Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Assumptions of Science

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.
http://www.geosociety.org...

These assumptions are important to any discussion of Science as they are the bedrock of Science.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.


The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 2:06:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

WW, one difference between an assumption and faith is that one changes an assumption if the facts show it false. With faith, one ignores conflicting facts and hopes to have it resolved later.

So the assumptions you listed are based on observations, and could be amended if the observations changed -- though they never have.

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]
Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

We can independently observe that the world persists outside our sensory perceptions, and that our perceptions of it are shared. If there's an assumption it's that this will continue into the future. :)

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

This is based on a qualified observation. We can observe that other humans agree on observations in the physical universe, to a high level of exactitude. However, we also know that some things cannot be observed unaided (like X-rays), that naive observation alone can produce methodical error (e.g. we can recognise false positives unless we construct methods to observe this), and scientists are aware that some theoretical ideas may not be observable -- and therefore some unpredicted events may also be unobservable.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

Yes. Proceeding with science assumes that the inquiry might produce an answer. One can't always be sure that it will, but one doesn't have to pursue a line of inquiry indefinitely if other inquiries might be more productive. Yet science has often produced answers that people thought weren't possible.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

That's also based on an observation. Historically, perceptions have at times been inaccurate or biased, and methodology needs to be adapted to correct.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

Yes. The accuracy of scientific theory is contingent on the quality of observations and measurements to date. On the other hand, the accuracy can be highly exact across what has been observed.

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.

Yes -- since we use a limited number of observations to predict a potentially unlimited number of events. That's essentially statistics.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

Yes, but note that these are observational assumptions, not articles of faith.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.

Yes. That's procedural, and deliberate to avoid the risk of error. Natural explanations are rigorously testable by everyone everywhere. They don't care about culture or belief, or how rich you are. So anyone can refute bad data.

Why is that important? Consider:

Almost every major systematic error which has deluded men for thousands of years relied on practical experience. Horoscopes, incantations, oracles, magic, witchcraft, the cures of witch doctors and of medical practitioners before the advent of modern medicine, were all firmly established through the centuries in the eyes of the public by their supposed practical successes. The scientific method was devised precisely for the purpose of elucidating the nature of things under more carefully controlled conditions and by more rigorous criteria than are present in the situations created by practical problems.
-- Michael Polyani, Physical Chemist & Philosopher

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.
-- Francis Bacon, early scientist
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 3:38:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

I'm not certain why it sounds like faith. See below.

No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

This is a very reasonable assumption to make. Let me ask this, if one did not accept this as truth, what exactly should he do? Not eat?(or simulate eating if you prefer)? Anyone who takes a breath of air accepts this assumption.

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

Again a very reasonable assumption? If people did nto strive to understand the physical universe whether it is real or not, there would not be any real or imaginary technical advances. Do you really want to exist in some fashion whether real or imaginary in the stone ages?

Do you see the trend here? My question to you is what is the other option if one does not accept those assumptions as reality? The difference between that and religious faith is that there are no other options. I can't say that I can make the real or imaginary discomfort go away should I punch a brick wall as hard as I can. I can completely ignore religion and have zero repercussions in my imaginary or real life.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

I'm not certain why #4 is an assumption. Technically if one is questioning #1 & 2 first and foremost it assumes there is something real called "human mental processing". You have expressed an assumption built upon an assumption.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

#5 is a valid assumption and one which science accepts for the simple fact that once something is disproved it is imperative to update knowledge. Religion is typically the opposite, it is not built to flex as understandings and knowledge evolves.

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.
http://www.geosociety.org...

This goes hand in hand with #5. If it is not accepted as probabilistic then there is no option of correcting knowledge when it becomes disproved. A great assumption to have as a matter of fact.

These assumptions are important to any discussion of Science as they are the bedrock of Science.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.

Yes, otherwise please share with me on how you would use your non scientific method to gain consensus on who was the the most recent prophet of God to walk on earth from the below selection.
- Joseph Smith
- Jesus
- Mohummad
- Baha'u'llah



The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

It has to be that way or it ends up in sectarian war. Thank your local scientist for bringing peace by eliminating arguments that can not be proven either way and having a process which advances human understanding via consensus building and dissidence.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 5:08:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 3:38:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

I'm not certain why it sounds like faith. See below.


