.

The 'universe' is a belief we inherited from the Greeks in a world which can be dispassionately 'observed', ie, one in which feeling and empathy are extinguished and replaced by a relentless logic - the absolute bedrock of the scientific method.

During colonialism it was and still is used as a weapon to silence opposing cultures that refused to accept the world as being just the some total of everything that can be seen.

Pick out any random act of violence or cruelty in the Western world and you have an example of the 'universe' at work.

O deepthought, o deepthought...what is the ultimate answer to universe, life, and everything?

O deepthought, o deepthought...what is the ultimate answer to universe, life, and everything?

42 ;)

lightgigantic,

Many cultures do not even believe in something called a 'universe'.
then they probably also don't have much to offer on sub-category that deals with science and society either

The 'universe' is a belief we inherited from the Greeks in a world which can be dispassionately 'observed', ie, one in which feeling and empathy are extinguished and replaced by a relentless logic - the absolute bedrock of the scientific method.
hence its no coincidence that it is the greeks that laid the foundation of what we currently have in the way of science

During colonialism it was and still is used as a weapon to silence opposing cultures that refused to accept the world as being just the some total of everything that can be seen.
hence there are many problems that arise from within these assumptions - for instance how does number 2 deal with number 4

Pick out any random act of violence or cruelty in the Western world and you have an example of the 'universe' at work.
yup

that's number 5
:)

I think your tack is improving on this issue. I'll be interested to see the debate it creates. I singled out that last one because I would almost say scientists more commonly do the opposite: they assume that they CAN separate out pieces, that pieces are separate and that separating them out does not change them or miss other levels on which they function. Reductionism, for example, is a word that often comes up in such debates. But actually your wording made me think of this more all ecompassing pattern. I think some cultures have tend to analyze things in terms of their relationships. The thing's separation is not emphasized.

I can see the way science does what you are saying also.
if you dig deep enough you find that its only the scientists with either a social agenda or those that are bereft of philosophical foundations that pretend they can work in a way that is outside of the the 5th assumption.

For instance if you examine the contributions of einstein and Karl Popper, you can see they clearly worked in tow of this

if you dig deep enough you find that its only the scientists with either a social agenda or those that are bereft of philosophical foundations that pretend they can work in a way that is outside of the the 5th assumption.

For instance if you examine the contributions of einstein and Karl Popper, you can see they clearly worked in tow of this

I wasn't saying 5 was wrong. I was really suggesting a 6.

the universe is divisible

I wasn't saying 5 was wrong. I was really suggesting a 6.

the universe is divisible
certainly its divisible
but such divisions always remain within the whole

this doesn't address the challenge because he is saying that the evidence of the first and second assumptions is addressed by the third (IOW evidencing an assumption by relying on another assumption is begging the question) You seem to be assuming that the five assumptions are independent - that would be another assumption, and one that seems unlikely to me.

Can you show that 1, 2, and 3 can be independently denied, for example? I doubt it.

I also think that 4 iand 5 are slippery, definition dependent, and not necessarily necessary assumptions.

So in general, the project seems to be off on the wrong foot. What is its motive?

Many cultures do not even believe in something called a 'universe'.The universe is not something you "believe in" in the sense of "believing in" the possiblity of FTL travel or "not believing in" telepathy. The universe is a concept, a model for discussing and analyzing everything that exists. If people "don't believe in" the universe, then that must mean they lack the concept of "everything that exists" so they can never speak in the broad, general statements that characterize science. For example, it's doubtful that they would be able to study gravity, relativity or any concept that transcends an earthbound existence.

lightgigantic:

These are 5 foundational assumptions of science (Given by Kitty Ferguson's "the Fire in the equations) are ....

the universe is rational - can be determined by systems of logic
the universe is accessible - we have the means to interact with the universe
the universe is contingent - relationships of cause and effect operate within parameters
the universe is objective - exists independent and indifferent to sense perception
the universe is unified - nothing can be "separated" from the universe


If this is a correct exposition of Ferguson's assumptions, I can only say that I have some doubts about the fourth claim. More generally, it seems to me that Ferguson is trying to define "the universe" as separate from the people who observe it. By definition, the universe ought to include all observers.

