View Full Version : Definition of religion
How do you define religion? Is it possible for an atheist to be religious?
atheist does not believe in such thing as God. Religion is faith in a belief. Atheist has faith, just not faith in a concept of God.
Buddhism.
Do you believe in God, w1z4rd.
James R
11-30-08, 10:11 PM
religion (n.):
1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
2. An institution to express belief in a divine power.
Note: there are also some looser usages of the word "religion", as in statements of the type "Baseball is my religion", where the level of devotion is compared implicitly to devotion to a divine power.
leopold99
11-30-08, 10:37 PM
How do you define religion?
without consulting any text on the subject i venture the following:
religion is a way you life your life. a quick and dirty description to be sure.
Is it possible for an atheist to be religious?
in the above context? yes. it also has nothing to do with a god either.
CheskiChips
11-30-08, 10:53 PM
I think I disagree with the definition.
I have religious practice...which is essentially just a practice to view the world in a specific way, to understand the variables in front of me in a specific manner. I have some degree of faith in assuming it's the correct way to do so...however scientists have the same faith in previous scientists.
My viewpoint has been verified by millions (billions) of people over the years as being correct, it's my practice to achieve the perfect clarity of it. Those same billions have ensured that it's a worthwhile endeavor.
In fact there's no word in Hebrew that really means "Religion", like it does in English. There's "avoda" which means your practice or in some cases worship or in others service. Everyone has an avoda by definition of the word.
So for those of us whose religious language doesn't have a word like "religion", while our religion says things only exist if they're in the vocabulary of the language...do we have a "religion"?
Therefore from a Jewish perspective...if Religion = Avoda (which is the only translation I can think of), then Atheists do have a Religion.
Note: For those who know modern Hebrew and say well what about דת. It's a non-religious word...I assume its root is Aramaic not Hebrew.
leopold99
11-30-08, 11:04 PM
I think I disagree with the definition.
really?
i remember when i stopped smoking i religiously thought about lit cigerettes in my ashtrays for months.
the word religion can be applied to any act that is performed verbatim over a long period of time.
CheskiChips
11-30-08, 11:05 PM
really?
i remember when i stopped smoking i religiously thought about lit cigerettes in my ashtrays for months.
the word religion can be applied to any act that is performed verbatim over a long period of time.
We agree, neither of our definitions are in the one provided by James R. other than the "Note" section. My fundamental disagreement is my usage of it is not "Lose", rather it's equally if not more proper.
Fraggle Rocker
12-01-08, 06:15 PM
religion (n.): 1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. 2. An institution to express belief in a divine power.This is a well-stated consensus of the definitions in the major dictionaries. They all include belief in a supernatural power. Only one (Random House) is a little looser:A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.So if you go with Random House, then an atheist like me could be religious because I "believe" in the scientific method, although it's a reasoned belief and not an irrational faith, and I "believe" in its fundamental premise that the natural universe is a closed system not subject to meddling by supernatural creatures, which again is a reasoned belief because no account of supernatural creatures has ever been verified, and "two beliefs" make a "set." But you won't find many Americans who go by the Random House definition. In America, religion involves at least one god.Note: there are also some looser usages of the word "religion", as in statements of the type "Baseball is my religion", where the level of devotion is compared implicitly to devotion to a divine power.This common use of the word "religion" as a metaphor is in the dictionary too, but it's surely not what Sam was asking about. It's like when the doctor asks the geezer, "Are you taking your medications?" and he answers, "Yes, I take them religiously." And after the doctor walks away he says quietly to himself, "Every Sunday."Without consulting any text on the subject I venture the following: Religion is a way you life your life.I think you should have consulted a text.:) That's way too loose. If we take the Random House definition and religion isn't necessarily about gods, it's still about all the things the gods allegedly do.
leopold99
12-01-08, 10:40 PM
"I think you should have consulted a text.:)
that would be cheating.
sam asked "how do you define religion".
if she wanted a dictionary viewpoint she could have looked it up herself.
iceaura
12-01-08, 11:21 PM
This is a well-stated consensus of the definitions in the major dictionaries. They all include belief in a supernatural power. The problem is they go on to define things as "religions" that do not necessarily include such belief.
Taoism, Confucianism, Animism, Buddhism, whatever you want to call the Navajo type, and so forth, all include sects or factions that do not believe in what is normally meant by a "supernatural power".
So we have a problem with the dictionaries.
Fraggle Rocker
12-01-08, 11:53 PM
The problem is they go on to define things as "religions" that do not necessarily include such belief.Hmm. I'm having trouble finding any definition of the adjective "religious" that is not based on the noun "religion."Taoism, Confucianism, Animism, Buddhism, whatever you want to call the Navajo type, and so forth, all include sects or factions that do not believe in what is normally meant by a "supernatural power".Animism centers on a belief in the soul, which is a supernatural phenomenon, so it qualifies. I'm not familiar with the Navajo beliefs despite having lived in Arizona for many years. As for the others, I'm not entirely comfortable calling them religions for that very reason. But I've met people who insist that they do indeed have a supernatural component and that therefore qualifies them as religions.
iceaura
12-02-08, 12:24 AM
Animism centers on a belief in the soul, which is a supernatural phenomenon, so it qualifies. Not necessarily, in more sophisticated "essential nature or entity" , or "natural spirit", animistic beliefs - and even if "supernatural", often in the sense of ghosts or spirits. Are people who believe in ghosts, and talk to them, therefore religious?
Do all people who believe in souls believe in a supernatural entity? I think I do, and don't, for example.
It is possible to miss the soul by underestimating the natural world, as well as by denying the supernatural one, no?
As for the others, I'm not entirely comfortable calling them religions for that very reason. You might not be, but the dictionary is.
We have conflicting definitions. In such cases, the dictionary does not settle matters.
All the Buddhists I know of consider the worship of Buddha to be a necessary element of Buddhism. In fact, I don't know any Buddhist who does not have a Buddha icon.
Devotion is an important part of the practice of most Buddhists.[87] Devotional practices include bowing, offerings, pilgrimage, chanting. In Pure Land Buddhism, devotion to the Buddha Amitabha is the main practice. In Nichiren Buddhism, devotion to the Lotus Sutra is the main practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_devotion
I am also not familiar personally with the Navajo beliefs, but their practice of their beliefs as described, does not say atheism to me
YinyangDK
12-02-08, 03:40 AM
If enough people accept the same form of logic, that logic could be called a religion.
A Morphological analysis:
Prefix: {re}, that means "much"; "many"
Root: {lig} < {leg} = that means "gather" - same root as "legion", "legionaire"
Suffix:{on} = means "action"
Interesting to notice that {lig} may also mean "to read". In most of the religious rituals, there's always someone reading something, hehehe...
Another meaning , taken from "The Devil's dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce:
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the
nature of the Unknowable.
"What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims.
"Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it."
"Then why do you not become an atheist?"
"Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism."
"In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."
:)
cheers
Fraggle Rocker
12-02-08, 08:02 AM
Root: {lig} < {leg} = that means "gather" - same root as "legion", "legionaire" Interesting to notice that {lig} may also mean "to read".Not quite right. The lig- with an I comes from ligare, "to bind," as in "ligament." "To read" is legere with an E, as in "legible." Latin has its share of homonyms (the Romans themselves made fun of the fact that bella means both "war" and "beautiful") and there's another verb legere meaning "to choose," and that's where "legion" comes from.
OilIsMastery
12-02-08, 08:22 AM
How do you define religion?
So many possible ways. Plate Tectonics. Constant Size Earth. Hot Convecting Mantle. Elastic Rebound. Biogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons. Relativity. Black Holes. Neutron Stars. Accelerated Expansion of the Universe.
* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * *
Is this supposed to be a joke? If not, please do a better job of relating it to the topic of the thread.
one_raven
12-02-08, 10:34 AM
All the Buddhists I know of consider the worship of Buddha to be a necessary element of Buddhism.
That's funny because most of the Buddhists I know make it a point to say that not only is worship of the Buddha is not only not necessary, but it is contradictory to what Siddhartha taught - and I agree with them.
I suppose it would be prudent to discuss whether a religion is defined and restricted by its texts or its adherents.
If a sect calling itself Christian explicitly practices a religion which directly contradicts Jesus' teachings, is it a Christian religion?
If a sect which purports to follow a specific text and its followers do not abide by its own rules, are they validly following the religion?
Is it the rules or the practice that defines a religion and its practices?
OilIsMastery
12-02-08, 10:38 AM
So many possible ways. Plate Tectonics. Constant Size Earth. Hot Convecting Mantle. Elastic Rebound. Biogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons. Relativity. Black Holes. Neutron Stars. Accelerated Expansion of the Universe.
* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * *
Is this supposed to be a joke? If not, please do a better job of relating it to the topic of the thread.
I'm not joking.
"Religion has prevailed! Science has become religion!" -- Halton C. Arp, astrophysicist, 2000
"Science...has adopted the methods of religion." -- Halton C. Arp, astrophysicist, 2000
"The most harmful aspect of what science has become is the deliberate attempt to hide evidence that contradicts the current paradigm." -- Halton C. Arp, astrophysicst, 2000
"The tradition of 'peer review' of articles published in professional journals has degenerated into almost total censorship." -- Halton C. Arp, astrophysicist, 2000
"After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility." -- Halton C. Arp, astrophysicist, 2000
Arp, H., What Has Science Come to? (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/14.3_arp.pdf), Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 14, Number 3, Pages 447-454, 2000
That's funny because most of the Buddhists I know make it a point to say that not only is worship of the Buddha is not only not necessary, but it is contradictory to what Siddhartha taught - and I agree with them.
I suppose it would be prudent to discuss whether a religion is defined and restricted by its texts or its adherents.
If a sect calling itself Christian explicitly practices a religion which directly contradicts Jesus' teachings, is it a Christian religion?
If a sect which purports to follow a specific text and its followers do not abide by its own rules, are they validly following the religion?
Is it the rules or the practice that defines a religion and its practices?
Hmm, and how does one decide the correct "rules" ? I thought religion is the set of rituals that are exhibited in the practice of theism.
one_raven
12-02-08, 12:22 PM
Hmm, and how does one decide the correct "rules" ? I thought religion is the set of rituals that are exhibited in the practice of theism.
The holy books of that religion or the words of those who started the religion, I would assume.
How flexible is religion?
If you disagree with some of what Jesus said, are you still a "Christian" or are you then something else?
This is one of the problems I have with religions.
Those who are members of Shambhala, for example, refer to themselves as Buddhists. They also do not read the Pali Canon - which is the collected teachings and sayings of Siddhartha - and they believe/practice some things which directly contradict some of what Siddhartha taught.
Are they still Buddhists?
Siddhartha has influenced my thought greatly, yet I can not refer to myself asa Buddhist, simply because I disagree with him on certain things.
For me, it is a matter of integrity and truth.
If I do not agree with him completely, then I am not a follower of him - I was merely influenced by him.
I distinguish between theism [belief in God] and religion [the practice of it]. For example, in Islam itself, the religion is quite diverse. The Shias have their Ashara which the Sunnis, not considering Ali as the successor do not have, the number of rakats differ between different schools, etc. Neither has much to do with believing in God per se, but are derived as a practice peculiar to those who do believe in that religion.
Not quite right. The lig- with an I comes from ligare, "to bind," as in "ligament." "To read" is legere with an E, as in "legible." Latin has its share of homonyms (the Romans themselves made fun of the fact that bella means both "war" and "beautiful") and there's another verb legere meaning "to choose," and that's where "legion" comes from.
We could also consider {lig} > {lic} as "to read" in examples like (in Portuguese): lição (lesson); inteligente (intelligent) and some conjugations of the verb ler (to read): li, líamos etc; but it'll be {leg} > {lend} for lenda (legend).
Of course, a root may have many different semantic meanings (and allomorphs as well). I've always thought of "religion" as a gathering of people instead of something binding them to gods, heaven etc.
cheers
iceaura
12-02-08, 09:27 PM
All the Buddhists I know of consider the worship of Buddha to be a necessary element of Buddhism. A flat contradiction to the emphasized claims of every Buddhist I've ever talked to, heard about, or read.
The dogma: "The Buddha points to the way. Don't stare at the finger."
I thought religion is the set of rituals that are exhibited in the practice of theism. Then you agree with Fraggle, that Buddhism and Taoism and Confucianism and the like, when practiced atheistically, are not religions?
And you agree with my secondhand Navajo anthropologist, that the traditional Navajo (if indeed they have no deities) have no religion?
I am also not familiar personally with the Navajo beliefs, but their practice of their beliefs as described, does not say atheism to me As described by whom?
Did you read my link to the account of the unmasking of the Yei figures, as an initiation rite?
A flat contradiction to the emphasized claims of every Buddhist I've ever talked to, heard about, or read.
Which Buddhists are these? From where?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5YjPuAncWU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isabA4sbzh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkky18YGzlA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T91-UFyBRa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L31B-yPhcP4
Did you read my link to the account of the unmasking of the Yei figures, as an initiation rite?