No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

This is a very reasonable assumption to make. Let me ask this, if one did not accept this as truth, what exactly should he do? Not eat?(or simulate eating if you prefer)? Anyone who takes a breath of air accepts this assumption.

A "reasonable assumption".
No convincing evidence, still, a 'reasonable assumption".
So who disagrees?
Or, do you mean to say this is the ONLY reasonable assumption that can be made about such things? You are not clear.
I do take you to mean it is the only reasonable assumption, and there are many who will disagree with you.
Some people believe the world is a creation of the human mind - at least the world the mind perceives, which is to say there may be a world, just a whole lot different.
Ever read Plato's allegory of the cave. It has been half a century for me, but I remember the highlights.
What is your argument against the shadow puppets?
Dozens of books have been written about the nature of reality, that is not what you perceive.
Whether or not you believe it to be reasonable is not the issue.
It is an assumption, with no convincing evidence.
Say you like it as much as you want, no convincing evidence is the bottom line.

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

Again a very reasonable assumption? If people did nto strive to understand the physical universe whether it is real or not, there would not be any real or imaginary technical advances. Do you really want to exist in some fashion whether real or imaginary in the stone ages?

Reasonable again. Broken record.
What part of no convincing evidence do you not understand??
If there is no convincing evidence, then it is reasonable to believe there might be something else.
Why is that not reasonable?
There may be something else, and hold on to your hat - it may be true that not a single person has a clue of what that alternate reality is.
I find it very reasonable that when an idea lacks convincing evidence, it may be false.
What I find unreasonable, is that you disagree.
It sounds reasonable to me.

Do you see the trend here? My question to you is what is the other option if one does not accept those assumptions as reality? The difference between that and religious faith is that there are no other options. I can't say that I can make the real or imaginary discomfort go away should I punch a brick wall as hard as I can. I can completely ignore religion and have zero repercussions in my imaginary or real life.

I see the trend, do you?
Listen, this goes way, way, beyond religious faith.
You just do not have a clue.
Atheists deny these assumptions of Science.
Not that one individual denies all of them, but all of them are denied by real, sane, atheists.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

I'm not certain why #4 is an assumption. Technically if one is questioning #1 & 2 first and foremost it assumes there is something real called "human mental processing". You have expressed an assumption built upon an assumption.

Listen, you need to ask your Scientist friends some of these question, because that is where they came from - you did not miss that part did you?
I did not dream this stuff up - Scientist proclaim it to be Scientific truth.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

#5 is a valid assumption and one which science accepts for the simple fact that once something is disproved it is imperative to update knowledge. Religion is typically the opposite, it is not built to flex as understandings and knowledge evolves.

Valid assumption, with no convincing evidence.
And again with the religion.
Well, I will give you this, you are a two trick pony show.
Reasonable things must be believed, and Science is better than religion.
Half the world disagrees with you, but so what.

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.
http://www.geosociety.org...

This goes hand in hand with #5. If it is not accepted as probabilistic then there is no option of correcting knowledge when it becomes disproved. A great assumption to have as a matter of fact.

These assumptions are important to any discussion of Science as they are the bedrock of Science.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.

Yes, otherwise please share with me on how you would use your non scientific method to gain consensus on who was the the most recent prophet of God to walk on earth from the below selection.
- Joseph Smith
- Jesus
- Mohummad
- Baha'u'llah



The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

It has to be that way or it ends up in sectarian war. Thank your local scientist for bringing peace by eliminating arguments that can not be proven either way and having a process which advances human understanding via consensus building and dissidence.

You make fallacious arguments against factual claims.
Maybe your intent is to show that these beliefs are not a matter of faith.
I tried to save many of us from wasting our time, and yet, you waste our time.

READ: These two groups have belief systems...etc
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 5:24:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 5:08:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/17/2015 3:38:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

I'm not certain why it sounds like faith. See below.


No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

This is a very reasonable assumption to make. Let me ask this, if one did not accept this as truth, what exactly should he do? Not eat?(or simulate eating if you prefer)? Anyone who takes a breath of air accepts this assumption.

