Definition of religion

[S.A.M.]

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]

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]

. . . .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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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]

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]

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.
uke:

 

[iceaura]

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]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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]

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 metaphor

so 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]

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]

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.

 

[(Q)]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[(Q)]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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]

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)]

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]

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]

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.