What difference does that make? I don't understand how an athiest can believe in spirits that intervene in human lives and still call himself a nonbeliever. I think this blurs all the definitions and adds nothing. If you see a Buddhist/HIndu/Muslim/Navajo chanting their prayers, what distinguishes one from the other? I have see Jains worship Mahavira and seen Buddhist chants (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXBhj7uJ5hg) and I think your distinctions are very blurry. And from what I have read, the Navajo do believe in gods that intervene in human affairs, but in a more Dvaita [dualistic] way rather than the Advaita [monistic] way, neither of which says atheism to me at all.
disease
12-03-08, 04:41 AM
I keep trying to point out, although it appears to have little resonance, that theism and atheism are not opposites.
The meaning of the prefix tells you that "atheism" is a particular POV, regarding theism, or a philosophy that relates a mythology. The myth that atheists like to worship, is the one where there is no god in existence described by any organized religion, which term of course then has various shades of meaning from that POV, including the meaning applied to 'theisms that worship no actual deity'.
But since atheism is in fact another mythology - which all religions, theisms and philosophies actually are, this is mere, well, mythologizing.
iceaura
12-03-08, 06:42 AM
I don't understand how an athiest can believe in spirits that intervene in human lives and still call himself a nonbeliever. I think this blurs all the definitions and adds nothing. You believe in magnetism and entropy, no? Does that make you a polytheist?
Do you believe in karma? Is karma a Deity?
The question is what someone is talking about when they say "spirits" that "intervene in human lives". Theists tend to have a peculiar and specific interpretation of those words, apparently from their childhood conditioning, that involves magical wish fulfillment or punishment; a temporary and personal suspension of the laws of the "material" universe. All theistic descriptions - especially Abrahamic monotheistic descriptions - of other people's religions have to be read with that in mind.
As I have pointed out, there are Western educated Navajo who deny that the Navajo even have a religion at all, after getting involved in these kinds of discussions with Western theists such as yourself.
A flat contradiction to the emphasized claims of every Buddhist I've ever talked to, heard about, or read.
”
Which Buddhists are these? From where? From Japan, Brazil, Canada, and the US. A couple of names from the reading: Suzuki, Watts.
The point is that there are atheistic Buddhists - overtly and specifically and in English and familiar with my culture for accurate translation of concepts. If you can find youtube videos of theistic Buddhists (as opposed to making assumptions about praying or other ritual-engaging atheistic Buddhists), or have met them in your life, I take your word for it.
The local Zen temple in Minneapolis would accept your assertions about their worshipping Buddha gently, and with good humor, and invite you to meditate with them. They are used to Western tunnel vision.
disease
12-03-08, 06:34 PM
So a religion can be theistic or atheistic, then? So what?
What difference is there really between theism and atheism, except one does not "believe" the other? Aren't they just the two views of the same thing, like we have with, like everything else that has two ways it can be viewed?
Is any mythology a religion? Is religion a mythology? What is a myth, then?
So now athiesm is also a religion. :p
spidergoat
12-03-08, 07:06 PM
No, nor is it myth.
Buddhism doesn't prohibit certain religious practices that resemble western prayer or worship, but at it's core, that's not what it's about. There are things that lay Buddhists do that are simply traditional, or adapted from previous cultures. I would say that Buddhism is not a religion in the strictest sense. There is an Alan Watts book on the subject- Buddhism, the Religion of No-religion.
Nah, I'm convinced by iceaura. Atheism is a religion. Buddhism has many practices that are unique to Buddhism [chanting the Buddhist slokas, for instance]. Doing obeisance to the Buddha, sitting around chanting prayers, believing in the devas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism)), its all atheism.
spidergoat
12-03-08, 07:18 PM
Atheism isn't based on faith, but the increasing evidence that there is no God.
None of those Buddhist practices are central to the basic idea of Buddhism, that our suffering is caused by desire, and transcending desire is possible.
Of course. Its just incidental to the atheist faith. Designer religion.
iceaura
12-03-08, 09:22 PM
So now athiesm is also a religion. Some religion is atheistic, therefore atheism is a religion?
If you employed that kind of logic in your work, you'd get fired.
PBOY, brother.
I'm sure there are some areligious theists out there. Why have any distinction?
As the sages said :Truth is One, wise men give it different names.
spidergoat
12-03-08, 09:31 PM
Of course. Its just incidental to the atheist faith. Designer religion.
If there is no God, then serving our needs becomes the purpose of religion.
And if there is one, then chanting to the gods is a good way to serve our needs. Amen.
iceaura
12-03-08, 10:20 PM
I'm sure there are some areligious theists out there. Why have any distinction? No one here is claiming religion if and only if theism except you.
No one here is claiming religion if and only if theism except you.
Yes and clearly we are wrong.
Some religion is atheistic, therefore atheism is a religion?
They are all religions. Except when they are not. Or, whatever.
iceaura
12-03-08, 10:34 PM
Yes and clearly we are wrong. You, singular, are wrong.
Unless the frog in your pocket is similarly obsessed.
Yes atheism is not a religion except when it is. Theism is a religion except when its not.
Religion is theism except when its athiesm. And has nothing to do with belief in the supernatural especially ghosts and karma, but devas are permitted.
iceaura
12-03-08, 11:13 PM
Yes atheism is not a religion except when it is. Theism is a religion except when its not.
Religion is theism except when its athiesm. And has nothing to do with belief in the supernatural especially ghosts and karma, but devas are permitted. Atheism itself is not a religion. Theism itself is not a religion. Religions are theistic except when they are atheistic, and atheistic except when they are theistic. The supernatural covers a lot of different things. So does the natural.
I doubt the frog in your pocket has this much difficulty with the basics.
Religions are theistic except when they are atheistic, and atheistic except when they are theistic.
Exactly. What do they refer to, in your opinion?
Fraggle Rocker
12-03-08, 11:39 PM
We could also consider {lig} > {lic} as "to read" in examples like (in Portuguese): lição (lesson); inteligente (intelligent) and some conjugations of the verb ler (to read): li, líamos etc; but it'll be {leg} > {lend} for lenda (legend).
Of course, a root may have many different semantic meanings (and allomorphs as well). I've always thought of "religion" as a gathering of people instead of something binding them to gods, heaven etc.Portuguese, like Spanish, Italian, French and all the other Romance languages, is just Latin with 1500 years of changes, especially phonetic changes. Lição is just Latin lection, "a reading," from lectus, the past participle of legere. "Intelligence," in all its variations throughout the European languages, is Latin inter, "between/among," + ligent, the present participle of legere, (which I've discovered means both "read" and "choose," because the Romans saw some similarity between those two actions that eludes me). "Intelligent" means, literally, "able to choose between" alternatives.
Portuguese ler is just Latin legere, with the G elided. The same thing happened in Spanish leer and French lire. However, Italian leggere and Catalan llegir retained the G. The various inflected forms of ler are, similarly, just the original inflections of an irregular Latin verb, with added phonetic changes. Latin legenda is the verb legere with the imperative suffix -enda, conveying the literal meaning, "something which must be read."
iceaura
12-03-08, 11:45 PM
Exactly. What do they refer to, in your opinion?
Who, or what, is "they" ?
Portuguese, like Spanish, Italian, French and all the other Romance languages, is just Latin with 1500 years of changes, especially phonetic changes. Lição is just Latin lection, "a reading," from lectus, the past participle of legere.
That's the point... in my university field of study, we'll call the Portuguese {lic} radical and the latin {lec} root (lection > lição). We name "root" the most ancient form of the morpheme. I made the analysis based on their dictionary of radicals:
LEG (lat) = reunir, escolher, ler / reunião para, escolhido por, leitura de (legal , sacrilégio, florilégio, legível, legião, legenda, legume, elegante, legítimo, legislar, legar, alegar, legista, legislativo, colégio, leguleio, legulismo, eleger, letivo, coletor, coletivo, coletar, dialética, intelecto, intelecção, coleção, preleção, seleção, selecionar, lecionar, eleição, leitor, leitura, eleitor, eleito, elejamos, elejais, coligir, diligente, inteligente, negligente, religião, lição, leal, ledor, lei, ler, li, líamos, lenda, lente, lenda, lendário, lídimo)
Above, we have the general meaning of the root first and, in parenthesis, the words derived from it). On that dictionary, we'll find "bind" for the root {lig} (ligar, obrigar etc.)
"Intelligence," in all its variations throughout the European languages, is Latin inter, "between/among," + ligent, the present participle of legere, (which I've discovered means both "read" and "choose," because the Romans saw some similarity between those two actions that eludes me). "Intelligent" means, literally, "able to choose between" alternatives.
I love that kind of study... have you written any book or work about it? If so, could I have it autographed? ;)
Portuguese ler is just Latin legere, with the G elided. The same thing happened in Spanish leer and French lire. However, Italian leggere and Catalan llegir retained the G. The various inflected forms of ler are, similarly, just the original inflections of an irregular Latin verb, with added phonetic changes. Latin legenda is the verb legere with the imperative suffix -enda, conveying the literal meaning, "something which must be read."
That reminded me about this: why did the English "forgot" that root? Most Germanic languages seem to have complied with a standard: German: lesen; Dutch: lezen; Norse: lese; Swedish: läsa... and English read? :D Am I wrong, or it is some celtic influence?
Er... and we're totally off-topic here... the topic seems to be more about philosophy than linguistic. Should we start another thread on this subject? :shrug:
cheers
I distinguish between theism [belief in God] and religion [the practice of it].
Religion is not a verb.
For example, in Islam itself, the religion is quite diverse.
No, it is not agreed upon by it's followers. Big difference.
Fraggle Rocker
12-04-08, 10:55 AM
I love that kind of study... have you written any book or work about it?No, I'm no authority on this stuff. I've just read a lot about it, and I seek out people who have done research into their own languages. In many cases, in order to answer people's questions, I have to look it up myself. A good teacher is always learning.That reminded me about this: why did the English "forget" that root? Most Germanic languages seem to have complied with a standard: German: lesen; Dutch: lezen; Norse: lese; Swedish: läsa... and English read? :D Am I wrong, or it is some Celtic influence?No, "read" is a perfectly respectable Anglo-Saxon word. It still exists in Modern German as raten, "to counsel." The ability to "read" is the ability to seek counsel from those who came before you. In the days before printing, when reading was a very rare skill, it automatically made those who had it wise.
Remember that three German tribes (the Angles, Saxons and Jutes) sailed to Britannia after the collapse of the Roman Empire and conquered the now-unprotected Celtic Britons with their outpost of Roman civilization and its surplus-producing economy. We're speaking their language, Anglisc. Perhaps these tribes were more remote, more unsettled, more nomadic than the tribes who remained on the continent. Maybe they'd had fewer contacts with the Romans and none of their people were familiar with written language. It could be that they were not parties to the consensus of choosing lesen to mean "to read," because reading was not an activity they needed words for. So they had to pick their own word and came up with something different.. . . . We're totally off-topic here... the topic seems to be more about philosophy than linguistics. Should we start another thread on this subject?Don't worry about it. We don't get a lot of traffic in Linguistics like they do in World Events or Human Science, so our threads aren't in danger of spinning out of control.
The value of linguistics to a layman is that the study of his language and his words opens him up to new ways of thinking about his culture. So I don't intervene if a discussion goes a little bit off topic, so long as it still has merit.
Who, or what, is "they" ?
Religions of course.
Religion is not a verb.
No, it is not agreed upon by it's followers. Big difference.
You mean its not dogmatic? And this is bad because...?
Diode-Man
12-04-08, 11:44 AM
I think S.A.M. lives the "religion of definition."
haha sorry off topic
spidergoat
12-04-08, 04:01 PM
In the Anguttara Nikāya the Buddha speaks of three divergent views that prevailed in His time. One of these was: "Whatever happiness or pain or neutral feeling this person experiences all that is due to the creation of a Supreme Deity (Issaranimmānahetu) [1]"
According to this view we are what we were willed to be by a Creator. Our destinies rest entirely in his hands. Our fate is pre-ordained by him. The supposed freewill granted to his creation is obviously false.
Criticising this fatalistic view, the Buddha says: "So, then, owing to the creation of a Supreme Deity men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, abusive, babblers, covetous, malicious and perverse in view. Thus for those who fall back on the creation of a God as the essential reason, there is neither desire nor effort nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed. [2]"
http://buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/budtch/budteach23.htm
No, "read" is a perfectly respectable Anglo-Saxon word. It still exists in Modern German as raten, "to counsel." The ability to "read" is the ability to seek counsel from those who came before you. In the days before printing, when reading was a very rare skill, it automatically made those who had it wise.
Remember that three German tribes (the Angles, Saxons and Jutes) sailed to Britannia after the collapse of the Roman Empire and conquered the now-unprotected Celtic Britons with their outpost of Roman civilization and its surplus-producing economy. We're speaking their language, Anglisc. Perhaps these tribes were more remote, more unsettled, more nomadic than the tribes who remained on the continent. Maybe they'd had fewer contacts with the Romans and none of their people were familiar with written language. It could be that they were not parties to the consensus of choosing lesen to mean "to read," because reading was not an activity they needed words for. So they had to pick their own word and came up with something different.Don't worry about it. We don't get a lot of traffic in Linguistics like they do in World Events or Human Science, so our threads aren't in danger of spinning out of control.
Quite interesting the concepts taken for grant when the words were morphologically constructed. The (we) humans just inserted their thoughts, fears, other concepts... the best human creation.
The value of linguistics to a layman is that the study of his language and his words opens him up to new ways of thinking about his culture. So I don't intervene if a discussion goes a little bit off topic, so long as it still has merit.