A "reasonable assumption".
No convincing evidence, still, a 'reasonable assumption".
So who disagrees?
Or, do you mean to say this is the ONLY reasonable assumption that can be made about such things? You are not clear.
I do take you to mean it is the only reasonable assumption, and there are many who will disagree with you.
Some people believe the world is a creation of the human mind - at least the world the mind perceives, which is to say there may be a world, just a whole lot different.
Ever read Plato's allegory of the cave. It has been half a century for me, but I remember the highlights.
What is your argument against the shadow puppets?
Dozens of books have been written about the nature of reality, that is not what you perceive.
Whether or not you believe it to be reasonable is not the issue.
It is an assumption, with no convincing evidence.
Say you like it as much as you want, no convincing evidence is the bottom line.

Like I said, if you or anyone wants to deny the physicality of the world around you, hold your breath indefinitely and see how well that works out for you. Maybe you will be able to turn your head and stop looking at shadows. Scientists and I will just keep breathing and looking at shadows in happy bliss, if that ends up being the nature of reality, thank you very much.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 5:32:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 5:08:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/17/2015 3:38:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Reasonable again. Broken record.
What part of no convincing evidence do you not understand??
If there is no convincing evidence, then it is reasonable to believe there might be something else.
Why is that not reasonable?
There may be something else, and hold on to your hat - it may be true that not a single person has a clue of what that alternate reality is.
I find it very reasonable that when an idea lacks convincing evidence, it may be false.
What I find unreasonable, is that you disagree.
It sounds reasonable to me.

Do you see the trend here? My question to you is what is the other option if one does not accept those assumptions as reality? The difference between that and religious faith is that there are no other options. I can't say that I can make the real or imaginary discomfort go away should I punch a brick wall as hard as I can. I can completely ignore religion and have zero repercussions in my imaginary or real life.

I see the trend, do you?
Listen, this goes way, way, beyond religious faith.
You just do not have a clue.
Atheists deny these assumptions of Science.
Not that one individual denies all of them, but all of them are denied by real, sane, atheists.

I am not denying these are assumptions. They are indeed assumptions. What I am saying is that you have no better alternative than those assumptions that is more likely to be accurate. In fact, they are less likely to be accurate. The scientific process exists upon things which are measurable. If I think I am measuring something when I really am not then wtf am I going to do about it anyway? Whether there is an alternate reality that is not accurate to what we experience in our current reality is for the realm of sorcerers, religions, spiritualists, snake charmers, and philosophers. The fact is that you have zero method to gain consensus with all the parties that have an explanation of alternative realities.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 11:29:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.
http://www.geosociety.org...

These assumptions are important to any discussion of Science as they are the bedrock of Science.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.


The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

These assumptions come from a standpoint of practicality and pragmatism.

We assume, for example, that the world was not created 5 minutes ago, with all our memories and objects around us planted there by supernatural means to make it seem as though we have lived longer.

Do we have proof, evidence, that our assumption is necessarily true? of coures not, because any evidence could simply be planted evidence.

Is it practical to forgo this assumption? Of course it is. And thats what makes it reasonable.

The natural claim, is, of course, that these things never happened, and that we have lived for longer than 5 minutes, that our history is (Somewhat) accurate and actually occurred, and that some people have been alive today, for up to 100 years.

You would agree with me that this is the reasonable, rational, practical choice, would you not?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 12:02:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.
http://www.geosociety.org...

These assumptions are important to any discussion of Science as they are the bedrock of Science.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.


The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

I think that only 1-3 are assumptions made in science. 4 is scientifically verifiable and not actually assumed. 5 and 6 are just consequences of the scientific method.

The assumptions don't mean that we must take these to be true about reality. The assumptions are simply what are required in order to justify the pursuit of improved understand through science, and in order to interpret the results of experimentation.

To be honest, I think it's rather remarkable that all of what we obtain from science only requires that you assume that reality exists,, that we can learn about reality through experimentation, and that a natural explanation exists for all phenomena. Surely, the transformative effect science has had on our culture and society suggests that these assumptions are not completely ludicrous.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 6:12:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 11:29:25 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.
http://www.geosociety.org...

These assumptions are important to any discussion of Science as they are the bedrock of Science.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.


The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

These assumptions come from a standpoint of practicality and pragmatism.