JamesR offers
For example, the fact that your computer exists is testament to the fact that the universe is rational and accessible [typo corrected by JR]

this doesn't address the challenge because he is saying that the evidence of the first and second assumptions is addressed by the third (IOW evidencing an assumption by relying on another assumption is begging the question)

I have not referred to the third assumption at all. Rather, I pointed to an observable fact (that your computer exists) that is evidence of the first two assumptions.

JamesR

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
These are 5 foundational assumptions of science (Given by Kitty Ferguson's "the Fire in the equations) are ....

1. the universe is rational - can be determined by systems of logic
2. the universe is accessible - we have the means to interact with the universe
3. the universe is contingent - relationships of cause and effect operate within parameters
4. the universe is objective - exists independent and indifferent to sense perception
5. the universe is unified - nothing can be "separated" from the universe


”
If this is a correct exposition of Ferguson's assumptions, I can only say that I have some doubts about the fourth claim. More generally, it seems to me that Ferguson is trying to define "the universe" as separate from the people who observe it. By definition, the universe ought to include all observers.
If 4 for was not valid, there would be no need for peer reviewing in science as some yard stick of validity

“
JamesR offers
For example, the fact that your computer exists is testament to the fact that the universe is rational and accessible [typo corrected by JR]

this doesn't address the challenge because he is saying that the evidence of the first and second assumptions is addressed by the third (IOW evidencing an assumption by relying on another assumption is begging the question)
”
I have not referred to the third assumption at all. Rather, I pointed to an observable fact (that your computer exists) that is evidence of the first two assumptions.
how do you propose that one can examine whether a computer is rational and accessible without relying on issues of contingency, ie cause and effect within parameters?

iceaura
“
Originally Posted by light
this doesn't address the challenge because he is saying that the evidence of the first and second assumptions is addressed by the third (IOW evidencing an assumption by relying on another assumption is begging the question)
”
You seem to be assuming that the five assumptions are independent - that would be another assumption, and one that seems unlikely to me.
JamesR was claiming that

,(the nature of science is to) determine that things for which there is no evidence of existence are mythical

if there is no evidence for the foundations of science (save and except for calling upon another foundation, which in turn is bereft of evidence - ie begging the question), what would that make science then?

Can you show that 1, 2, and 3 can be independently denied, for example? I doubt it.
unless there is evidence for something, it can certainly be denied

I also think that 4 iand 5 are slippery, definition dependent, and not necessarily necessary assumptions.
if the universe wasn't objective, there would be no need for peer reviewing (peer reviewing is an aspect of #2)
if the universe isn't unified than physics (which is mostly an aspect of #1) is out the window

So in general, the project seems to be off on the wrong foot. What is its motive?
all in the OP - 5 foundations of science (for which there is no evidence)

no true evidences, all can be contradicted with lack of facts

I for one thing don't believe in a unified universe belief...but my belief cannot be proven or disproved

It can, with logic.
To say something is outside of all that exists is illogical.

It can, with logic.
To say something is outside of all that exists is illogical.

no it is not. There are different perceptions of reality. We are following laws of universe because we are within it, we can not define that which is outside ourselves because we are limited by our own laws.

Even when we will discover all that is to learn of our universe...we will not be able to know other universes.

An analogy would be:


A pencil would not be able to _____ of a .

The initial post is nothing different than Cartesian skepticism. Yes, if you want to continuously say "but why? why? why? why?" you will never find an ultimate reason that a a sense-driven organism can hold besides senses to believe what comes from his senses.

In science we say; "Yup, so if you don't believe in it then don't use it. We'll keep making our medication, houses, cars, computers, air conditioners, recording devices, medical tech, etc. and if you don't believe in your senses then you're more than welcome to not use our stuff."

These are 5 foundational assumptions of science (Given by Kitty Ferguson's "the Fire in the equations) are ....

the universe is rational - can be determined by systems of logic
the universe is accessible - we have the means to interact with the universe
the universe is contingent - relationships of cause and effect operate within parameters
the universe is objective - exists independent and indifferent to sense perception
the universe is unified - nothing can be "separated" from the universe



...



The challenge is, what is the evidence for these 5 foundational assumptions of science.




I'm not sure who Kitty Ferguson might be, but the major problem here is that these propositions are being classified as "assumptions".

This is incorrect.

The 5 foundational propositions listed are more properly identified as premisses, and as such, they require no justification of their own beyond their utility in the development of an argument.

dragon

no it is not. There are different perceptions of reality. We are following laws of universe because we are within it, we can not define that which is outside ourselves because we are limited by our own laws.