Nice to lesen... ops... read that. :D Sometimes I wonder why I've chosen this field to study and if it's worth... I mean, you cannot save a life (stupid comparison, I know) knowing Linguistics, but you'll do that if you know medicine. Languages seem to be just a bunch of rules, none really cares about them. That's why I think it's important to link Linguistics to Philology: you'll know about any people's language, culture, history... a whole universe to be found.
cheers
spidergoat
12-04-08, 05:15 PM
I don't think there is any definitive definition of religion. It's just accepted by common agreement.
Fraggle Rocker
12-05-08, 12:26 PM
I don't think there is any definitive definition of religion. It's just accepted by common agreement.That's true of any word in English, since it's a democratic language without an Academy like France or a government bureau like Germany to make the rules. Still, as you say, meanings must emerge by consensus or they will be "meaningless." Dictionaries merely tally the consensus. The purpose of language is communication, and if we want to be understood we need to heed the consensus presented in the dictionaries.
spidergoat
12-05-08, 12:58 PM
I don't mean that the meaning is accepted by common agreement, I meant that individual cases (such as Buddhism) are called religion just because most people decided to call it that. I think the definition is unclear. It's something that isn't a science, or a hobby, or a sport, or art, it's often philosophical in nature...
It's like art. No one can define it but they know it when they see it.
Belief in or worship of supernatural forces, beings, or realities.
I think that does a reasonably good job of covering all the things that people normally mean when they talk about "religion," without being so broad that it includes any sort of secular belief/philosophy/set of ethics/whatever (which would make the word substantially less useful).
Fraggle Rocker
12-05-08, 05:33 PM
I don't mean that the meaning is accepted by common agreement, I meant that individual cases (such as Buddhism) are called religion just because most people decided to call it that.I too know Buddhists whose philosophy is devoid of any clearly recognizable supernatural component, such as the Vipassana movement that is strong in America. Nonetheless enough of the Buddhist communities do believe in those sorts of things, perhaps the most visible factions or even the majority, that to call the the whole set of belief systems that accept the name "Buddhism" a religion is accurate enough for general parlance.
PsychoticEpisode
12-06-08, 10:45 AM
My two cents.....
A shared compilation of thoughts, images, concepts and ideas originating in the brain which act in conjunction with specific fears of the unknowable that eventually becomes sufficient enough for individuals who without proof of, to convince themselves that for the right price, other accessible and attainable realities exist which are far superior to the one they're in.
Fraggle Rocker
12-06-08, 01:23 PM
A shared compilation of thoughts, images, concepts and ideas originating in the brain which act in conjunction with specific fears of the unknowable that eventually becomes sufficient enough for individuals who without proof of, to convince themselves that for the right price, other accessible and attainable realities exist which are far superior to the one they're in.Sounds great to me and it might even attract a following on this website, with its atypical proportion of atheists. But it's profoundly hostile. So the ninety-something percent of the human population who are religious will not accept it and will in fact be offended by it. It's not a definition that will achieve a consensus in the anglophone community so it doesn't serve our purpose here.
iceaura
12-06-08, 01:42 PM
Who, or what, is "they" ?
”
Religions of course. Why would you ask what religions "referred to"? Some kind of koan, enlightenment through recognition of paradox?
Belief in or worship of supernatural forces, beings, or realities.
I think that does a reasonably good job of covering all the things that people normally mean when they talk about "religion," The list of practices normally labeled "religions" (by encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc) that do not necessarily involve the "supernatural" so called, is long.
As is the list of supernatural entities believed in by people who do not incorporate them into any agreed religion.
Fraggle Rocker
12-06-08, 06:41 PM
Belief in or worship of supernatural forces, beings, or realities. I think that does a reasonably good job of covering all the things that people normally mean when they talk about "religion". . . .Doesn't that miss the important point that religious people believe these supernatural forces or beings have control over the natural world, at least intermittently or at their whim? If a person has a hunch that there is a supernatural universe out there which is completely unobservable by us, and therefore hews to my expression of the underlying principle of science (that the natural universe is a closed system unaffected by external--i.e. supernatural--forces), would you define him as "religious"? Assuming that he got the rest of his science right, I'd be happy to accept him as a proper scientist who had not yet succeeded in proving his favorite hypothesis "true beyond a reasonable doubt" and therefore did not expect anyone else to accept it.
In my experience our quarrel with the religionists is not focused on their belief in the supernatural, but in their belief that there is evidence for its existence. This evidence is almost invariably in the form of allegedly reliable eyewitness accounts of supernatural creatures tampering in an unmistakable way with the behavior of the natural universe. But sometimes it comes instead with a scatterbrained attempt at reasoning: "Hey, there are butterflies! That's plenty of evidence for the existence of a benevolent god."
If a person agrees that no extraordinary evidence has yet been found to substantiate his extraordinary assertion, that would put him in a small (but admittedly non-zero) minority of religionists.
The Abrahamists who comprise the religious population that most of us Westerners come in regular contact with speak proudly of their "faith," but for most of them it is not a totally unreasoned faith. They believe there are at least a few shreds of evidence.
PsychoticEpisode
12-06-08, 10:33 PM
Sounds great to me and it might even attract a following on this website, with its atypical proportion of atheists. But it's profoundly hostile. So the ninety-something percent of the human population who are religious will not accept it and will in fact be offended by it. It's not a definition that will achieve a consensus in the anglophone community so it doesn't serve our purpose here.
Do we kowtow to the religious that much? Is it only the atheist that has to be politically correct?
Why would you ask what religions "referred to"? Some kind of koan, enlightenment through recognition of paradox?
The list of practices normally labeled "religions" (by encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc) that do not necessarily involve the "supernatural" so called, is long.
As is the list of supernatural entities believed in by people who do not incorporate them into any agreed religion.
Really? Like what? I'm genuinely curious, because off the top of my head the only example of a belief system that's labeled as a "religion" that doesn't involve the supernatural is Confucianism; and I think one could make good arguments that it is in fact not really a religion.
As for supernatural entities that people believe in, I would consider them all part of a religion. Although I'm sure some might disagree with me on that.
Doesn't that miss the important point that religious people believe these supernatural forces or beings have control over the natural world, at least intermittently or at their whim? If a person has a hunch that there is a supernatural universe out there which is completely unobservable by us, and therefore hews to my expression of the underlying principle of science (that the natural universe is a closed system unaffected by external--i.e. supernatural--forces), would you define him as "religious"?
Yes, I would still consider that a religion - although one that would by definition be impossible to ever empirically test.
iceaura
12-08-08, 11:53 PM
Really? Like what? I'm genuinely curious, because off the top of my head the only example of a belief system that's labeled as a "religion" that doesn't involve the supernatural is Confucianism; and I think one could make good arguments that it is in fact not really a religion.
As for supernatural entities that people believe in, I would consider them all part of a religion. Although I'm sure some might disagree with me on that. Taoism and Buddhism are the two standard examples - although both incorporate theistic sects, both also incorporate atheistic sects. Apparently Falun Gong is another ? The atheistic sects have millions of adherents - they outnumber the Presbyterians.
There are also a large number and variety of religions similar to the well-discussed traditional Navajo, in which the "supernatural" status of the various religious entities invoked in ritual is - to say the least - debatable. I have encountered people familiar with both Western anthropology and trad Dine religion who go so far as to deny that the Navajo have a religion at all - simply in response to attempts to describe their rituals as worship of the supernatural. They regard Western attempts to misrepresent their religion that way a form of theistic cultural imperialism.
If you want to make an argument that these are not religions, make it with the dictionaries and encyclopedias and so forth. I would give you better odds on including things like Soviet Communism or Chinese Maoism among the religions, than booting Taoism from them. Korean Juche has made it.
Meanwhile, the entire realm of fairies, elves, gnomes, merfolk, etc, in many cases involves nothing that to me resembles worship. They simply exist, or not, in a natural world that can incorporate such critters. Granted as one moves up to witches and angels and devils the distinctions blur and deity looms, but all sufficiently rigorous taxonomy has these boundary problems.
disease
12-09-08, 12:00 AM
You keep forgetting that fairies, goblins, demons, angels, witches, magic, lightning and thunder, all inform anthropological mythologies. Religion is a mere subset of a much larger mythological realm (at least, in my almanac).
Why would you ask what religions "referred to"? Some kind of koan, enlightenment through recognition of paradox? .
Because we are defining it? What is the set of concepts that you consider as religion?
In the Anguttara Nikāya the Buddha speaks of three divergent views that prevailed in His time. One of these was: "Whatever happiness or pain or neutral feeling this person experiences all that is due to the creation of a Supreme Deity (Issaranimmānahetu) [1]"
According to this view we are what we were willed to be by a Creator. Our destinies rest entirely in his hands. Our fate is pre-ordained by him. The supposed freewill granted to his creation is obviously false.
Criticising this fatalistic view, the Buddha says: "So, then, owing to the creation of a Supreme Deity men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, abusive, babblers, covetous, malicious and perverse in view. Thus for those who fall back on the creation of a God as the essential reason, there is neither desire nor effort nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed. [2]"
http://buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/budtch/budteach23.htm
But do you know if the Buddha really said that? After all it was 400-500 years before anyone got together what they thought he said. Maybe the Buddha did believe in God. Maybe he said something else altogether. How would you know?
But do you know if the Buddha really said that? After all it was 400-500 years before anyone got together what they thought he said. Maybe the Buddha did believe in God. Maybe he said something else altogether. How would you know?
One could ask the same questions of Muhammad? How would you know?
One could ask the same questions of Muhammad? How would you know?
Because we have faith in the Quran. But if you don't believe what is the basis for having confidence in anything?
LogicTech
12-09-08, 10:24 AM
I should note that in most religions, the authenticity and existence of the main character or prophet doesn't actually matter. They are to be judged by what they preach, not by who said what....
Because we have faith in the Quran.
Exactly, so you answered your own question. You believe.
Because we have faith in the Quran. But if you don't believe what is the basis for having confidence in anything?
It's called 'evidence' Sam. Without it, you'd believe in invisible pink unicorns.
It's called 'evidence' Sam. Without it, you'd believe in invisible pink unicorns.
If you have evidence you don't need faith. Faith is what you have in the absence of evidence. Its the basis of human endeavor and persistence.
LogicTech
12-09-08, 10:30 AM
Because we have faith in the Quran. But if you don't believe what is the basis for having confidence in anything?
Evidence. You don't necessarily have to believe in anything to establish a baseline confidence in anything.
Faith is what you have in the absence of evidence. Its the basis of human endeavor and persistence.
"I don't know" is also a perfectly valid position, as are "educated guesses" based on existing evidence/experiences, or logic (e.g. look up String Theory for an example). You don't need to fill your head with assumptions that may very well be wrong.
Evidence. You don't necessarily have to believe in anything to establish a baseline confidence in anything.
"I don't know" is also a perfectly valid position.
I agree. But I don't know doesn't take you anywhere, forward or back. You have to believe in the substance of your thoughts before you can make any progress. Even if there is little or no evidence to support it. If you don't believe in anything without evidence, you'd be a poor specimen of a human being. Every discovery or invention begins from a serious of "useless" assumptions. 200 things may be wrong before one is right. But to get through the 200 to reach the one, you must have faith.
If you have evidence you don't need faith. Faith is what you have in the absence of evidence. Its the basis of human endeavor and persistence.
Then, you should believe in invisible pink unicorns with that logic, Sam.
LogicTech
12-09-08, 10:40 AM
I agree. But I don't know doesn't take you anywhere, forward or back. You have to believe in the substance of your thoughts before you can make any progress. Even if there is little or no evidence to support it. If you don't believe in anything without evidence, you'd be a poor specimen of a human being. Every discovery or invention begins from a serious of "useless" assumptions. 200 things may be wrong before one is right. But to get through the 200 to reach the one, you must have faith.
No, not necessarily. In science, any questions that could have well been answered with "I don't know" are simply left at that, until we either have the knowledge or the equipment necessary to test for them. This is an on going process, and questions such as "Is there a God" might be answerable one day. Or it may never be.
At least, from what I learned in math, there are such things as provably unanswerable questions.
Faith in not necessary to believe in the substance of your thoughts, it is entirely possible that, even if there is no evidence, to back it up with logic or mathematics, or both. Indeed, that is how ALL assumptions and conclusion in science and philosophy are formulated.
The only assumption that you need to have faith in, ever, is that reality exists (Well, this assumption can actually be proven and/or inferred, but there are those who think otherwise... Faith may not be necessary). The details can come later.
No, not necessarily. In science, any questions that could have well been answered with "I don't know" are simply left at that, until we either have the knowledge or the equipment necessary to test for them. This is an on going process, and questions such as "Is there a God" might be answerable one day. Or it may never be. Indeed, in math there are such things as provably unanswerable questions.
Not at all. Science only addresses questions which can be tested and has no role in saying I don't know in faith based questions, because they are outside the purview of science.
The scientific method, you see, does not prove anything, or provide evidence in favor of. It merely shows that a falsifiable hypothesis has not yet been falsified. This is assumed to be evidence that it is true.
LogicTech
12-09-08, 10:50 AM
Not at all. Science only addresses questions which can be tested and has no role in saying I don't know in faith based questions, because they are outside the purview of science.