And a particular mindset, a particular belief system.
Other mindsets say 'Well, there is certainly a whole universe of other possibilities."
Further - 'When we do this Science stuff, let us assume these things are true, with the caveat, Let the user beware, they may be false.'
So some beliefs systems say, 'Of course, no convincing evidence, so what, no big deal.'
Others say 'Agreeable for the same of convenience, but, there are other possibilities.'

We assume, for example, that the world was not created 5 minutes ago, with all our memories and objects around us planted there by supernatural means to make it seem as though we have lived longer.

I just can't help but believe you want to bring religion into the discussion.
My apologies, that is probably not rue, since I made no mention of religion.

Do we have proof, evidence, that our assumption is necessarily true? of coures not, because any evidence could simply be planted evidence.

Is it practical to forgo this assumption? Of course it is. And thats what makes it reasonable.

If you have read my posts, I readily agree it is reasonable to accept these assumptions.
Why bother to point out the obvious, that I have agreed to?
What is not reasonable is to bring religious beliefs to the table.
So despite your efforts to be reasonable, I find you unreasonable.

The natural claim, is, of course, that these things never happened, and that we have lived for longer than 5 minutes, that our history is (Somewhat) accurate and actually occurred, and that some people have been alive today, for up to 100 years.

You would agree with me that this is the reasonable, rational, practical choice, would you not?

Here is what you and others seem to deny.
Sometimes it is 'reasonable' to believe both a, and ~a.
Sometimes it is not , of course, but sometimes it is.
Surely I do not have to have a five minute discussion to show this is true.
So, I agree, what you suggest is reasonable.

Now I have a question for you, and others.
Is it reasonable to believe that anything - repeating - anything -that lacks convincing evidence. might not be true?

I would hope you would agree, as for the most part you seem to be a reasonable person. Of course some people can be reasonable in some aspects, and unreasonable in others. That is, both a and ~a.

So, in order to do this Science stuff, some reasonable things should be assumed to be true, for expedience, even though they might not be.
For myself, I will take them on faith. For others, who do not share my non-religious belief system, they will say faith is not necessary.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 6:12:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 12:02:12 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

I think that only 1-3 are assumptions made in science. 4 is scientifically verifiable and not actually assumed. 5 and 6 are just consequences of the scientific method.

Well them, it seems you know things the general Science community does not.
How marvelous. You need to expound, publish a book, gain notoriety.
You need to show these known nothing Scientists what this stuff is all about.

Wait, there is another possibility.
Maybe your belief system is structured differently than the majority of the Scientific community.
Maybe these principle of Science, developed by Science, based on Science, are too limiting for your belief system, which goes further, goes beyond Science.
The Science community has set the limits, the point of demarcation, you disagree, so you do not speak as a representative of Science.
Your beliefs, differ from the Science community.
This is not so remarkable, except, correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read of your posts, you do seem to want others to believe you do speak for the Science community.
The is confusing for the weak minded, that might be among the subsets of lurkers reading these threads.
Please, state you intentions clearly. Are you a representative of the Science community, or not.
if you are, how do you explain this disagreement with their core principles.

The assumptions don't mean that we must take these to be true about reality. The assumptions are simply what are required in order to justify the pursuit of improved understand through science, and in order to interpret the results of experimentation.

To be honest, I think it's rather remarkable that all of what we obtain from science only requires that you assume that reality exists,, that we can learn about reality through experimentation, and that a natural explanation exists for all phenomena. Surely, the transformative effect science has had on our culture and society suggests that these assumptions are not completely ludicrous.

Ay yes, only ludicrous things are believed by faith, how can the assumptions be a matter of faith.
That is what I infer, as neither my lifted quotes nor my words said they were ludicrous. I only said some of us consider them to be matters of faith.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 7:21:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.
http://www.geosociety.org...

These assumptions are important to any discussion of Science as they are the bedrock of Science.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.


The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

And what other explanations would you like to have considered? Are you contesting that we should consider supernatural explanations as opposed to natural ones?

Supernatural explanations are not considered since evidence for the supernatural is impossible to obtain. It is also impossible to falsify supernatural explanations. Given that there can never have any evidence to support the supernatural nor can it ever be disproved, any supernatural explanation has equal merit as another. So Thor, Mars, Venus, Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster etc... are all just as plausible as the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 7:58:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 7:21:55 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.
http://www.geosociety.org...

