Comments on: What it means to be “Scientifically Proven” http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/ Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:04:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: anti_supernaturalist http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/comment-page-1/#comment-5688 anti_supernaturalist Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:45:10 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971#comment-5688 <strong>God doesn’t do math . . . </strong> ... my native language is English. So I don't need a grammar to use it properly. However, I may benefit from English grammars as guides towards refined verbal expression. Mathematics is similar -- mathematics is an abstract reality by which we can refer to and manipulate the world by use of symbols. Crudely done or professionally mastered, mathematics demands "grammars" in a way natural language use does not. Nevertheless, neither language nor mathematics uses symbols found "in the world", since there are no concepts in the world to grasp. We make models of the world. The "fit" between model and world is never perfect -- yet people continue to imagine that all nouns must be the name of something and that models in physics refer to objects which must be real. Just as there is no first or "Adamic" language" taught to us by some god; mathematics does not present how some god structured the universe. • <em>As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.</em> -- Einstein Put differently, mathematics applied to nature provides <em>models</em> of it ("are not certain"). Models are not unassailable descriptions of nature as it is. Even less do models provide ontologically irreplaceable explanations of nature. Mathematical theorems supply so-called irrefutable truths ("are certain") since they may be proven from distinct, coherent, and finite sets of axioms. The geometry of Euclid and that of Riemann differ over the famous “parallel postulate (axiom).” There is no "creed" at issue concerning the axiom sets. The road divides over the status of parallel lines -- either they are allowed or they are not. Each geometric axiom set gives rise to a perfectly sane (self-consistent) idealized space. As logically alternative geometries, they rest comfortably side by side. But they cannot both be representations of space-time (be "true"). They offer incompatible models of the world. Mathematics is <em>not</em> an empirical science.<em> It is employed within the sciences to make models.</em> To be empirical, models must be testable. That is, the relevant methodolog<em>ies</em> of empirical research (only <em>one</em> of which is repeatable experimentation) have to be applicable both in principle and in practice. the anti_supernaturalist God doesn’t do math . . .
… my native language is English. So I don’t need a grammar to use it properly. However, I may benefit from English grammars as guides towards refined verbal expression. Mathematics is similar — mathematics is an abstract reality by which we can refer to and manipulate the world by use of symbols.
Crudely done or professionally mastered, mathematics demands “grammars” in a way natural language use does not. Nevertheless, neither language nor mathematics uses symbols found “in the world”, since there are no concepts in the world to grasp. We make models of the world. The “fit” between model and world is never perfect — yet people continue to imagine that all nouns must be the name of something and that models in physics refer to objects which must be real. Just as there is no first or “Adamic” language” taught to us by some god; mathematics does not present how some god structured the universe.
• As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. — Einstein

Put differently, mathematics applied to nature provides models of it (“are not certain”). Models are not unassailable descriptions of nature as it is. Even less do models provide ontologically irreplaceable explanations of nature. Mathematical theorems supply so-called irrefutable truths (“are certain”) since they may be proven from distinct, coherent, and finite sets of axioms.

The geometry of Euclid and that of Riemann differ over the famous “parallel postulate (axiom).” There is no “creed” at issue concerning the axiom sets. The road divides over the status of parallel lines — either they are allowed or they are not.

Each geometric axiom set gives rise to a perfectly sane (self-consistent) idealized space. As logically alternative geometries, they rest comfortably side by side. But they cannot both be representations of space-time (be “true”). They offer incompatible models of the world. Mathematics is not an empirical science. It is employed within the sciences to make models.

To be empirical, models must be testable. That is, the relevant methodologies of empirical research (only one of which is repeatable experimentation) have to be applicable both in principle and in practice.
the anti_supernaturalist

]]> By: anti_supernaturalist http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/comment-page-1/#comment-5687 anti_supernaturalist Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:33:03 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971#comment-5687 <em>Xianity and Freudian psychiatry are one in creating fictitious illnesses (sin/neurosis) for which each offers bogus cures at premium prices.</em> <strong>“That Individual” knows God is a mentally unstable, near eastern potentate</strong> While Kierkegaard might have been right in criticizing mid-19th century Danish Lutheranism as inauthentic, he adopts a rhetoric which makes him a very uncomfortable apologist. “The crowd is untruth" but that doesn't make my innermost  (culturally indoctrinated) monition the voice of some god. SK's fideism, with easily made changes, could apply to any of the big-3 monster-theisms: They would have us believe that objections against Christianity [or Islam or Judaism] come from doubt. This is always a misunderstanding. Objections against Christianity [or Islam or Judaism] come from insubordination, unwillingness to obey, rebellion against all authority. Therefore, they have been beating the air against the objectors, because they have fought intellectually against doubt, instead of fighting ethically against rebellion…. So it is not properly doubt but insubordination. (Lowrie 122) SK's inability to mentally overcome his authoritarian father image, his hysterical rejection of his fiancee, his glorification of Abraham as "knight of faith" appear juvenile in the extreme. True believers need no Kierkegaard to encourage subordination to a demented Father. SK’s is the logic of a father who demands that his sons martyr themselves as bombers. If you cannot kill a son because you imagine “God” told you to, how can you kill the sons of other men with no compunction? (Here is the doctrine of xian redemption from God’s viewpoint. Now read John 3:16 again.) The 1-god of the big-3 monster-theisms (whom SK understands subconsciously all too well) ought only to provoke our nausea, our "sickness unto death." the anti_supernaturalist Xianity and Freudian psychiatry are one in creating fictitious illnesses (sin/neurosis) for which each offers bogus cures at premium prices.