Look up String Theory. That is an example of science addressing questions that can't be tested. And, unless you are willing to admit that "faith based" questions have no basis in reality (or logic, or math, or reason, etc) then "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer to those types of questions.
The practice of "leaving God out of it" was only done because back in the day addressing those types of questions could have gotten them killed; it was not really a philosophical standpoint.
The scientific method, you see, does not prove anything, or provide evidence in favor of. It merely shows that a falsifiable hypothesis has not yet been falsified. This is assumed to be evidence that it is true.
You are right in that it doesn't prove anything, but that's not the point of the scientific method. But, the scientific method is devoted to providing evidence in favor of a given assumption or theory. That's why it was created. Evolution, Big Bang Theory, General Relativity, etc are not strictly proven theories, but there is enormous amounts of evidence in favor of their truthfulness, and some are much more solid than others (e.g. Evolution is a more solid theory than our theories of gravity). And there continues to be an increasing amount of evidence in their favor. The one thing, however that they are all based on is facts about the external reality in which they reside.
But, the scientific method is devoted to providing evidence in favor of a given assumption or theory. That's why it was created
Nope. Not at all.
LogicTech
12-09-08, 10:56 AM
Nope. Not at all.
Yes it is. All science is evidence based.
Nope. Not at all.
The scientific method is the basic method, guide, and system by which we originate, refine, extend, and apply knowledge in all fields.
The scientific method is the basic method, guide, and system by which we originate, refine, extend, and apply knowledge in all fields.
Sure, but it proves nothing. And was not designed to prove anything or provide evidence in favor of. In fact, designing an experiment to provide evidence in favor of your hypothesis is termed bias.
Sure, but it proves nothing. And was not designed to prove anything or provide evidence in favor of. In fact, designing an experiment to provide evidence in favor of your hypothesis is termed bias.
Science is fundamentally method, for its method is what produces the bodies of reliable knowledge.
Science is a tool, the method is design.
Yes it is. All science is evidence based.
No, science is not evidence based. The assumptions are evidence based, the arguments are evidence based. Science is merely a tool that searches for the truth. And the truth is whatever has not been falsified. Yet.
"Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough."- Alhazen
Science is a tool, the method is design.
No, science is not evidence based. The assumptions are evidence based, the arguments are evidence based. Science is merely a tool that searches for the truth. And the truth is whatever has not been falsified.
Science is the complete method of problem solving and decision making.
Its not complete, because its still in process.
LogicTech
12-09-08, 11:10 AM
Science is a tool, the method is design.
No, science is not evidence based. The assumptions are evidence based, the arguments are evidence based. Science is merely a tool that searches for the truth. And the truth is whatever has not been falsified. Yet.
Wait, you just contradicted yourself :confused:. Science is much more than just a tool, it is a complete set of methodologies and explanations, all grounded on empiricism. All designed to attempt to best explain reality.
The assumptions and arguments are all included in it.
Just because something isn't falsified doesn't make it true (Argumentum ad ignorantum fallacy)
Science is designed to always be a work in progress, constantly correcting it's fact. Unlike most religions.
Just because something isn't falsified doesn't make it true (ad ignorantum fallacy)
And yet, that is your evidence for everything you consider to be true. Or do you have some other?
LogicTech
12-09-08, 11:24 AM
And yet, that is your evidence for everything you consider to be true. Or do you have some other?
Nope, that's not right either. The evidence itself is just another word for facts and observations about the universe (yes, it is a FACT that the Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, that evolution occurred, that light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, 1+1=2, etc)
Falsification, on the other hand, is quite different and requires a lot of work. It can happen in any of the ways:
1) said theory/assumption doesn't conform to the evidence (e.g. FACTS)
2) said theory/assumption is logically inconsistent
It is entirely possible that there are phenomenon that we are not aware of. But such things are listed the banner of speculation, i.e. we don't know. Finding out the truth isn't something that you can come up with on a whim (whether human or divine). We are very well aware that all of our scientific theories are incomplete, but they all conform to FACTS. That's how we know they are plausible, and very much so. The same can't be said with supernatural deities and their associated prophets, on the other hand.
Nope, that's not right either. The evidence itself is just another word for facts and observations about the universe (yes, it is a FACT that the Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, that evolution occurred, that light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, 1+1=2, etc)
Falsification, on the other hand, is quite different and requires a lot of work. It can happen in any of the ways:
.
You mean its a fact because it has not been falsified yet and so you believe it to be true.
1) said theory/assumption doesn't conform to the evidence (e.g. FACTS)
2) said theory/assumption is logically inconsistent
Which requires you to know the set of all possible outcomes, which, if they occur, would reject the null hypothesis.
LogicTech
12-09-08, 11:53 AM
You mean its a fact because it has not been falsified yet and so you believe it to be true.
Which requires you to know the set of all possible outcomes, which, if they occur, would reject the null hypothesis.
That's not how facts work. I think you are confusing facts with theory. It is a fact that 1+1=2, and is true for all time. It is a fact that things fall down on their respective bodies, and that has been true for all time (or at least for as long as the current universe has existed). And that fossils exist, and so on. This is all we really know to be true. They can be proven to be true as well.
A scientific theory, on the other hand, takes those facts and models them. So not only does it explain how or why things are, but they make predictions. For example, we might use it to find a new truth/fact about the universe. If the predicted outcome doesn't come, then we either discard it or modify it. General Relativity has done just that, to give an example (e.g. it predicted with accuracy how much light will bend around a star). The scientific method decides whether the explanation is correct, not the facts themselves. But, scientific theories can be used to find out/predict new facts we didn't know before.
All a scientific theory is, is an explanation, made with a large collection of facts about the universe.
And, if there were no well defined facts, then your computer wouldn't work. In fact, nothing would.
This is all we really know to be true. They can be proven to be true as well.
Heh. :)
Which requires you to know the set of all possible outcomes, which, if they occur, would reject the null hypothesis.
Are you omniscient?
LogicTech
12-09-08, 12:18 PM
You still don't get the point, do you?
You mean that circular reasoning [it works therefore it is right] is an accurate assessment of the process of inductive reasoning? Nope, I don't :p
LogicTech
12-09-08, 12:23 PM
That's not circular reasoning though.
I should note by the way that at this point you have ignored certain segments of all of my posts. How long are you going to be shifting Goal Posts and Strawmanning?
You mean reasoning inductively that inductive reasoning works and hence it is right is not circular reasoning? I'm addressing the main points you make. Is there any reasoning why I should write a thesis on it?
I'm just addressing the point that for someone who believes the merit of an idea is evidence, you have a very poor notion of what exactly evidence entails. Or what the basic root of the method you use is. As you said, ad ignorantiam fallacy, it works hence its true. :)
e.g.
In 1893, the Royal Academy of Science were convinced by Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars was a physical impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland, which it would be impossible to wave.
:)
Fraggle Rocker
12-09-08, 12:44 PM
If you have evidence you don't need faith. Faith is what you have in the absence of evidence. It's the basis of human endeavor and persistence.You're wrong and we've had this exchange before. There is a vast difference between reasoned faith and unreasoning faith. My wife has stood by me faithfully for more than thirty years. So I have a reasoned faith in her, based specifically on a mountain of evidence. That's quite different from having an instinct-based hunch in the existence of something for which there is absolutely zero evidence.I agree. But I don't know doesn't take you anywhere, forward or back. You have to believe in the substance of your thoughts before you can make any progress.What an odd viewpoint. You've certainly been taught some strange stuff. It is succinctly put that the fundamental statement upon which all science is based is, "I don't know."Even if there is little or no evidence to support it. If you don't believe in anything without evidence, you'd be a poor specimen of a human being.A fairly rude statement to make to a community of scientists. I wonder where you learned that one.Every discovery or invention begins from a serious of "useless" assumptions.You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between an assumption and a hypothesis. Where exactly did you learn science??? We're taught carefully to distinguish the one from the other. The mnemonic device we're all taught these days is: "To ASSUME is to make an ASS of U and ME."But to get through the 200 to reach the one, you must have faith.But a reasoned faith. Since there is a (presumably) infinite set of false hypotheses, if you don't have some evidence to guide you, you can spend your entire scientific career testing hypotheses that always end up falsified.But, the scientific method is devoted to providing evidence in favor of a given assumption or theory. That's why it was created.No no no. Good grief, you people who come and post on my Linguistics board are definitely not the most rigorous scientists on this website! ;) The scientific method is devoted to testing a hypothesis. It is neutral in its expectations, but if some supporting evidence is indeed discovered, the testing generally focuses on attempts to find evidence that falsifies the hypothesis. Unless, of course, you're working in corporate science, and the less said about that the better.
Remember, a scientific theory can never be proven true (unlike mathematical theories, which are entirely about abstractions rather than nature). It can only be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt (to borrow the language of the law since the language of science is horrible for communicating with laymen). Even once a theory achieves that status and becomes part of the scientific canon, efforts continue indefinitely to find contradicting evidence. That's how we ended up finding new evidence that required revising Newton's Laws, and hot on the heels of that discovery we found even newer evidence that required revising Relativity.
A scientist does not assume that his beloved hypothesis is true. He suspects, hopes, dreams of it, but he does not assume until it has been tested so thoroughly as to achieve canonical status.
And to clarify the language, it is only a hypothesis until it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. Then and only then does it become a theory. I know the words are used interchangeably in colloquial language and even scientists get sloppy. But properly used, a hypothesis is still being tested, whereas a theory has survived all the tests.
In any case, the scientific method does not work with assumptions, except in the abstract. E.g., "Assuming the system is at Standard Temperature and Pressure..."
Its not complete, because its still in process.
The fact that your nose is permanently buried in whatever interpretation of the Quran you use to rule your worldview, undermines your ability to synthesize facts, hence your ill-informed assessment is irrelevant.
That's not circular reasoning though.
I should note by the way that at this point you have ignored certain segments of all of my posts. How long are you going to be shifting Goal Posts and Strawmanning?
Welcome to the world of Sam. :)
LogicTech
12-09-08, 12:52 PM
Good grief, you people who come and post on my Linguistics board are definitely not the most rigorous scientists on this website! ;) ...
Oh big deal! I'm a mathematician, not a scientist :p;) A small linguistic misunderstanding, that is all.
Regardless, it's clear that SAM is either clueless or trolling about what science is all about. All of her points have been refuted.
LogicTech
12-09-08, 12:53 PM
Welcome to the world of Sam. :)
Yeah, I knew there are a few loose screws, but still I wonder if she really can't see the obvious. It makes good debate practice anyways, as I can learn why the reasoning is wrong....
Oh big deal! I'm a mathematician, not a scientist :p;) A small linguistic misunderstanding, that is all.
Regardless, it's clear that SAM is either clueless or trolling about what science is all about. All of her points have been refuted.
Yeah, I'm only a lowly scientist. ;)
You're wrong and we've had this exchange before. There is a vast difference between reasoned faith and unreasoning faith.
So if you believe you should try something even if you haven't succeeded before, is that reasoned faith or unreasoning?
My wife has stood by me faithfully for more than thirty years. So I have a reasoned faith in her, based specifically on a mountain of evidence.
So you're saying that because it was always thus, it will always be thus. Thats called circular reasoning.
It is succinctly put that the fundamental statement upon which all science is based is, "I don't know."
Not at all. Where is this statement made? Science is based on the assumption that there is a universal truth which describes a universal reality.
A fairly rude statement to make to a community of scientists. I wonder where you learned that one.You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between an assumption and a hypothesis. Where exactly did you learn science??? We're taught carefully to distinguish the one from the other. The mnemonic device we're all taught these days is: "To ASSUME is to make an ASS of U and ME."
You should read some of the grant proposals I have read.
Yeah, I knew there are a few loose screws, but still I wonder if she really can't see the obvious. It makes good debate practice anyways, as I can learn why the reasoning is wrong....
The only thing you'll learn from Sam is intellectual dishonesty.
Fraggle Rocker
12-09-08, 01:09 PM
Yeah, I'm only a lowly scientist.I know you're one of the few genuine career scientists on this website, but you sure have some forehead-slappingly strange notions about the fundamentals of the discipline. Things that we get straightened out in our first-year classes.
You don't even have to study science to learn the fallacy of making assumptions, they teach the ASS-U-ME mnemonic in IT and business too.
I know you're one of the few genuine career scientists on this website, but you sure have some forehead-slappingly strange notions about the fundamentals of the discipline. Things that we get straightened out in our first-year classes.
You don't even have to study science to learn the fallacy of making assumptions, they teach the ASS-U-ME mnemonic in IT and business too.
The "fallacy" of making assumptions is very theoretical. In reality, we make many assumptions, because it is impossible to know all the hidden variables that are outside our control.
e.g.
1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.
2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature. Individuals and social exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.
3. All phenomena have natural causes. Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.
4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.
5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.