These assumptions are important to any discussion of Science as they are the bedrock of Science.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.


The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

And what other explanations would you like to have considered? Are you contesting that we should consider supernatural explanations as opposed to natural ones?

Supernatural explanations are not considered since evidence for the supernatural is impossible to obtain. It is also impossible to falsify supernatural explanations. Given that there can never have any evidence to support the supernatural nor can it ever be disproved, any supernatural explanation has equal merit as another. So Thor, Mars, Venus, Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster etc... are all just as plausible as the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions.

Why do you and so many others think that when I am describing, I am prescribing?????
Where, in my OP do I given the slightest hint that things should be otherwise???
Why, why, why.
Have you read the posters who disagree with these points, here or in other threads?
Because of that, I felt a need to describe.
I try to make it simple, but the simple minded do not understand.

In another thread someone asks the true-false question:
"Scientists believe everything has a natural explanation"
I do not see that you answered that question.
Can you tell me how you would answer that question, in light of your comment "Supernatural explanations are not considered since evidence for the supernatural is impossible to obtain".
Thank you for your consideration.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 8:39:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 6:12:55 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 12:02:12 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

I think that only 1-3 are assumptions made in science. 4 is scientifically verifiable and not actually assumed. 5 and 6 are just consequences of the scientific method.

Well them, it seems you know things the general Science community does not.
How marvelous. You need to expound, publish a book, gain notoriety.
You need to show these known nothing Scientists what this stuff is all about.


What exactly do I know that the scientific community does not? You didn't present the views of the scientific community. You presented the views of a person. Maybe I see things differently than this person. How does this imply that I know things about science that the general scientific community doesn't, or that I disagree with the community? Does the person/people you were quoting and paraphrasing from represent the entire community?

Wait, there is another possibility.
Maybe your belief system is structured differently than the majority of the Scientific community.
Maybe these principle of Science, developed by Science, based on Science, are too limiting for your belief system, which goes further, goes beyond Science.
The Science community has set the limits, the point of demarcation, you disagree, so you do not speak as a representative of Science.
Your beliefs, differ from the Science community.
This is not so remarkable, except, correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read of your posts, you do seem to want others to believe you do speak for the Science community.
The is confusing for the weak minded, that might be among the subsets of lurkers reading these threads.
Please, state you intentions clearly. Are you a representative of the Science community, or not.
if you are, how do you explain this disagreement with their core principles.

The assumptions don't mean that we must take these to be true about reality. The assumptions are simply what are required in order to justify the pursuit of improved understand through science, and in order to interpret the results of experimentation.

To be honest, I think it's rather remarkable that all of what we obtain from science only requires that you assume that reality exists,, that we can learn about reality through experimentation, and that a natural explanation exists for all phenomena. Surely, the transformative effect science has had on our culture and society suggests that these assumptions are not completely ludicrous.

Ay yes, only ludicrous things are believed by faith, how can the assumptions be a matter of faith.

Who said anything about that? Is that your opinion?

That is what I infer, as neither my lifted quotes nor my words said they were ludicrous. I only said some of us consider them to be matters of faith.

I don't know why you're getting hung up on the word 'ludicrous'. It was a somewhat colourful way of saying that these assumptions, for practical purposes, seem justified.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 9:07:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 8:39:44 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 6:12:55 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 12:02:12 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

I think that only 1-3 are assumptions made in science. 4 is scientifically verifiable and not actually assumed. 5 and 6 are just consequences of the scientific method.

Well them, it seems you know things the general Science community does not.
How marvelous. You need to expound, publish a book, gain notoriety.
You need to show these known nothing Scientists what this stuff is all about.


What exactly do I know that the scientific community does not? You didn't present the views of the scientific community. You presented the views of a person. Maybe I see things differently than this person. How does this imply that I know things about science that the general scientific community doesn't, or that I disagree with the community? Does the person/people you were quoting and paraphrasing from represent the entire community?

Did you read the OP???
Did you understand the OP?
Specifically, that part that said: From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org...... ]
The national Geological Society of America is not 'a person'.
It is not they alone who says these things, as they quote their source.