Even when we will discover all that is to learn of our universe...we will not be able to know other universes.

An analogy would be:


A pencil would not be able to _____ of a .
you also don't know if all such outside universes are contingent on a greater universe

dragon


you also don't know if all such outside universes are contingent on a greater universe

well it would not be, would it? A Universe is that which follows a set of rules of reality. Something totally different...would be simply impossible to experience for us.

well it would not be, would it? A Universe is that which follows a set of rules of reality. Something totally different...would be simply impossible to experience for us.
hence you wouldn't know ....

hence you wouldn't know ....

its impossible to prove or disprove. But a possibility of such does in a way limit #5 assumption.

its impossible to prove or disprove. But a possibility of such does in a way limit #5 assumption.
to say the least, science fiction might work out of limiting #5, but science does not

well it would not be, would it? A Universe is that which follows a set of rules of reality. Something totally different...would be simply impossible to experience for us.

No the universe is ALL there is. Thus EVERYTHING there is is a part of the universe.. such is the definition.

Tyler
The initial post is nothing different than Cartesian skepticism. Yes, if you want to continuously say "but why? why? why? why?" you will never find an ultimate reason that a a sense-driven organism can hold besides senses to believe what comes from his senses.
hence relativity (subjectivity) is the sporting ground of empiricism and rationalism despite the best attempts to dress it up as objectivity

In science we say; "Yup, so if you don't believe in it then don't use it. We'll keep making our medication, houses, cars, computers, air conditioners, recording devices, medical tech, etc. and if you don't believe in your senses then you're more than welcome to not use our stuff."
so if a person also disbelieves in the nature of the soul and the means to realize eternal life (as opposed to having any objective knowledge for the non-existence of such things), then it also stands to reason that they won't use it and suffer accordingly, with or without their medication, houses, cars, computers, air conditioners, recording devices, medical tech, etc

glaucon

I'm not sure who Kitty Ferguson might be,
I'm not sure who you might be - nonetheless discourse remains possible ....

but the major problem here is that these propositions are being classified as "assumptions".

This is incorrect.

The 5 foundational propositions listed are more properly identified as premisses, and as such, they require no justification of their own beyond their utility in the development of an argument.
ok - so call them premises if it makes you more comfortable

still it remains that if the premise of science (as advocated by JamesR in the OP) is that if something cannot be evidenced it is a myth, what does that make science when its very foundational premises cannot be evidenced without begging the question?

glaucon

I'm not sure who you might be - nonetheless discourse remains possible ....



Hey LG, nice to see you're still here.

And now....

I was simply pointing out here, in an albeit apparently too subtle a way, the Ad Verecundiam here....



ok - so call them premises if it makes you more comfortable

still it remains that if the premise of science (as advocated by JamesR in the OP) is that if something cannot be evidenced it is a myth,
...



Note that this would be the OP's operational definition, not necessarily the 'standard definition'.



...
what does that make science when its very foundational premises cannot be evidenced without begging the question?

You miss the point.

It's not question-begging if it is admitted that certain premisses are granted a priori and are required for an inductive argument. To satisfy your stringent requirements, one would have to establish the absolute necessity of a proposition, which cannot be done.

Hey LG, nice to see you're still here.

And now....

I was simply pointing out here, in an albeit apparently too subtle a way, the Ad Verecundiam here....





Note that this would be the OP's operational definition, not necessarily the 'standard definition'.




You miss the point.

It's not question-begging if it is admitted that certain premisses are granted a priori and are required for an inductive argument. To satisfy your stringent requirements, one would have to establish the absolute necessity of a proposition, which cannot be done.

then it seems you are more in line with the predecessor of this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71804), which was a cross between discussions I was having with JamesR

JamesR was claiming that

,(the nature of science is to) determine that things for which there is no evidence of existence are mythical

if there is no evidence for the foundations of science (save and except for calling upon another foundation, which in turn is bereft of evidence - ie begging the question), what would that make science then? Maybe it would make science something that doesn't begin with philosophical foundations before proceeding.

“ Can you show that 1, 2, and 3 can be independently denied, for example? I doubt it. ”

unless there is evidence for something, it can certainly be denied But you are claiming these things are "foundations" - they seem to be aspects of one thing, to me, neither independent nor foundational. And there seems to me to be quite a bit of evidence for them, anyway.