“That Individual” knows God is a mentally unstable, near eastern potentate

While Kierkegaard might have been right in criticizing mid-19th century Danish Lutheranism as inauthentic, he adopts a rhetoric which makes him a very uncomfortable apologist. “The crowd is untruth” but that doesn’t make my innermost  (culturally indoctrinated) monition the voice of some god.

SK’s fideism, with easily made changes, could apply to any of the big-3 monster-theisms:

They would have us believe that objections against Christianity [or Islam or Judaism] come from doubt. This is always a misunderstanding. Objections against Christianity [or Islam or Judaism] come from insubordination, unwillingness to obey, rebellion against all authority. Therefore, they have been beating the air against the objectors, because they have fought intellectually against doubt, instead of fighting ethically against rebellion…. So it is not properly doubt but insubordination. (Lowrie 122)

SK’s inability to mentally overcome his authoritarian father image, his hysterical rejection of his fiancee, his glorification of Abraham as “knight of faith” appear juvenile in the extreme.

True believers need no Kierkegaard to encourage subordination to a demented Father. SK’s is the logic of a father who demands that his sons martyr themselves as bombers. If you cannot kill a son because you imagine “God” told you to, how can you kill the sons of other men with no compunction? (Here is the doctrine of xian redemption from God’s viewpoint. Now read John 3:16 again.)

The 1-god of the big-3 monster-theisms (whom SK understands subconsciously all too well) ought only to provoke our nausea, our “sickness unto death.”

the anti_supernaturalist

]]> By: Nick Josh Karean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/comment-page-1/#comment-5603 Nick Josh Karean Tue, 18 May 2010 16:24:34 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971#comment-5603 Jose, perhaps if English was your native language, then may be you'll understand the point I was trying to make. :-) Jose, perhaps if English was your native language, then may be you’ll understand the point I was trying to make. :-)

]]> By: jose http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/comment-page-1/#comment-5602 jose Tue, 18 May 2010 14:02:10 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971#comment-5602 "It’s not a belief system. Science is fact-based, not faith-based. For example, mathematics is a form of science: one plus two equals three. ‘One plus two’ is the method and ‘three’ is the answer derived from that method. The answer ‘three’ does not require your belief. It is a fact whether you believe in it or not." So, is mathematics faith-based, or isn't? Sorry, but... citing mathematics as a science to prove facts in real life is not a good thing. Mathematics is a human creation. You can't see, or touch mathematics. And it's based on consensus: we say "one plus two is three," "one plus three is four", etc. and we build a system based on that. You can't demonstrate anything based on mathematics, but you can use it (as a tool) to *try* to explain things. Obviously, this is what I was teached :) (as an engineering student). Not all people think this way... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Mathematics_as_science (Sorry for my english, it's not my native language) Have a good day ;) “It’s not a belief system. Science is fact-based, not faith-based.
For example, mathematics is a form of science: one plus two equals three. ‘One plus two’ is the method and ‘three’ is the answer derived from that method. The answer ‘three’ does not require your belief. It is a fact whether you believe in it or not.”

So, is mathematics faith-based, or isn’t?
Sorry, but… citing mathematics as a science to prove facts in real life is not a good thing.
Mathematics is a human creation. You can’t see, or touch mathematics. And it’s based on consensus: we say “one plus two is three,” “one plus three is four”, etc. and we build a system based on that.
You can’t demonstrate anything based on mathematics, but you can use it (as a tool) to *try* to explain things.

Obviously, this is what I was teached :) (as an engineering student). Not all people think this way… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Mathematics_as_science
(Sorry for my english, it’s not my native language)
Have a good day ;)

]]> By: Gerald Guild http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/comment-page-1/#comment-5577 Gerald Guild Mon, 03 May 2010 12:28:46 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971#comment-5577 So Nick, you don't buy that:  "In short, it is <em>sin</em> that is the mother or unbelief."? To be clear, my intention in mentioning the Christian Post article was to provide a disturbing but prevalent  juxtaposition to your cogent post.  I strongly disagree with it as well. So Nick, you don’t buy that:  “In short, it is sin that is the mother or unbelief.”?
To be clear, my intention in mentioning the Christian Post article was to provide a disturbing but prevalent  juxtaposition to your cogent post.  I strongly disagree with it as well.