Do you understand the meaning of 'core beliefs'?
Of course they represent the entire community.
You disagree with core beliefs of the Science community.
Members of a community of believers accept core beliefs as true, no explanation needed.
If someone presents themselves as a community member, but disagrees with core beliefs, well, heretic comes to mind, although that is a strong word.
If someone rejects core beliefs, their allegiance is certainly in question.

Wait, there is another possibility.
Maybe your belief system is structured differently than the majority of the Scientific community.
Maybe these principle of Science, developed by Science, based on Science, are too limiting for your belief system, which goes further, goes beyond Science.
The Science community has set the limits, the point of demarcation, you disagree, so you do not speak as a representative of Science.
Your beliefs, differ from the Science community.
This is not so remarkable, except, correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read of your posts, you do seem to want others to believe you do speak for the Science community.
The is confusing for the weak minded, that might be among the subsets of lurkers reading these threads.
Please, state you intentions clearly. Are you a representative of the Science community, or not.
if you are, how do you explain this disagreement with their core principles.

The assumptions don't mean that we must take these to be true about reality. The assumptions are simply what are required in order to justify the pursuit of improved understand through science, and in order to interpret the results of experimentation.

To be honest, I think it's rather remarkable that all of what we obtain from science only requires that you assume that reality exists,, that we can learn about reality through experimentation, and that a natural explanation exists for all phenomena. Surely, the transformative effect science has had on our culture and society suggests that these assumptions are not completely ludicrous.

Ay yes, only ludicrous things are believed by faith, how can the assumptions be a matter of faith.

Who said anything about that? Is that your opinion?

That is what I infer, as neither my lifted quotes nor my words said they were ludicrous. I only said some of us consider them to be matters of faith.

I don't know why you're getting hung up on the word 'ludicrous'. It was a somewhat colourful way of saying that these assumptions, for practical purposes, seem justified.

'Justified"
For 'practical purposes, seem justified'.
Yes, true or not, pragmatically speaking, they are justified.
Have I said any less?
They are still assumptions, as stated by professional organizations of Science.
To my knowledge, there are no exceptions, no professional organizations who disagree, so your claim - that #4 are #5 are not assumptions, according to the Science community, seems ludicrous, not justified.

So, after further consideration, which is it?
Do you accept the core beliefs of the Science community, that these five points are all assumptions, or are you a deviant?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 9:27:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 9:07:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 8:39:44 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 6:12:55 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 12:02:12 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

I think that only 1-3 are assumptions made in science. 4 is scientifically verifiable and not actually assumed. 5 and 6 are just consequences of the scientific method.

Well them, it seems you know things the general Science community does not.
How marvelous. You need to expound, publish a book, gain notoriety.
You need to show these known nothing Scientists what this stuff is all about.


What exactly do I know that the scientific community does not? You didn't present the views of the scientific community. You presented the views of a person. Maybe I see things differently than this person. How does this imply that I know things about science that the general scientific community doesn't, or that I disagree with the community? Does the person/people you were quoting and paraphrasing from represent the entire community?

Did you read the OP???
Did you understand the OP?
Specifically, that part that said: From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org...... ]
The national Geological Society of America is not 'a person'.
It is not they alone who says these things, as they quote their source.

So Nickels and the NGSA represent the entire scientific community? I don't think so. And I think this report, meant for laypeople, was sloppily constructed in some ways.


Do you understand the meaning of 'core beliefs'?
Of course they represent the entire community.
You disagree with core beliefs of the Science community.
Members of a community of believers accept core beliefs as true, no explanation needed.
If someone presents themselves as a community member, but disagrees with core beliefs, well, heretic comes to mind, although that is a strong word.
If someone rejects core beliefs, their allegiance is certainly in question.

As I said, these assumptions are not required to be believed about reality. They are required practically for using the scientific method meaningfully. Outside of practising science, scientists aren't required to have any position on these assumptions.


Wait, there is another possibility.
Maybe your belief system is structured differently than the majority of the Scientific community.
Maybe these principle of Science, developed by Science, based on Science, are too limiting for your belief system, which goes further, goes beyond Science.
The Science community has set the limits, the point of demarcation, you disagree, so you do not speak as a representative of Science.
Your beliefs, differ from the Science community.
This is not so remarkable, except, correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read of your posts, you do seem to want others to believe you do speak for the Science community.
The is confusing for the weak minded, that might be among the subsets of lurkers reading these threads.
Please, state you intentions clearly. Are you a representative of the Science community, or not.
if you are, how do you explain this disagreement with their core principles.