Do you really think there is no evidence for, say, the existence of agreement between the principles of logical deduction and the nature of cause/effect explanation? Or do you deny that there is evidence for causes and effects?

Just as one example.

“ I also think that 4 iand 5 are slippery, definition dependent, and not necessarily necessary assumptions. ”

if the universe wasn't objective, there would be no need for peer reviewing (peer reviewing is an aspect of #2) Why not? Are you saying that only an objective universe can be mistakenly described?
if the universe isn't unified than physics (which is mostly an aspect of #1) is out the window Baloney. A given Physics would just be restricted to its region of validity. It need not stop working in its valid region, just because some other region had different laws.

“ So in general, the project seems to be off on the wrong foot. What is its motive? ”

all in the OP - 5 foundations of science (for which there is no evidence) But they don't appear to be "foundations" in the sense required, and there does appear to be evidence for them. So?

iceaura
“
Originally Posted by light
JamesR was claiming that

,(the nature of science is to) determine that things for which there is no evidence of existence are mythical

if there is no evidence for the foundations of science (save and except for calling upon another foundation, which in turn is bereft of evidence - ie begging the question), what would that make science then?
”
Maybe it would make science something that doesn't begin with philosophical foundations before proceeding.
if something doesn't have philosophical foundations, there is no scope for proceeding with assessments of true/correct

“
Originally Posted by light
“ Can you show that 1, 2, and 3 can be independently denied, for example? I doubt it. ”

unless there is evidence for something, it can certainly be denied
”
But you are claiming these things are "foundations" - they seem to be aspects of one thing, to me, neither independent nor foundational. And there seems to me to be quite a bit of evidence for them, anyway.

Do you really think there is no evidence for, say, the existence of agreement between the principles of logical deduction and the nature of cause/effect explanation? Or do you deny that there is evidence for causes and effects?
the evidence of cause and effect draws on the first and fifth foundation - in this way the search for evidence independent of these 5 always begs the question



“
“ I also think that 4 iand 5 are slippery, definition dependent, and not necessarily necessary assumptions. ”

if the universe wasn't objective, there would be no need for peer reviewing (peer reviewing is an aspect of #2)
”
Why not? Are you saying that only an objective universe can be mistakenly described?
unless the universe is objective, there would be no need to discriminate between objective and subjective descriptions of it
“
if the universe isn't unified than physics (which is mostly an aspect of #1) is out the window
”
Baloney.

A given Physics would just be restricted to its region of validity. It need not stop working in its valid region, just because some other region had different laws.
I don't think you understand

can you indicate a region of validity of physics that is outside the universe?

“
“ So in general, the project seems to be off on the wrong foot. What is its motive? ”

all in the OP - 5 foundations of science (for which there is no evidence)
”
But they don't appear to be "foundations" in the sense required, and there does appear to be evidence for them. So?
if you cannot illustrate how there is a foundation anything greater than these five in science, it certainly does appear that they are foundations
and furthermore, if you cannot evidence any of these foundations with out begging the question by taking shelter of one of the other 4, its not clear how there is evidence for them

if something doesn't have philosophical foundations, there is no scope for proceeding with assessments of true/correct

The presence of foundations doesn't mean you know what they are or have them described well.

the evidence of cause and effect draws on the first and fifth foundation Circular with respect to the first "foundation", meaningless with respect to the fifth. Observation of cause and effect, and the creation of a corresponding system of logic for describing them, does not depend on a priori assumptions about the rationality of the universe.
unless the universe is objective, there would be no need to discriminate between objective and subjective descriptions of it So one way to discover whether the universe has objective existence would be to discriminate between objective and subjective descriptions of it, and see which kind works better. You don't need to assume an objective universe - you can deduce the likelihood of one.

can you indicate a region of validity of physics that is outside the universe? I don't have to. All I have to do is indicate a region of validity of physics that is inside the universe, and we have valid physics worth doing regardless of the "unity" of the rest of it.
if you cannot illustrate how there is a foundation anything greater than these five in science, it certainly does appear that they are foundations Unless you can show that science does not and cannot proceed without assuming each of those five, independently, then I have no reason to take them as "foundations" at all.