6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
Yeah, I'm only a lowly scientist. ;)
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban1922l.jpg
More like this:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_Dj-gsRVMtk4/R_FI1UkFv1I/AAAAAAAACqA/OvvNyxD98YA/s400/calvin_hobbes_thesis.jpg
Fraggle Rocker
12-09-08, 03:39 PM
In reality, we make many assumptions, because it is impossible to know all the hidden variables that are outside our control.We do not have to have control over all the variables in a system in order to study it scientifically. If that were true, astronomy would not be a proper science, whereas it is in fact the first science and may well predate civilization itself.1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.This is not an assumption. This was a hypothesis that has, through 500 years of application of the scientific method, been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. In all that time, the natural universe has never behaved in a way that falsified this theory.2. We can know nature.Again, this is a canonical scientific theory, proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not an assumption.Individuals are part of nature.Well duh. Everything in the natural universe is part of nature; that's why we call it both "natural" and "the universe." There's not the slightest shred of extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary assertion that individual humans are exceptions.Individuals and soci[ety] exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.Many individuals get comfort from believing they're unique and not subject to the laws of nature, but that extraordinary assertion has no extraordinary evidence. The "soft sciences" like economics and psychology have a long way to go, but so did microbiology a couple of centuries ago.3. All phenomena have natural causes.What part of the phrase "natural universe" do you not understand? There are no other causes except natural ones. To assert otherwise is extraordinary and no extraordinary evidence has ever been submitted to support the assertion.Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.Is it okay to say "duh" twice in one post?4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.Yeah well our country was founded by people who "hold these truths to be self-evident" and it turned out that they were very wrong.5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.The body of knowledge of the human race is acquired that way, but it does not preclude individuals passing that body of knowledge on to their successors. Of course this requires some formal knowledge management principles so the successors can be sure "beyond a reasonable doubt" that what they're being taught is knowledge that was properly acquired rather than something somebody made up.
Besides, what other way is there to acquire knowledge? Instinct becomes more out of step with reality as civilization advances. We "know" by instinct that a large animal with both eyes in front of its head is a predator that we must flee from or fight... and people have to teach their children to overcome that pre-programmed error leftover from the Stone Age and learn that their Irish Wolfhound is a trusted member of the family. We "know" by instinct that stepping off of a precipice is fatal... and hundreds of thousands of people of people prove that instinct has exceptions and take up skydiving.6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance.Several hundred thousand years of gathering knowledge has gotten us where we are today, on the verge of combining all of our tribes into a single more-or-less peaceful society, largely overcoming malnutrition, infant mortality and infectious diseases, sheltering ourselves from the elements, living in comfort with lots of time to devote to discretionary interersts, with music and other arts and pastimes readily available, and even making progress toward resolving the second-order effects of all that knowledge such as pollution, overpopulation and abuses of power. I think Baron Max is the only member of this site who would insist that he'd rather still be living in ignorance in the Stone Age, and even our Curmudgeon Laureate can't defend that assertion when it's challenged. Can you?
Like I said, science is based on the assumption that a universal truth describes a universal reality. We have no evidence for this, but this is what underlies all scientific thought. As the only observers we consider credible, we have no way to refute or confirm this [even though we admit that bats and dogs may have a different "reality" than we do]. :)
quadraphonics
12-09-08, 04:22 PM
Like I said, science is based on the assumption that a universal truth describes a universal reality.
It's not clear what "universal truth" means here. There's an important difference between naturalism as it figures into the natural sciences, and naturalism as it figures into philosophy. In the former case, you are making only a methodological assumption (i.e., that such an approach will yield repeatable, and so useful, results). What you seem to be referring to above with your "universal truth" is metaphysical naturalism (i.e., the idea that nature is all that exists). This is quite a bit stronger, and by no means a position held by all, or even most, scientists.
We have no evidence for this, but this is what underlies all scientific thought.
We have considerable, if not conclusive, evidence that the methodological naturalism employed in the natural sciences is sound. I.e., every successful scientific theory ever devised, which are manifold. I do not see how it is meaningful to speak of "evidence" for or against metaphysical naturalism. There are arguments for and against it, but to talk about actual evidence is to put the cart before the horse. After all, what is "evidence" in the absence of "science?"
It's not clear what "universal truth" means here. There's an important difference between naturalism as it figures into the natural sciences, and naturalism as it figures into philosophy. In the former case, you are making only a methodological assumption (i.e., that such an approach will yield repeatable, and so useful, results). What you seem to be referring to above with your "universal truth" is metaphysical naturalism (i.e., the idea that nature is all that exists). This is quite a bit stronger, and by no means a position held by all, or even most, scientists.
We have considerable, if not conclusive, evidence that the methodological naturalism employed in the natural sciences is sound. I.e., every successful scientific theory ever devised, which are manifold. I do not see how it is meaningful to speak of "evidence" for or against metaphysical naturalism. There are arguments for and against it, but to talk about actual evidence is to put the cart before the horse. After all, what is "evidence" in the absence of "science?"
Let me give again the example of the bat. If a bat performs the same sonar circle of a rose garden "n" number of times with the same result everytime, does it mean roses are red?
Internal consistency in a method does not show the bat that it cannot distinguish colors.
quadraphonics
12-09-08, 07:04 PM
Let me give again the example of the bat. If a bat performs the same sonar circle of a rose garden "n" number of times with the same result everytime, does it mean roses are red?
Internal consistency in a method does not show the bat that it cannot distinguish colors.
What on Earth are you talking about? Why would I be interested in convincing a bat that it is colorblind?
What on Earth are you talking about? Why would I be interested in convincing a bat that it is colorblind?
I'm talking about the limitations of assumptions of science. We're the bats who don't know what is colour.
quadraphonics
12-09-08, 07:39 PM
I'm talking about the limitations of assumptions of science. We're the bats who don't know what is colour.
Okay. What are the rose garden, sonar circle and "results" in this analogy?
Okay. What are the rose garden, sonar circle and "results" in this analogy?
The limitations of methodology or the ignorance of unknown variables. The assumptions of science can limit the pursuit of knowledge and if adhered to without recognisance, are the difference between an experiment that did not work and the discovery of Penicillin. We all have inbuilt assumptions because of the nature of science, but nature operates regardless of our assumptions.
Fraggle Rocker
12-09-08, 08:12 PM
Like I said, science is based on the assumption that a universal truth describes a universal reality.What on earth do you mean by "a universal reality?" That's a phrase I'd expect to encounter in one of Carlos Castaneda's little rhapsodies about his drug-fueled "experiences" with the Neolithic Yaqui Indians--which, BTW, some anthropologists now tell us read more like experiences he had in his living room than with actual Indians. You keep loading your posts up with language that smacks of the supernatural, as if that is the extraordinary evidence we require to take seriously claims that the natural universe is not a closed system.We have no evidence for this, but this is what underlies all scientific thought. As the only observers we consider credible, we have no way to refute or confirm this. . . . even though we admit that bats and dogs may have a different "reality" than we do.Bats and dogs may certainly experience reality differently than we do, but that's not evidence that there is in fact a supernatural overlay on the natural universe that provides a suite of alternate realities. Just alternate experiences.
Each of us human beings experiences reality in a more or less different way, but since we have the technology of language (got to keep this thread on topic;)), we're able to compare those experiences, find all the important commonalities that are consistent with the canonical scientific theory of the natural universe as a single closed system, and recognize the ephemerality of the things we don't have in common like our reaction to cricket or country music.
The difference between two species is indeed more dramatic than the difference between two members of the same species, but our inability to speak English or whale-whistles or dog-pheromones with them has not completely frustrated our analysis of that difference. It's not particularly difficult to test animals for color recognition and determine that, yes indeed, the ones with more rods than cones don't have the elaborate color palette we do. We're even beginning to understand how dogs experience time: anything that happened more than about 23 seconds ago has no relation to the present. (So don't bother yelling at him about that poop on the floor, it might as well be from 2003.)
The more we increase our ability to bridge the communication gap with other species, the more we find in common. The first time Koko the ASL-"speaking" gorilla saw a zebra, she signed, "Oh look! A white tiger!"
I'm talking about the limitations of assumptions of science. We're the bats who don't know what is colour.But fortunately we're the bats with the gigantic forebrains who are not bound by our natural limitations. We invent these really cool things called "instruments," and use them to detect and distinguish objects, forces and conditions that our physical senses would miss.
A couple of hundred years ago we did not know what bacteria looked like (or that they even existed), we did not know that the continents were slowly moving around and that this has something to do with earthquakes, we did not know that light is a wave like sound and that nothing can move faster than it does. We did not know about petroleum, evolution, other galaxies, the terra cotta army in China, the conditions at the bottom of the deepest seas or on Venus.
But we know about those things now. Give us time. We'll keep finding more questions and then looking for the answers. We are qualitatively different from bats.
We invent these really cool things called "instruments," and use them to detect and distinguish objects, forces and conditions that our physical senses would miss.
Ah yes, of course, but you need to be able to predict they exist first. Which is where empiricism gets a little fuzzy.
But we know about those things now. Give us time
What else is there? :p
quadraphonics
12-09-08, 08:22 PM
The limitations of methodology or the ignorance of unknown variables.
Limited methodology and ignorance of unknown variables are not assumptions of capital-s Science (i.e., methodological naturalism), but assumptions of a specific experiment(er). Which is to say that they are scientific hypotheses conditionally adopted above and beyond the basic assumptions of naturalism in order to enable specific theories and experiments. You can take them away without affecting naturalism, and so they have nothing to do with the lofty fundamentals you were discussing a few posts back. Like "evidence," the concepts of "methodological limits" or "variables" are not well defined absent the assumptions of methodological naturalism.
The assumptions of science can limit the pursuit of knowledge and if adhered to without recognisance, are the difference between an experiment that did not work and the discovery of Penicillin. We all have inbuilt assumptions because of the nature of science, but nature operates regardless of our assumptions.
The assumptions you are talking about don't stem from naturalism ("the nature of science") but rather from incuriousness. You can very well accept all of the assumptions of naturalism without assuming that any theory (or even all of science) is complete. To put it another way, Fleming didn't discover penicillin because he questioned the assumptions of naturalism. Rather, he questioned the assumption that mold wouldn't inhibit bacterial growth. At no point in that process was naturalism a limitation; on the contrary, it was the key at every step of the process, particularly the breakthrough step. Questioning the assumptions of a particular theory is a vastly different matter than questioning the assumptions of naturalism, and accepting naturalism in no way encourages a person to uncritically accept all assumptions in science.
It does when we define empiricism as the sole arbiter of reality. But, that is a human limitation as well.
Nice post btw, you're very articulate. I still haven't forgotten the epiphany you gave me over the black white IQ statistics. :p
quadraphonics
12-09-08, 08:53 PM
It does when we define empiricism as the sole arbiter of reality.
There's an ocean of difference between "defining empiricism as the sole arbiter of reality" and being incurious about unexpected outcomes of experiments. Indeed, the latter would suggest an underemphasis on the role of empiricism. To refer again to the discovery of penicillin (or, more correctly, penicillin's inhibitory effect on bacterial growth): the difference between regarding the experiment as an inexplicable failure or a sign of a (previously) unknown effect hinges on how strongly the experimenter believes that observations must have knowable, natural causes. It was exactly Fleming's faith there there WAS a naturalistic explanation for the inhibited bacterial growth that caused him to regard the outcome not as a failure to grow a culture but as an interesting discovery. Another experimenter without Fleming's conviction that a knowable natural cause must exist might well have simply trashed the dish and started over (had he even bothered to perform an experiment in the first place).
So we see that the assumptions of naturalism, when applied critically, actually inhibit the sort of limiting methodological assumptions that you are describing. We could go so far as to say that uncriticality and incuriousity about experimental results are a sign that someone does not believe strongly enough in naturalism.
Yes, I suppose you could see it like that, once there was empirical evidence to investigate. But I am referring to the cases where there isn't one that can be investigated as an observation. ie cannot be seen, heard or intercepted by the senses. Thats where the empiricism limits what I call as "universal reality". The difference between what is and what can be detected by human senses.
iceaura
12-09-08, 09:27 PM
But do you know if the Buddha really said that? After all it was 400-500 years before anyone got together what they thought he said. Maybe the Buddha did believe in God. Maybe he said something else altogether. How would you know? The label "Buddha" refers to the sayer of those things, whoever they were.
We invent these really cool things called "instruments," and use them to detect and distinguish objects, forces and conditions that our physical senses would miss.
”
Ah yes, of course, but you need to be able to predict they exist first. No, you don't. Discovery of the unpredicted is common, and often welcomed.
It does when we define empiricism as the sole arbiter of reality. How about if we don't do that, OK? Even as a strawman in an argument.
But I am referring to the cases where there isn't one that can be investigated as an observation. ie cannot be seen, heard or intercepted by the senses. Thats where the empiricism limits what I call as "universal reality". Drop "empiricism", which doesn't seem to have an actual meaning in this context, go with the "naturalism". Then: what cases are those? We have cases that no one can observe in any way. You know about them how ?
You know about them how ?
You don't. Which is my point.
iceaura
12-09-08, 11:50 PM
You know about them how ?
”
You don't. Which is my point. Neither do you, neither does anyone else. Ever.
Fraggle Rocker
12-10-08, 09:30 AM
Ah yes, of course, but you need to be able to predict they exist first. Which is where empiricism gets a little fuzzy.Indeed much of science is developed from well-reasoned predictions--which BTW are not the same as the "assumptions" you accused us of indulging earlier. But much of it is also the result of unexpected observations.