]]> By: Nick Josh Karean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/comment-page-1/#comment-5576 Nick Josh Karean Mon, 03 May 2010 05:33:16 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971#comment-5576 <strong>By the way, I disagree with 'The Christian Post' quote. There is nothing to rebel about. </strong> By the way, I disagree with ‘The Christian Post’ quote. There is nothing to rebel about.

]]> By: Nick Josh Karean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/comment-page-1/#comment-5523 Nick Josh Karean Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:48:48 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971#comment-5523 Thanks Gerald. I tried my best to encapsulate as much as I could. Couldn't make it any shorter. And you're right, the legal system or any system for that matter, can be made corrupt, but still it is the best system we have. We still need to use it to get things right with it anyway, because there are no other better system out there that can do that, well... at least, not yet. I understand the other problems you've highlighted as well. This is something we all have to work together so that Science can be spread to the world more easily and it more affordable, even better if it can be free!  I had to write this article because I could not find anyone else who wrote it in such a way. So I compiled whatever I can and produced this. Hopefully it helps many as much as it helped me. It's probably too late for some to change but it is my hope that those fence-sitters and those who still can think, can embrace the knowledge presented here and use it as a guide. Thanks Gerald. I tried my best to encapsulate as much as I could. Couldn’t make it any shorter. And you’re right, the legal system or any system for that matter, can be made corrupt, but still it is the best system we have. We still need to use it to get things right with it anyway, because there are no other better system out there that can do that, well… at least, not yet. I understand the other problems you’ve highlighted as well. This is something we all have to work together so that Science can be spread to the world more easily and it more affordable, even better if it can be free!  I had to write this article because I could not find anyone else who wrote it in such a way. So I compiled whatever I can and produced this. Hopefully it helps many as much as it helped me. It’s probably too late for some to change but it is my hope that those fence-sitters and those who still can think, can embrace the knowledge presented here and use it as a guide.

]]> By: Gerald Guild http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/comment-page-1/#comment-5521 Gerald Guild Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:54:27 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971#comment-5521 And then there is this from <strong>The Christian Post</strong>: "<em>While atheists insist that their foundational reason for rejecting God is the problem of evil or the scientific irrelevance of the supernatural, the Christian philosopher says the argument is "only a ruse" or "a conceptual smoke screen to mask the real issue – personal rebellion.</em>" http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100318/christian-philosopher-explores-causes-of-atheism/   And then there is this from The Christian Post:
“While atheists insist that their foundational reason for rejecting God is the problem of evil or the scientific irrelevance of the supernatural, the Christian philosopher says the argument is “only a ruse” or “a conceptual smoke screen to mask the real issue – personal rebellion.”
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100318/christian-philosopher-explores-causes-of-atheism/
 

]]> By: Gerald Guild http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/comment-page-1/#comment-5519 Gerald Guild Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:31:09 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971#comment-5519 Nice encapsulation Nick!  Well done.  Several things came to mind as I read your post.  First, your mention of the legal system as being evidence based is theoretically correct.  Although pragmatically, from my peripheral vantage point, I've seen that it is more about capital. He who has the most capital wins -sometimes regardless of the evidence.  Second, I find it frustrating that science isolates itself from the general population.  This isn't the direct fault of science - it is more a byproduct of the need for peer reviewed journals to remain soluable.  Not being linked to a university makes it very difficult for me to access scientific journal articles.  I want to read primary sources and I am often frustrated because I cannot get more than the abstracts (without paying a healthy sum for each article).  I am most often dependent on others' interpretation and/or summary of the data.  More true transparency would be good for science.  And finally, isn't it amazaing that you need to write such an article.  Regardless of the merit of what you say, and what so many others have been saying for so long, the pervasiveness of gulibilty and narrow minded dedication to ideology reigns supreme.  The merit and logic of your arguement will have little effect on those guided by ideology and thus entrenched in their <a href="http://geraldguild.com/blog/" rel="nofollow">erroneous thinking processes</a>. Nice encapsulation Nick!  Well done.  Several things came to mind as I read your post.  First, your mention of the legal system as being evidence based is theoretically correct.  Although pragmatically, from my peripheral vantage point, I’ve seen that it is more about capital. He who has the most capital wins -sometimes regardless of the evidence.  Second, I find it frustrating that science isolates itself from the general population.  This isn’t the direct fault of science – it is more a byproduct of the need for peer reviewed journals to remain soluable.  Not being linked to a university makes it very difficult for me to access scientific journal articles.  I want to read primary sources and I am often frustrated because I cannot get more than the abstracts (without paying a healthy sum for each article).  I am most often dependent on others’ interpretation and/or summary of the data.  More true transparency would be good for science.  And finally, isn’t it amazaing that you need to write such an article.  Regardless of the merit of what you say, and what so many others have been saying for so long, the pervasiveness of gulibilty and narrow minded dedication to ideology reigns supreme.  The merit and logic of your arguement will have little effect on those guided by ideology and thus entrenched in their erroneous thinking processes.

]]>