It seems to me that all of them except the fifth are demonstrated, not assumed, in the doing of science, and that the demonstration is partial and contingent - they could be false, in significant degree, without much affecting science in general. In fact the assertion from recent scientific work is that the fourth one is false, the third one needs careful attention, the first one is confused, and so forth.

iceaura

“
Originally Posted by light
if something doesn't have philosophical foundations, there is no scope for proceeding with assessments of true/correct
”
The presence of foundations doesn't mean you know what they are or have them described well.
such is the sorry state of one who has poor foundations

“
Originally Posted by light
the evidence of cause and effect draws on the first and fifth foundation
”
Circular with respect to the first "foundation", meaningless with respect to the fifth. Observation of cause and effect, and the creation of a corresponding system of logic for describing them, does not depend on a priori assumptions about the rationality of the universe.
“it would be very difficult to establish a relationship of cause and effect that is independent of rational logic
Originally Posted by light
unless the universe is objective, there would be no need to discriminate between objective and subjective descriptions of it
”
So one way to discover whether the universe has objective existence would be to discriminate between objective and subjective descriptions of it, and see which kind works better. You don't need to assume an objective universe - you can deduce the likelihood of one.
once again, such an endeavour is only fruitful on the assumption that the universe is objective
“
Originally Posted by light
can you indicate a region of validity of physics that is outside the universe?
”
I don't have to. All I have to do is indicate a region of validity of physics that is inside the universe, and we have valid physics worth doing regardless of the "unity" of the rest of it.
it remains unclear how working with a portion of the universe could bear any merit unless it was unified
to say the least, einsteins endeavour to unlock a unified field theory was not a mere academic exercise
“
Originally Posted by light
if you cannot illustrate how there is a foundation anything greater than these five in science, it certainly does appear that they are foundations
”
Unless you can show that science does not and cannot proceed without assuming each of those five, independently, then I have no reason to take them as "foundations" at all.
given that you cannot establish one without relying on one or two of the others, I thought it was clearly established already

It seems to me that all of them except the fifth are demonstrated, not assumed, in the doing of science, and that the demonstration is partial and contingent - they could be false, in significant degree, without much affecting science in general. In fact the assertion from recent scientific work is that the fourth one is false, the third one needs careful attention, the first one is confused, and so forth.
whatever, but since the evaluation (or re-evaluation) of these foundations can not proceed an inch in any direction without relying on some other foundation, they clearly exist as 5 unprecedented foundations of science

it would be very difficult to establish a relationship of cause and effect that is independent of rational logic But not nearly so difficult to choose a rational logic that aligned poorly with cause and effect.

The one is matched to the other by preference.
once again, such an endeavour is only fruitful on the assumption that the universe is objective Assuming the consequent is generally considered bad form - see "rational logic", above.
it remains unclear how working with a portion of the universe could bear any merit unless it was unified to say the least, Few of the benefits we have gained from our current study of physical law would disappear if it turned out that different physical laws held elsewhere.
given that you cannot establish one without relying on one or two of the others, I thought it was clearly established already That isn't given - and if it were, would argue still for my observation that these "foundations" are not even independent: one can derive some from others.
It seems to me that all of them except the fifth are demonstrated, not assumed, in the doing of science, and that the demonstration is partial and contingent - they could be false, in significant degree, without much affecting science in general. In fact the assertion from recent scientific work is that the fourth one is false, the third one needs careful attention, the first one is confused, and so forth. ”

whatever, but since the evaluation (or re-evaluation) of these foundations can not proceed an inch in any direction without relying on some other foundation, they clearly exist as 5 unprecedented foundations of science Uh, hello ?

iceaura

Originally Posted by light
it would be very difficult to establish a relationship of cause and effect that is independent of rational logic
”
But not nearly so difficult to choose a rational logic that aligned poorly with cause and effect.

The one is matched to the other by preference.
its not a binary exchange between foundations - there are five to alternate from
thus it becomes difficult to establish cause and effect without an accessible universe
it becomes difficult to establish an accessible universe without etc etc