One of the most important discoveries in modern science was the finite speed of light. No one predicted that. It was discovered by accident, when the moons of Jupiter didn't show up in their precisely predicted locations after half an orbit around the giant planet. The instrument of its discovery was the telescope, which no one imagined could be used for such an unpredictable purpose.
cosmictraveler
12-10-08, 09:35 AM
Religions are based mostly upon myths.
Science is based mostly upon theories.
Indeed much of science is developed from well-reasoned predictions--which BTW are not the same as the "assumptions" you accused us of indulging earlier. But much of it is also the result of unexpected observations.
One of the most important discoveries in modern science was the finite speed of light. No one predicted that. It was discovered by accident, when the moons of Jupiter didn't show up in their precisely predicted locations after half an orbit around the giant planet. The instrument of its discovery was the telescope, which no one imagined could be used for such an unpredictable purpose.
Of course, then there is the assumption that the machines are measuring what we think they are measuring, because we use them to make things empirical that are beyond our senses. :p
Fraggle Rocker
12-10-08, 11:38 AM
Of course, then there is the assumption that the machines are measuring what we think they are measuring, because we use them to make things empirical that are beyond our senses.Again, you are confusing a hypothesis with an assumption. The measurements we make with these instruments add to our body of empirical observations of the present and past behavior of the natural universe. We logically derive hypotheses from these observations and test these hypotheses to see if they accurately predict the future behavior of the natural universe. If their predictability proves to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, the hypotheses become theories and add to science.
The ultimate test of any theory is whether its predictions are accurate. So far the observations of our instruments have proven to be just as trustworthy--in fact in many cases arguably more so--than those of our unaugmented senses.
You seem to be hung up on the hope that science will eventually turn out to be wrong. There's nothing wrong with that... except that it's an incredibly odd attitude for a person who is supposed to be earning her living by practicing science. How do you reconcile that???
You seem to be hung up on the hope that science will eventually turn out to be wrong. There's nothing wrong with that... except that it's an incredibly odd attitude for a person who is supposed to be earning her living by practicing science. How do you reconcile that???
You're mistaken about that. I am just more aware, working daily in the field, of the limitations we face everyday. Let me give you an example. I was doing some plasmid DNA isolation in the lab the other day, with an undergrad. When it came to the part where the DNA pellet is isolated, the undergrad told me she did not get a pellet and her experiment failed. I was surprised, since based on the protocol, she should have got it and checked her tube. The "pellet" was not visible on the tube. However, driving under the assumption that DNA pellets may be invisible if too "clean" [based on nothing but the possibility that it might], I used some buffer to wash the sides of the tube and ran the product on a gel to check if it was absent or just invisible. And I found DNA. I think its important to understand the limitations of any method to ensure that you do not miss the implications of what to expect. Just because I cannot see it, doesn't mean its not there. Or, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You just have to figure out why there might be absence of evidence. But that requires faith in the possibility that it is there.
quadraphonics
12-10-08, 05:23 PM
However, driving under the hypothesis that DNA pellets may be invisible if too "clean" [based on nothing but the possibility that it might], I used some buffer to wash the sides of the tube and ran the product on a gel to check if it was absent or just invisible.
Fixed.
Tomayto Tomahto. I was at a loose end and was feeling bad for the girl. So I thought I would entertain her and maybe, at the same time, see if I was right [usually these diversions don't work out]. There was very little expectation, but what the hey? It was not a hypothesis, except that it was possible that DNA pellets might be invisible if the protein was all removed overzealously [no reasoning behind that though, don't know why I thought there might be an invisible pellet there].
disease
12-10-08, 05:29 PM
I think the only assumptions we can make are that we are capable of observation (which is something we hypothesize to be 'accurate' except we don't really know about accuracy except to the extent we can observe it). Since we can 'see' the external world and observations are known to be what we 'expect' then we know when something is 'unexpected', i.e. a new or novel observation - like penicillin, microwaves that warm a mug of coffee, precession of orbital motion of distant moons, and Mercury, etc.
We have myths, and we have logic. We 'know' that logic explains things, and we know myths do too. Science then, is just about 'demystifying' our mythological interpretations of the 'surprises' we see. We have a logic which may, or may not, be universal; we have a mythology which may or may not be logical. We no doubt need 'logic' to explain mythology, and we need myths so we can be 'logical' about them. This is probably all we can (logically) say about what Science is.
lightgigantic
12-10-08, 05:38 PM
I think the only assumptions we can make are that we are capable of observation (which is something we hypothesize to be 'accurate' except we don't really know about accuracy except to the extent we can observe it). Since we can 'see' the external world and observations are known to be what we 'expect' then we know when something is 'unexpected', i.e. a new or novel observation - like penicillin, microwaves that warm a mug of coffee, precession of orbital motion of distant moons, and Mercury, etc.
We have myths, and we have logic. We 'know' that logic explains things, and we know myths do too. Science then, is just about 'demystifying' our mythological interpretations of the 'surprises' we see. We have a logic which may, or may not, be universal; we have a mythology which may or may not be logical. We no doubt need 'logic' to explain mythology, and we need myths so we can be 'logical' abut them. This is probably all we can say about what Science is.
Then what of myths/fallacies that are seen to crop up in science? If science is the scourge of myths/fallacies why are they sometimes seen to crop up in the discipline of science?
Rather I would say that science is about being systematic.
Being systematic, while somewhat effective, is no guarantee against running into fallacy.
Declaring that science is about disparaging all myths can be a bit misleading however since it ruins the opportunity for those in science to be more introspective.
disease
12-10-08, 06:00 PM
Science, is not "just logic" then? Since we're creatures of myth and logic, our science is also a mythical, yet logical activity...?
Systematics are in keeping with the myth that "we will categorize everything, one day".
lightgigantic
12-10-08, 06:07 PM
Science, is not "just logic" then?
not at all
generally it is understood to fit more snugly under the banner of empiricism
Since we're creatures of myth and logic, our science is also a mythical, yet logical activity...?
here is a logical statement that is not true
all pigs can fly
all horses are pigs
therefore all horses can fly
here is a truthful statement that is not logical
today is thursday
I am sitting in a room
therefore I am thirsty
.... and on it goes
:o
Systematics are in keeping with the myth that "we will categorize everything, one day".
I would like to think that most reductionists would admit in their saner moments that they are only capable of tacit definitions
:o
I would like to think that most reductionists would admit in their saner moments that they are only capable of tacit definitions
I doubt that will happen anytime soon. The current dogma in science is all about reductionism, even in the so-called interdepartmental collaborations. There is an unrealistic expectation that taking something apart and examining it in isolation is somehow representative of its function in the whole. But there is no alternative thought and philosophy in science is dead.
iceaura
12-10-08, 08:00 PM
Let me give you an example. I was doing some plasmid DNA isolation in the lab the other day, with an undergrad. When it came to the part where the DNA pellet is isolated, the undergrad told me she did not get a pellet and her experiment failed. I was surprised, since based on the protocol, she should have got it and checked her tube. The "pellet" was not visible on the tube. However, driving under the assumption that DNA pellets may be invisible if too "clean" [based on nothing but the possibility that it might], I used some buffer to wash the sides of the tube and ran the product on a gel to check if it was absent or just invisible. And I found DNA. I think its important to understand the limitations of any method to ensure that you do not miss the implications of what to expect. Just because I cannot see it, doesn't mean its not there I don't see how that is an example of anything that counters anything Fraggle (or I) posted.
The current dogma in science is all about reductionism, even in the so-called interdepartmental collaborations. There is an unrealistic expectation that taking something apart and examining it in isolation is somehow representative of its function in the whole. There are stupid scientists, and there is error in science. But there is quite a bit of science that investigates "emergent properties" - thermodynamics is almost entirely that, for instance - and saying "the current dogma is all about reductionism" is vague enough to call.
The presumption that learning about something in isolation may teach you about its function in the whole is well-tested, and proven fruitful.
So is the presumption that if you haven't looked at something in isolation, your guesses about its function in the whole are very likely to go wrong.
Meanwhile, how does accusing all of science of what Daniel Dennett calls "greedy reductionism" throw light on the possible definitions of religion?
Fraggle Rocker
12-10-08, 08:03 PM
We're just quibbling over terminology, but the point over which we're quibbling is important. To say:. . . . driving under the assumption that DNA pellets may be invisible if too "clean" (based on nothing but the possibility that it might). . . .is to express a hypothesis, not an assumption, because of the conditional word "may." You're not saying, "I have an unshakeable faith that, regardless of the existence or absence of evidence, there are invisible pellets in this tube." That's an assumption, and that's precisely the way nearly all religionists "believe" in their mythologies. What you're saying is, "Based upon my experience with this apparatus and the past behavior of the universe (i.e., under these conditions there has always been a pellet), I judge there to be a reasonable probability that there is a pellet here, and due to unusual but not extraordinary conditions, it's obscured from view." That is a hypothesis.
Like all hypotheses, yours was based on both evidence and reasoning, and you were not certain that it was true, so you went on to test it like a good scientist. An assumption may be based on evidence and reasoning too, in which case the distinction from a hypothesis is pedantic, but it may also be based on creative or wishful thinking, or on a preprogrammed instinctive belief. I suppose an assumption can be tested by the scientific method, in which case it's treated as a hypothesis.
To once again remind ourselves that this is the Linguistics Board, we should note that perhaps the definition of "hypothesis" can include "assumption," but it's key to the practice of science that our laboratories not be overbooked by people testing assumptions that are no more than crackpottery. This might even be a corollary to Occam's Razor ("Test the simplest explanation for a phenomenon first and get it out of the way before you take a chance on wasting your time testing a complicated explanation"). An explanation for a phenomenon that is not based on evidence and reasoning is unlikely to be a simple explanation to test, and it could easily be a colossal waste of timeJust because I cannot see it, doesn't mean its not there.Of course. But you're not assuming it's there, you're simply reasoning, based on past evidence, that it might be there. That's a big difference.Or, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You just have to figure out why there might be absence of evidence. But that requires faith in the possibility that it is there.Sure, but it's a reasoned faith, not an irrational, instinctive faith. That makes all the difference. Your faith in the mere possibility of an invisible pellet was reasoned.It was not a hypothesis, except that it was possible that DNA pellets might be invisible if the protein was all removed overzealously [no reasoning behind that though, don't know why I thought there might be an invisible pellet there].You apparently did have a reason for thinking that, because the first thing you did was wash the tube. You reasoned that something could be obscuring your view. You didn't take it to an exorcist.I think the only assumptions we can make are that we are capable of observation. . . .Why is that an assumption? We have been performing the act that we call "observing" for millions of years, since long before we had a forebrain powerful enough to philosophize about it, and that act has gathered data about the natural universe that we have tested for all those millions of years and found to be acceptably reliable. It's not even a hypothesis any more. It's a canonical theory that transcends science. We now know that there are exceptions such as intoxication, illness, hypnotism, brainwashing, and in court trials we have even learned that what people remember about what they see can be affected by what they expected to see, but nonetheless observation has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" to be satisfactory evidence in the practice of the scientific method, so long as it is corroborated by testing and peer review.. . . . which is something we hypothesize to be 'accurate' except we don't really know about accuracy except to the extent we can observe it.I think I just covered that. This is a textbook explanation of why scientific experiments must be duplicated during a peer review.We have myths, and we have logic. We 'know' that logic explains things, and we know myths do too.Excuse me??? Myths purport to explain things, but they tend to operate at a metaphorical level, at best. Many of them, as I've explained a number of times, are instincts that Jung calls archetypes, motifs preprogrammed into our synapses by evolution. Some are survival traits from an era whose dangers we can't imagine, and others are the random result of genetic drift and bottlenecks.Then what of myths/fallacies that are seen to crop up in science? If science is the scourge of myths/fallacies why are they sometimes seen to crop up in the discipline of science?Give us a for-instance. And please pick something reasonably current, not from the 16th century when we were still getting our scientific act together.Declaring that science is about disparaging all myths can be a bit misleading however since it ruins the opportunity for those in science to be more introspective.That's hardly the purpose of science. To the extent that it works out that way, it's merely the inevitable result of the fact that so many of our myths are preprogrammed archetypes, and conflict with reality. This is where metaphor comes in, but a surprising percentage of the population have no place in their cognitive process for metaphor.
If there's something regrettable about the human condition that we've identified in this discussion, that might very well be it. To tie this up with the topic of this thread:Religion is metaphor.
Fraggle:
An assumption is not "an unshakeable faith"
In the words of Isaac Asimov:
An assumption according to Asimov is...
...something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.
iceaura
12-10-08, 08:34 PM
An assumption is not "an unshakeable faith" An "assumption" is not what you were making, either.
To begin with, it was. I could just as easily have found nothing.
Perhaps we define assumption differently?
In logic, more specifically in the context of natural deduction systems, an assumption is made in the expectation that it will be discharged in due course via a separate argument.
disease
12-10-08, 08:49 PM
Why is that an assumption? Well, the alternative is that we don't observe, i.e. we're blind, deaf, etc. Of course we assume we can observe; possibly because when we're awake at least, that's what we do rather than sit around with our eyes closed and our fingers in our ears. Although if we're still awake that would mean still observing - the audiovisual center would not see any 'external' input though.
Myths purport to explain things, but they tend to operate at a metaphorical level, at best. Many of them, as I've explained a number of times, are instincts that Jung calls archetypes, motifs preprogrammed into our synapses by evolution. Some are survival traits from an era whose dangers we can't imagine, and others are the random result of genetic drift and bottlenecks.Myths are instinctive, yes. We generally invent a mythological explanation then use logic to make it 'fit'.