“
Originally Posted by light
once again, such an endeavour is only fruitful on the assumption that the universe is objective
”
Assuming the consequent is generally considered bad form - see "rational logic", above.
even assuming the universe is rational has assumptions behind it (see above)
“
Originally Posted by light
it remains unclear how working with a portion of the universe could bear any merit unless it was unified to say the least,
”
Few of the benefits we have gained from our current study of physical law would disappear if it turned out that different physical laws held elsewhere.
depends entirely on the nature of how it is disunified - its quite clear that a little bit of tampering with gravity could be quite catastrophic to say the least
“
Originally Posted by light
given that you cannot establish one without relying on one or two of the others, I thought it was clearly established already
”
That isn't given - and if it were, would argue still for my observation that these "foundations" are not even independent: one can derive some from others.
such as
“
Originally Posted by light
It seems to me that all of them except the fifth are demonstrated, not assumed, in the doing of science, and that the demonstration is partial and contingent - they could be false, in significant degree, without much affecting science in general. In fact the assertion from recent scientific work is that the fourth one is false, the third one needs careful attention, the first one is confused, and so forth. ”

whatever, but since the evaluation (or re-evaluation) of these foundations can not proceed an inch in any direction without relying on some other foundation, they clearly exist as 5 unprecedented foundations of science
”
Uh, hello ?
If you are working with findings in quantum physics that the fourth one is false you have some severe explaining to do (but save your breath - there's no consensus even amongst physicists and as brilliant as it may be, sciforums will probably never be a medium for cutting the mustard)
and saying the third one needs careful attention doesn't merit much since it rings of a lack of consensus from the out set

thus my "whatever, ...... (etc etc)"

it would be very difficult to establish a relationship of cause and effect that is independent of rational logic
”
But not nearly so difficult to choose a rational logic that aligned poorly with cause and effect.

The one is matched to the other by preference. ”

its not a binary exchange between foundations - there are five to alternate from
thus it becomes difficult to establish cause and effect without an accessible universe
it becomes difficult to establish an accessible universe without etc etc That response does not answer the point of the quote.

Rational logic is deliberately matched to patterns observed. It doesn't have to be that way. The usefullness of it is determined from evidence.
even assuming the universe is rational has assumptions behind it (see above) The matching of observation to rationality is a consequence and a determination, not an assumption, in the first place.
Few of the benefits we have gained from our current study of physical law would disappear if it turned out that different physical laws held elsewhere. ”

depends entirely on the nature of how it is disunified - Yes. So some disunifications are possibilities that do not fundamentally threaten science. So an assumption of universal unity is not a foundation of science. It is a discovery, for which there is evidence. its quite clear that a little bit of tampering with gravity could be quite catastrophic to say the least Or not, depending. We might be doing the physics and other science of a local pocket, and due to make discoveries about gravity in distant parts or times of the universe.
If you are working with findings in quantum physics that the fourth one is false you have some severe explaining to do (but save your breath - there's no consensus even amongst physicists No explanation is necessary - if there is no consensus among physicists in such a matter, yet they continue to do recognizable and useful science, that removes the fourth "foundation". It seems to me that all of them except the fifth are demonstrated, not assumed, in the doing of science, and that the demonstration is partial and contingent - they could be false, in significant degree, without much affecting science in general.

These are 5 foundational assumptions of science [...]

A trite "ambiguation (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ambiguity)" of "science;" the sort which "believers" revel in.

The essence of all Science (capital "s") and it's constituent Branches is the Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method); the "SM" contains no "assumptions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumptions)" whatsoever, and deals only with investigating objective phenomena. Science, properly practiced, is an organized method of inquiry, not an "Institution of Truth"-- that is the purview of religious, confused, (and/or) uneducated persons.

the SM contains no assumptions whatsoever and deals only with investigating objective phenomena.


LOL.

Qwerty,

Please define objective.

A trite "ambiguation (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ambiguity)" of "science;" the sort which "believers" revel in.

The essence of all Science (capital "s") and it's constituent Branches is the Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method); the "SM" contains no "assumptions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumptions)" whatsoever, and deals only with investigating objective phenomena. Science, properly practiced, is an organized method of inquiry, not an "Institution of Truth"-- that is the purview of religious, confused, (and/or) uneducated persons.

hardly.



Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything.
- Benjamin wooley

hence the realistic agenda of science is

Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occuring complexes of sense impression ... and we attribute to them a meaning the meaning of bodily objects.

which indicates you have a few issues at hand if you want to discuss objectivity ....

LOL.

Qwerty,

Please define objective.


It's rather obvious, contextually, that one apply the "having actual existence or reality" meaning of the term. Do not let others deduce from your laughter and stunted semantics test that you are blissfully unaware of any dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective).

If you disagree that the essence of all science is its elegantly simple method of investigation, you've done so rather poorly, so far.

Even when one overlooks your personal pomp, and your judgemental and dismissive nature, one can't find in your comments a shred of counterargument, or original thought.

hardly.


Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything.
- Benjamin wooley

hence the realistic agenda of science is

Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occuring complexes of sense impression ... and we attribute to them a meaning the meaning of bodily objects.

which indicates you have a few issues at hand if you want to discuss objectivity ....



My point was not about "objectivity" at all, it is that Ms. Ferguson is mistaken, qualitatively, as to what constitutes science.

Science is not Religion, and no branch has a "pentateuch"- not even evolutionary cosmology.

If you disagree that the essence of all science is its elegantly simple method of investigation, you've done so rather poorly, so far.
I'm not sure what makes you think I disagree with the method - empiricism works just fine for empirical phenomena

Even when one overlooks your personal pomp, and your judgemental and dismissive nature, one can't find in your comments a shred of counterargument, or original thought.
it certainly is my good fortune to have persons like yourself illuminate my shortcomings





My point was not about "objectivity" at all, it is that Ms. Ferguson is mistaken, qualitatively, as to what constitutes science.
you say it right here

The essence of all Science (capital "s") and it's constituent Branches is the Scientific Method; the "SM" contains no "assumptions" whatsoever, and deals only with investigating objective phenomena.

Science is not Religion, and no branch has a "pentateuch"- not even evolutionary cosmology.
whatever, but measuring the claims of science against the methodology of science yields a few discrepancies

Sapere est docere
"The human mind is capable of constructing elaborate and beautiful models of reality, and wondrous device and artefact, but as we all know is also capable of imagining things that do not exist in and of themselves; that have no real existence; that are “not”. To assert the existence of something that is “not” (that is contradictory to our empirical sense), is delusion.
But imagination is part of the “toolkit” of human endeavour and reasoning. Co-option of this sense into self-sustaining “belief-systems” that will brook no logic but their own cycles of inference and deduction, is part of the human condition, but seems to apply largely to those humans who have not yet learned what learning is."

Cheers

whatever, but measuring the claims of science against the methodology of science yields a few discrepancies Whose invention of "the claims of science" and "the methodologies of science" are we going to start with?

It can, with logic.
To say something is outside of all that exists is illogical.

perhaps
however this existence is typically situated
therefore..exercising an random and arbitrary placement
i am outside
looking in

ja?
no?

I'm not sure [...]

Agreed.

whatever, but measuring the claims of science against the methodology of science yields a few discrepancies


Were there nothing at all for Humans to investigate further, and/or no "discrepancies" between previous and present observations, "science" would be indistinguishable from mere assertion and myth.

Scientific disciplines evolve over time in depth, breadth, resolution, and precision, in proportion to evidence and data, with the construction and publication of "better" theories for various phenomena. In that regard, Science is open and honest; the many branches of "hard" science are self-correcting, experimentally, and even the "soft" (more theoretical) sciences are apt to be constantly reviewed.

Ms. Ferguson's chosen field, in particular.

...

Ms. Ferguson either confabulates philosophy and science recklessly, or you are determined to present her statements in the worst possible light. Or both.

To characterize our discourse as "A gigantic misunderstanding" would be charitable, and ironic.

Agreed.
:shrug:




Were there nothing (....)

so it seems
;)

Whose invention of "the claims of science" and "the methodologies of science" are we going to start with?
erm scientists - who else?

Now you're confusing the claims of scientists with science.
Scientists are human, and thus have personal agendas and are prone to subjectivity.
The better the scientist, the less these impact their work - the more closely they follow the Scientific methodology.

Since you would rather not have us judge a religion by the mass of people that do not adhere to all its particular requirements / beliefs, so please do not judge the methodology of Science with the claims of all "scientists". To do so is disingenuous, and you seem intelligent enough to know that this is what you are doing.

:shrug:






so it seems
;)



That you do not dispute that the essence of science is its method, but do not concede the point either.

...

Shrug and smile, it accompanies your compound illogic and withdrawl from debate nicely.

That you do not dispute that the essence of science is its method, but do not concede the point either.

...

Shrug and smile, it accompanies your compound illogic and withdrawl from debate nicely.

ok
cu later
;)

Now you're confusing the claims of scientists with science.
Scientists are human, and thus have personal agendas and are prone to subjectivity.
The better the scientist, the less these impact their work - the more closely they follow the Scientific methodology.