Are you implying that humans are logical first? I think we apply both; or where logic can't provide a reason, we stick to myth. The idea that logic can overturn mythology is possibly 'illogical' in itself, from a mythical standpoint. Except we don't see things one way or the other, we see and interpret things both ways.
Mythology is not 'debunked' by logic, logic explains the mythologies, mythologies 'require' logic. We simply don't function in a 'logical only' mode.
In that sense, Jung's logic and the 'imaginary' myths that logic purports to explain, are just another mythology, that replaces one.
quadraphonics
12-10-08, 09:17 PM
Fraggle:
An assumption is not "an unshakeable faith"
In the words of Isaac Asimov:
If you go with Asimov's definition, an assumption is not testable. The hypothesis that the DNA was present in the tube, and could be obtained by a suitable process, is therefore not an assumption, as it was manifestly tested. Indeed, you would not have been interested in such a proposition had it not been testable.
To begin with, it was. I could just as easily have found nothing.
Exactly. The possibility of an alternate outcome, with a different impact on the validity of the hypothesis under test, is exactly what makes the proposition testable, and so a hypothesis and not an assumption.
Fraggle Rocker
12-10-08, 09:18 PM
Are you implying that humans are logical first?I'm not sure I have enough data to make that decision. There's probably no general answer. I think that some people try harder, or at least more consciously, to make logic-based decisions than other people, but we almost all try.
But the fact that humans are logical at all is one of the abilities conferred by our massive forebrain that makes us qualitatively different from the other animals. Yeah yeah, I know other primates, parrots, dolphins, and the rest of the most intelligent members of the animal kingdom also clearly perform reasoning, but we're a couple of orders of magnitude more adept at it and most of the time our lives are guided by reason more than theirs. I'll be happy to let Koko and Alex (his successors anyway) and some cetaceans prove me wrong.The idea that logic can overturn mythology is possibly 'illogical' in itself, from a mythical standpoint.How can logic even play a key role in a "mythical standpoint?"In that sense, Jung's logic and the 'imaginary' myths that logic purports to explain, are just another mythology, that replaces one.I don't agree with that at all. That's as bogus as calling atheism a "religion." It looks like our next thread will have to be about the definition of "mythology.":)
If you go with Asimov's definition, an assumption is not testable. The hypothesis that the DNA was present in the tube, and could be obtained by a suitable process, is therefore not an assumption, as it was manifestly tested. Indeed, you would not have been interested in such a proposition had it not been testable.
Hmm the way I see it, a hypothesis is an explanation of observable phenomena. I don't think "guessing" the presence of an invisible pellet is observable phenomena. Once I find the invisible pellet, it is a useful assumption. But I do not see where I say, if I do this, I will see this. I'm saying, because I think its there, even though there is no observable evidence, I will consider it is and proceed accordingly
Exactly. The possibility of an alternate outcome, with a different impact on the validity of the hypothesis under test, is exactly what makes the proposition testable, and so a hypothesis and not an assumption.
Thats only if there is no previous evidence. If previous evidence says pellet = DNA, then assuming that no pellet also equals DNA, or maybe not, is not an alternative outcome, its an alternative assumption.
iceaura
12-11-08, 12:42 AM
To begin with, it was. I could just as easily have found nothing.
Perhaps we define assumption differently? Apparently.
What assumption did you make? I don't see one. I see questioning of someone else's assumption, and investigation of possibilities with - explicitly - no assumption made.
If previous evidence says pellet = DNA, then assuming that no pellet also equals DNA, or maybe not, is not an alternative outcome, its an alternative assumption. That's not an assumption. That's a refusal to assume.
I don't think "guessing" the presence of an invisible pellet is observable phenomena. You did in fact observe the pellet, using procedures familiar to you and planned in advance. So not only was the existence of the pellet observable, you knew how to observe it.
What phenomena involved here is supposed to be unobservable? Your guess?
Just because I cannot see it, doesn't mean its not there. Or, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You just have to figure out why there might be absence of evidence. But that requires faith in the possibility that it is there.
You are totally wrong. There was no absence of evidence, the evidence was there all along, Sam, as a simple test would demonstrate. Claims of theists are what constitutes absence of evidence, Sam. No matter how much testing. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Fraggle Rocker
12-11-08, 10:41 AM
There was no absence of evidence, the evidence was there all along, Sam, as a simple test would demonstrate.Unfortunately a scientific definition of "evidence" is hard to find. The consensus of the online dictionaries' definition of "evidence":That which tends to prove or disprove something; a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment; knowledge on which to base belief or disbeliefSo by this definition, the evidence was there, it just wasn't visible.
Nonetheless, that is a counterintuitive definition of "evidence." One would assume that evidence is evident.:) The second definition in the dictionary is more in line with colloquial speech:Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign; an indication that makes something evidentI think Sam's assertion that she assumed (or suspected or hypothesized or whatever) the existence of the pellet, even though there was no evidence for its existence, can be taken as correct. Evidence of whose existence one is not aware can hardly be counted as valid motivation for a belief. But the reasonable suspicion that evidence exists is motivation for a hypothesis, and the obvious way to start testing the hypothesis is to search for the evidence. Sam had a reasonable suspicion that the pellet existed, and she found the evidence to turn that suspicion into an observation.
A theory is based on evidence. A hypothesis can be based on nothing but reasoning, as hers was.
A hypothesis can be based on nothing but reasoning, as hers was.
Thanks Fraggle, I was waiting for your input.
As I said earlier, I consider a hypothesis to be an explanation of observable phenomena [which is what separates science from non-science, in my opinion] which describes the action and the result of that action as observations which can both be measured, or assessed.
Do you define it some other way?
Unfortunately a scientific definition of "evidence" is hard to find. The consensus of the online dictionaries' definition of "evidence":That which tends to prove or disprove something; a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment; knowledge on which to base belief or disbeliefSo by this definition, the evidence was there, it just wasn't visible.
Nonetheless, that is a counterintuitive definition of "evidence." One would assume that evidence is evident.:) The second definition in the dictionary is more in line with colloquial speech:Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign; an indication that makes something evidentI think Sam's assertion that she assumed (or suspected or hypothesized or whatever) the existence of the pellet, even though there was no evidence for its existence, can be taken as correct. Evidence of whose existence one is not aware can hardly be counted as valid motivation for a belief. But the reasonable suspicion that evidence exists is motivation for a hypothesis, and the obvious way to start testing the hypothesis is to search for the evidence. Sam had a reasonable suspicion that the pellet existed, and she found the evidence to turn that suspicion into an observation.
A theory is based on evidence. A hypothesis can be based on nothing but reasoning, as hers was.
Come now, Sam was comparing this to "absence of evidence" which is little more than an argument from incredulity.
Thanks Fraggle, I was waiting for your input.
As I said earlier, I consider a hypothesis to be an explanation of observable phenomena [which is what separates science from non-science, in my opinion] which describes the action and the result of that action as observations which can both be measured, or assessed.
Do you define it some other way?
A "tentative" explanation of observable phenomena.
Fraggle Rocker
12-11-08, 12:43 PM
A "tentative" explanation of observable phenomena.Yes, and one that is testable.
I don't consider a hypothesis as tentative, it has to be proved false or not false. The fact that its a hypothesis adequately defines its status.
quadraphonics
12-11-08, 02:05 PM
Hmm the way I see it, a hypothesis is an explanation of observable phenomena.
Yes, that's what makes it testable, and so not an assumption.
I don't think "guessing" the presence of an invisible pellet is observable phenomena.
Perhaps not, but the pellet in your example was observable. You did, in fact, see it in the end, so I don't see why you're talking about an "invisible pellet." What you DID do was "guess" the presence of an as-of-yet unobserved (NOT unobservable) pellet.
There's a huge difference between hypothesizing something for which there is as of yet no observed evidence, and assuming something for which it is not possible, even in principle, to observe evidence of.
But I do not see where I say, if I do this, I will see this. I'm saying, because I think its there, even though there is no observable evidence, I will consider it is and proceed accordingly
And that is exactly what makes this proposition a hypothesis, and not an assumption. And let's not forget that by "proceed accordingly" you mean "go look for observable evidence and, if it's not forthcoming, discard the hypothesis."
Fraggle Rocker
12-11-08, 02:06 PM
I don't consider a hypothesis as tentative, it has to be proved false or not false. The fact that it's a hypothesis adequately defines its status.But the definition that was proposed is an "explanation," so I think qualifying it as a "tentative explanation" is appropriate. It could also be a possible explanation, a potential explanation, a speculative explanation... We're not writing a dictionary here, we're just trying to find all the nuances. "Explanation" without a qualifier is inappropriate because it sounds like you've already found the answer.
Hmm, the way I was trained, a hypothesis is a statement. And then you do everything you can to disprove it.
quad:
I did not, at any time, see the pellet. I found the DNA by assuming it was there.
quadraphonics
12-11-08, 02:20 PM
Hmm, the way I was trained, a hypothesis is a statement. And then you do everything you can to disprove it.
Yes, and an assumption is a statement that is not testable, so you don't bother trying to prove or disprove it, because it is not possible to do either of those things.
I did not, at any time, see the pellet. I found the DNA by assuming it was there.
Okay, so you "observed" the pellet (or DNA or whatever; the details aren't important).
Yes, and an assumption is a statement that is not testable, so you don't bother trying to prove or disprove it, because it is not possible to do either of those things.
Okay, so you "observed" the pellet (or DNA or whatever; the details aren't important).
They are, because if, another time I do not "see" the pellet and find no DNA, what does it mean? [that has also happened]
quadraphonics
12-11-08, 03:44 PM
They are, because if, another time I do not "see" the pellet and find no DNA, what does it mean? [that has also happened]
It means simply that the absence of a pellet does not imply the presence of DNA. Which is fine. Your hypothesis was that the absence of a pellet does not imply the absence of DNA, and so an additional test is necessary to determine the presence or absence of the DNA.
Fraggle Rocker
12-11-08, 03:44 PM
. . . .if, another time I do not "see" the pellet and find no DNA, what does it mean?I'd say it means you'll "look" harder and perhaps think of some new ways of "looking" using other instruments. And if you still don't find it, then you'll revise your hypothesis and run a lot more tests to figure out what's going on.
No my hypothesis was not that the pellet was absent, simply that even though there was no evidence it was present, that did not mean it was absent.
lightgigantic
12-11-08, 06:19 PM
Fraggle
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Then what of myths/fallacies that are seen to crop up in science? If science is the scourge of myths/fallacies why are they sometimes seen to crop up in the discipline of science?
”
Give us a for-instance. And please pick something reasonably current, not from the 16th century when we were still getting our scientific act together.
Here's a good straight forward one by J. Weizenbaum
http://www.rationalvedanta.net/node/83
One myth in particular states that if, say, by experiment a scientific theory is confronted in reality with a single contradiction, one piece of discontinuing evidence, then that theory is automatically set aside and a new theory that takes the contradiction into account is adopted. This is not the way science actually works.
He draws a parallel between heliocentric models of the universe and current evolving models of human awareness based on computers
Declaring that science is about disparaging all myths can be a bit misleading however since it ruins the opportunity for those in science to be more introspective.
”
That's hardly the purpose of science. To the extent that it works out that way, it's merely the inevitable result of the fact that so many of our myths are preprogrammed archetypes, and conflict with reality. This is where metaphor comes in, but a surprising percentage of the population have no place in their cognitive process for metaphor.
fact, eh?
And metaphor begins and ends precisely where? (please don't say "reality" unless you are prepared to unpack the term)
If there's something regrettable about the human condition that we've identified in this discussion, that might very well be it. To tie this up with the topic of this thread:
* Religion is metaphor.
so does that make science religious too?
Using computers as a metaphor for the human mind?
lightgigantic
12-11-08, 06:31 PM
I doubt that will happen anytime soon. The current dogma in science is all about reductionism, even in the so-called interdepartmental collaborations. There is an unrealistic expectation that taking something apart and examining it in isolation is somehow representative of its function in the whole. But there is no alternative thought and philosophy in science is dead.
Unfortunately they get philosophical about it .....
Dr. Frank Salter (Max Planck Institute, Germany)
..... scientific knowledge in many areas is so well-developed that acceptance of it as a starting point can be taken as a criterion of rationality. Accordingly, we can treat a denial of the factual authority of the natural sciences as a whole as a case of empirical irrationality, the denial of well-verified facts.
:puke:
iceaura
12-11-08, 08:56 PM
I did not, at any time, see the pellet. I found the DNA by assuming it was there. You did not, at any time, according to your account and verified by your searching behavior, assume it was there or not there. Had you assumed, you would not have checked.
As I said earlier, I consider a hypothesis to be an explanation of observable phenomena Sounds reasonable. Are you by chance operating on the assumption that the presence or absence of the DNA was unobservable, because you couldn't see it?
Unfortunately they get philosophical about it ..... SAM was posting about reductionism, you about the sociological status of scientifically established factual knowledge.
Yes, and an assumption is a statement that is not testable, so you don't bother trying to prove or disprove it, because it is not possible to do either of those things. Assumptions made are often of things that nto only could have been, but should have been, tested, in science.