Since you would rather not have us judge a religion by the mass of people that do not adhere to all its particular requirements / beliefs, so please do not judge the methodology of Science with the claims of all "scientists". To do so is disingenuous, and you seem intelligent enough to know that this is what you are doing.
the difference is that empiricism has no methodology for surmounting the personal agenda

the difference is that empiricism has no methodology for surmounting the personal agendaEh? Of course it does... it's called the Scientific Method.
If correctly followed - no issues.

But you would see a scientist - and by very dint of the fact he refers to himself as a scientist you would assume you know what the "scientific method" is merely by looking at what he does.

Eh? Of course it does... it's called the Scientific Method.
If correctly followed - no issues.


Exactly correct.

Now, it may very well be a conceit that one can 'overcome' one's subjectivity, but it's a useful, and fruitful conceit. The minimization of bias from an analysis is the best means to gathering significant data, which is required to support an hypothesis, which in turn is a means to prediction.


What I find odd here is that it appears that LG is of the opinion that religion has a methodology (at all..) of surmounting subjectivity. Religion is built upon subjectivity, celebrates subjectivity and indeed preys upon subjectivity.

Hardly a methodology that could be said to be increasing our epistemological understanding of our world.

sarkus & glaucon

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the difference is that empiricism has no methodology for surmounting the personal agenda
”
Eh? Of course it does... it's called the Scientific Method.
If correctly followed - no issues.

But you would see a scientist - and by very dint of the fact he refers to himself as a scientist you would assume you know what the "scientific method" is merely by looking at what he does.


Exactly correct.

Now, it may very well be a conceit that one can 'overcome' one's subjectivity, but it's a useful, and fruitful conceit. The minimization of bias from an analysis is the best means to gathering significant data, which is required to support an hypothesis, which in turn is a means to prediction.
certainly virginia steen mcintyre had a different experience with her archaeological findings at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Steen-McIntyre#Hueyatlaco

There is ongoing debate on the subject, but most conventional mainstream archaeologists date the beginning of human habitation of the Americas to between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago. Additionally, Steen-McIntyre dates the Hueyatlaco artifacts to well before the conventionally-accepted appearance of sophisticated stone tools in Africa roughly 100,000 years ago.

The article categorizing the findings at Hueyatlaco was delayed for years. When it was finally published in 1981 it met widespread criticism [but not to our faces. VSMcI]. The team was accused of being publicity seekers and opportunists. Steen-McIntyre argues that her findings were rejected not on their failings or merits, but because her critics engaged in circular reasoning.[1] According to sympathizers of Steen-McIntyre, evidence and findings that do not support prevailing theories are often suppressed.




What I find odd here is that it appears that LG is of the opinion that religion has a methodology (at all..) of surmounting subjectivity.
then its obvious you are not familiar with the methodology

Religion is built upon subjectivity, celebrates subjectivity and indeed preys upon subjectivity.

Hardly a methodology that could be said to be increasing our epistemological understanding of our world.
the next question is whether you think there are any problems that can be addressed by adopting existential standards of behaviour - IOW do you think being free from envy for instance would enable a greater epistemological understanding of the world or is it simply irrelevant in the jurisdiction of atoms and molecules?

sarkus & glaucon
certainly virginia steen mcintyre had a different experience with her archaeological findings at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Steen-McIntyre#Hueyatlaco
[I]



Once simple case (or even a minority, regardless of number) is insufficient to reject the utility of a theory.




then its obvious you are not familiar with the methodology



Indeed I am not, but that's wholly irrelevant here. What's at question is the purported methodology of religion(s) per se, not that of a member thereof.



the next question is whether you think there are any problems that can be addressed by adopting existential standards of behaviour - IOW do you think being free from envy for instance would enable a greater epistemological understanding of the world or is it simply irrelevant in the jurisdiction of atoms and molecules?

No, the next question would be: how does one resolve the contradiction between the primacy of subjectivity in religion, and LG's assertion that religion promotes an agenda of overcoming that subjectivity.

Regardless, with respect to your comment: I do indeed agree with you that standards of behaviour would benefit our increase of knowledge. This is why we have normative legislation in contemporary society. What's more, there already is an established regulatory system that performs the same function with respect to the investigation of our world: the Scientific Method.

"the Scientific Method."
And this is carved on a wall. Somewhere.