SAM demonstrated that she was making no assumptions, by testing in an attempt to determine the facts.
quadraphonics
12-11-08, 08:59 PM
Assumptions made are often of things that nto only could have been, but should have been, tested, in science.
I was using the term "assumption" in the specific sense that S.A.M. defined above, in the Asimov quote, which included an "untestability" condition. In the general sense of the term you are, of course, correct.
You generally precede with an assumption before an act. That is the definition of assumption in the scientific context
In logic, more specifically in the context of natural deduction systems, an assumption is made in the expectation that it will be discharged in due course via a separate argument.
The invisible pellet is a separate argument from the subsequent test for DNA.
Fraggle Rocker
12-12-08, 12:16 AM
One myth in particular states that if, say, by experiment a scientific theory is confronted in reality with a single contradiction, one piece of discontinuing evidence, then that theory is automatically set aside and a new theory that takes the contradiction into account is adopted. This is not the way science actually works.Yeah right. In American "corporate science." That does not deserve to be called "science" and those people do not deserve to be called "scientists." Their job is to find evidence to support a commercially lucrative hypothesis and ignore evidence to the contrary. Science has become so commercialized that for many science graduates those are the only jobs available and my heart goes out to them, but it's still not proper science and they should all be ashamed of themselves.. . . .the fact that so many of our myths are preprogrammed archetypes. . . .fact, eh?Ah, forgive me for lapsing into layman's language. Linguistics is one of the softest of the soft sciences and moderating this board doesn't keep me in practice. There are no "facts" in science, only theories that have been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. And since psychology is arguably an even softer science than linguistics, we certainly can't call any of Jung's theories "facts" with a straight face.And metaphor begins and ends precisely where? (Please don't say "reality" unless you are prepared to unpack the term.)Metaphor is merely a rhetorical device for economically describing a subject by equating it with a metaphorical object, implicitly ascribing properties of the object to the subject. The object may or may not be real so it's not necessary to define "reality." Metaphor focuses our attention on perhaps hitherto unrecognized properties of the subject, thereby (hopefully) facilitating, organizing and advancing the discussion of it.
When we say that the natural universe is the creation of a supernatural being, we're pointing out that the natural universe is orderly but occasionally surprises us, just as an artifact might, and warning each other that life is not always fair. The problem arises when people don't understand the rhetorical device and actually believe that there is a supernatural creator.Religion is metaphorso does that make science religious too?No. All religion is metaphor but not all metaphor is religion. Happy now? ;)Unfortunately they get philosophical about it:Scientific knowledge in many areas is so well-developed that acceptance of it as a starting point can be taken as a criterion of rationality. Accordingly, we can treat a denial of the factual authority of the natural sciences as a whole as a case of empirical irrationality, the denial of well-verified facts.[Rude emoticon]You've lost me. What's the problem? Other than the Linguistics Moderator's standing complaint that scientists carelessly toss around the word "fact." These are not "well verified facts." They are "theories that have been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt." We all know (or should know) that, statistically, one of those theories will be proven wrong every now and then, but it happens so rarely that it does not bring the canon of science down in a crash.
People, even laymen, are welcome to ponder the impact of the statistical probability that one theory will be falsified during their lifetime. But they should also be numerate enough to understand that to point their finger at any one theory and say, "That's the one!" is an unreasonable doubt. That is a textbook case of an extraordinary assertion, which we are obliged to treat with respect only if it is accompanied by extraordinary evidence.
In everyday affairs it is irrational to dissipate energy on such infinitesimal probabilities. (Yeah I used another word wrong. Fifty lashes.) It's as irrational as it would be to never go outdoors because of the almost immeasurably small probability of being hit by a meteor. (I couldn't bring myself to say "infinitesimal" again.)
The scientific method is the embodiment of reason and science is the Jewel of the Enlightenment, on the short list of civilization's greatest achievements.
People who deny science are, indeed, irredeemable retards. It should be a test for public office and perhaps even parenthood. Just kidding (albeit with a sigh of regret) about the second but not the first.
iceaura
12-12-08, 12:34 AM
You generally precede with an assumption before an act. That is the definition of assumption in the scientific context Not if it is required to be untestable.
I think you are confusing the mathematical use of the word with its use in a description with a scientific context. The other possibility is that you are confusing levels of argument in a scientific investigation - of course there are untestable assumptions in a scientific investigation (that logic is valid, for example) but they are pretty far away from the scene of investigation.
And furthermore, irrelevant. Whatever assumptions you made had nothing to do with any untestable factors, as there were none - every factor in your chain of reasoning was testable, including the efficacy of the methods of investigation.
Likewise, everything you were dealing with was observable.
I was using the term "assumption" in the specific sense that S.A.M. defined above, in the Asimov quote, which included an "untestability" condition. SAM is not using the word in that way.
lightgigantic
12-12-08, 01:23 AM
Fraggle
One myth in particular states that if, say, by experiment a scientific theory is confronted in reality with a single contradiction, one piece of discontinuing evidence, then that theory is automatically set aside and a new theory that takes the contradiction into account is adopted. This is not the way science actually works. ”
Yeah right. In American "corporate science." That does not deserve to be called "science" and those people do not deserve to be called "scientists." Their job is to find evidence to support a commercially lucrative hypothesis and ignore evidence to the contrary. Science has become so commercialized that for many science graduates those are the only jobs available and my heart goes out to them, but it's still not proper science and they should all be ashamed of themselves.
“ “ Originally Posted by me
. . . .the fact that so many of our myths are preprogrammed archetypes. . . . ”
fact, eh? ”
Ah, forgive me for lapsing into layman's language. Linguistics is one of the softest of the soft sciences and moderating this board doesn't keep me in practice. There are no "facts" in science, only theories that have been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. And since psychology is arguably an even softer science than linguistics, we certainly can't call any of Jung's theories "facts" with a straight face.
contextualizing religious claims by calling upon archetypes strikes me as a faith based claim ... although I realize that many in the field of jungian influenced psychology may beg to differ
“ And metaphor begins and ends precisely where? (Please don't say "reality" unless you are prepared to unpack the term.) ”
Metaphor is merely a rhetorical device for economically describing a subject by equating it with a metaphorical object, implicitly ascribing properties of the object to the subject. The object may or may not be real so it's not necessary to define "reality." Metaphor focuses our attention on perhaps hitherto unrecognized properties of the subject, thereby (hopefully) facilitating, organizing and advancing the discussion of it.
When we say that the natural universe is the creation of a supernatural being, we're pointing out that the natural universe is orderly but occasionally surprises us, just as an artifact might, and warning each other that life is not always fair. The problem arises when people don't understand the rhetorical device and actually believe that there is a supernatural creator.
so you mean things like centimetres and other empirical tools are metaphors?
If not, why?
“ “ Originally Posted by me
Religion is metaphor ”
so does that make science religious too? ”
No. All religion is metaphor but not all metaphor is religion. Happy now?
Jung really floats your boat, eh?
;)
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Unfortunately they get philosophical about it:
“ Scientific knowledge in many areas is so well-developed that acceptance of it as a starting point can be taken as a criterion of rationality. Accordingly, we can treat a denial of the factual authority of the natural sciences as a whole as a case of empirical irrationality, the denial of well-verified facts. ”
[Rude emoticon] ”
You've lost me. What's the problem? Other than the Linguistics Moderator's standing complaint that scientists carelessly toss around the word "fact." These are not "well verified facts." They are "theories that have been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt." We all know (or should know) that, statistically, one of those theories will be proven wrong every now and then, but it happens so rarely that it does not bring the canon of science down in a crash.
People, even laymen, are welcome to ponder the impact of the statistical probability that one theory will be falsified during their lifetime. But they should also be numerate enough to understand that to point their finger at any one theory and say, "That's the one!" is an unreasonable doubt. That is a textbook case of an extraordinary assertion, which we are obliged to treat with respect only if it is accompanied by extraordinary evidence.
In everyday affairs it is irrational to dissipate energy on such infinitesimal probabilities. (Yeah I used another word wrong. Fifty lashes.) It's as irrational as it would be to never go outdoors because of the almost immeasurably small probability of being hit by a meteor. (I couldn't bring myself to say "infinitesimal" again.)
The scientific method is the embodiment of reason and science is the Jewel of the Enlightenment, on the short list of civilization's greatest achievements.
People who deny science are, indeed, irredeemable retards. It should be a test for public office and perhaps even parenthood. Just kidding (albeit with a sigh of regret) about the second but not the first.
There is never only one extreme. There are always two.
One is to reject empirical claims wholesale (for reasons you outline)
The other is to accept is as monopolizing all knowledge based claims (since not even this claim can be empirically established)
The problem with empiricism is that it has at its foundations the senses, and the senses are by nature fallible and limited. The nature of consciousness, the origins of the universe, the intrinsic qualities of matter or the further an event is lodged in history - the further empiricism moves into these fields, the further it loses its credibility.
I don't consider a hypothesis as tentative, it has to be proved false or not false. The fact that its a hypothesis adequately defines its status.
It's status is tentative as you have not yet falsified the hypothesis.
And furthermore, irrelevant. Whatever assumptions you made had nothing to do with any untestable factors, as there were none - every factor in your chain of reasoning was testable, including the efficacy of the methods of investigation.
.
Since when is an assumption defined as testable or not?
Likewise, everything you were dealing with was observable.
Except the invisible pellet. The assumption was not about the DNA but whether a pellet was absent or invisible. It had nothing to do with the protocol, the procedure and the later test for DNA. The pellet by itself being or not being present is an assumption.
e.g. there could have been an invisible pellet and yet no plasmid DNA
there could be an invisible pellet and not enough DNA to be tested
there could be a visible pellet and no DNA
there could be a visible pellet with DNA
there could be no pellet
The assumption you are making is that pellet [invisible or not] equals DNA.
It's status is tentative as you have not yet falsified the hypothesis.
And being falsified makes it a not so tentative hypothesis? Being true or false has nothing to do with the statement of a hypothesis.
And being falsified makes it a not so tentative hypothesis? Being true or false has nothing to do with the statement of a hypothesis.
I would say that your reading comprehension skills were poor, but since it's you, Sam, clearly your post represents your intellectual dishonesty, and nothing more.
Perhaps you do not know that every null hypothesis has an alternative hypothesis. I suppose its common for people outside the field to think they know more than people in the field.
Fraggle Rocker
12-12-08, 11:09 AM
I would say that your reading comprehension skills were poor, but since it's you, Sam, clearly your post represents your intellectual dishonesty, and nothing more.Q: Enough with the personal insults. This is my board, I interpret and enforce the rules, and I say "Please dial it back." You've seen me in action enough to know that I'm not being selective.
If you're a student of language, you should be able to use your native language more effectively than this.
Yeah yeah, we all get angry and we all break the rules occasionally. Just cut this one off here.
Q: Enough with the personal insults. This is my board, I interpret and enforce the rules, and I say "Please dial it back." You've seen me in action enough to know that I'm not being selective.
If you're a student of language, you should be able to use your native language more effectively than this.
Yeah yeah, we all get angry and we all break the rules occasionally. Just cut this one off here.
Fair enough, but when are you going to deal with Sams intellectual dishonesty and trolling?
quadraphonics
12-12-08, 12:52 PM
SAM is not using the word in that way.
Yes, I know. If you'd read my posts, you'd see that the entire purpose was to try to convince S.A.M. to adhere to the definition that she proposed.
quadraphonics
12-12-08, 12:55 PM
Since when is an assumption defined as testable or not?
Well, the only definition that you have offered is:
An assumption according to Asimov is...
...something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.
I don't believe that assumption has any testability or untestability attached to it. I gave Asimov's definition as an example of assumptions in science. Not with particular reference to testability or no testability. I think assumptions are either useful or useless, I don't believe they are necessarily consistent or have the property of truth or falsehood. They are simply accepted as they are, as a proviso to the next step.
To clarify, IMO, I can attach the prefix "I believe...:" to an assumption but not a hypothesis.
iceaura
12-12-08, 11:29 PM
Likewise, everything you were dealing with was observable.
”
Except the invisible pellet. The pellet was observable. You proved that. You had a procedure ready for observing it.
I was reluctant to assume this whole tangent discussion was launched because an adult employed in a scientific field was taking "observable" to mean "visible at the moment", but no other explanation seems to suffice.
I gave Asimov's definition as an example of assumptions in science. Not with particular reference to testability or no testability. Asimov's definition was not an example of assumptions in scientific investigation, and it made emphatic and particular reference to testability.
Yes, I know. If you'd read my posts, you'd see that the entire purpose was to try to convince S.A.M Ah, I missed something. Sorry. You have my sympathies, as well as my apologies.
Fraggle Rocker
12-13-08, 12:09 AM
Fair enough, but when are you going to deal with Sam's intellectual dishonesty and trolling?Got some examples worth "dealing with" that were posted on the Linguistics board? I'm harsher with her on the other boards but I'm pretty lax about trolling here because we don't get a lot of traffic. And it's hard to nail down intellectual honesty in a science as soft as linguistics.
I knew I was taking a chance when I didn't move this particular thread to Comparative Religion when it was started, but, again, we can use the traffic. So I've gone kind of easy on it and just concentrate on moderating the parts that are really about linguistics.
But I like my peeps to be civil to each other.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.