The assumptions don't mean that we must take these to be true about reality. The assumptions are simply what are required in order to justify the pursuit of improved understand through science, and in order to interpret the results of experimentation.

To be honest, I think it's rather remarkable that all of what we obtain from science only requires that you assume that reality exists,, that we can learn about reality through experimentation, and that a natural explanation exists for all phenomena. Surely, the transformative effect science has had on our culture and society suggests that these assumptions are not completely ludicrous.

Ay yes, only ludicrous things are believed by faith, how can the assumptions be a matter of faith.

Who said anything about that? Is that your opinion?

That is what I infer, as neither my lifted quotes nor my words said they were ludicrous. I only said some of us consider them to be matters of faith.

I don't know why you're getting hung up on the word 'ludicrous'. It was a somewhat colourful way of saying that these assumptions, for practical purposes, seem justified.

'Justified"
For 'practical purposes, seem justified'.
Yes, true or not, pragmatically speaking, they are justified.
Have I said any less?
They are still assumptions, as stated by professional organizations of Science.
To my knowledge, there are no exceptions, no professional organizations who disagree, so your claim - that #4 are #5 are not assumptions, according to the Science community, seems ludicrous, not justified.

I still contest that #4 can be empirically verified, and therefore does not need to be assumed. #5 is also empirically verified and is a consequence of the scientific method, not an assumption required to use the scientific method. And #6 is just a consequence of the scientific method, also not an assumption.

Do you have anything other than argument from authority to argue against those points?


So, after further consideration, which is it?
Do you accept the core beliefs of the Science community, that these five points are all assumptions, or are you a deviant?

According to you, I'd be a deviant. No issue with that, we have no problem with deviants in science. According to me, the NSGA article was sloppy in their attempt to explain science to a general reader, and included in its list of assumptions certain items that are not assumptions at all.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 9:51:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 9:27:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:07:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 8:39:44 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 6:12:55 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 12:02:12 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

The national Geological Society of America is not 'a person'.
It is not they alone who says these things, as they quote their source.

So Nickels and the NGSA represent the entire scientific community? I don't think so. And I think this report, meant for laypeople, was sloppily constructed in some ways.

No, but all professional organizations of Science do represent the Science community.
You and the Grand Pupah - not so much.


Do you understand the meaning of 'core beliefs'?
Of course they represent the entire community.
You disagree with core beliefs of the Science community.
Members of a community of believers accept core beliefs as true, no explanation needed.
If someone presents themselves as a community member, but disagrees with core beliefs, well, heretic comes to mind, although that is a strong word.
If someone rejects core beliefs, their allegiance is certainly in question.

As I said, these assumptions are not required to be believed about reality. They are required practically for using the scientific method meaningfully. Outside of practising science, scientists aren't required to have any position on these assumptions.

Of course, scientists are free to worship all the Invisible Pink Unicorns they want, but not when they do their science.
When any person speaks as a Scientist, they are not free to speak their deviant beliefs as representing Science. The speak for themselves only.
A point that seems to escape you.

Wait, there is another possibility.
Maybe your belief system is structured differently than the majority of the Scientific community.
Maybe these principle of Science, developed by Science, based on Science, are too limiting for your belief system, which goes further, goes beyond Science.
The Science community has set the limits, the point of demarcation, you disagree, so you do not speak as a representative of Science.
Your beliefs, differ from the Science community.
This is not so remarkable, except, correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read of your posts, you do seem to want others to believe you do speak for the Science community.
The is confusing for the weak minded, that might be among the subsets of lurkers reading these threads.
Please, state you intentions clearly. Are you a representative of the Science community, or not.
if you are, how do you explain this disagreement with their core principles.

The assumptions don't mean that we must take these to be true about reality. The assumptions are simply what are required in order to justify the pursuit of improved understand through science, and in order to interpret the results of experimentation.

To be honest, I think it's rather remarkable that all of what we obtain from science only requires that you assume that reality exists,, that we can learn about reality through experimentation, and that a natural explanation exists for all phenomena. Surely, the transformative effect science has had on our culture and society suggests that these assumptions are not completely ludicrous.

Ay yes, only ludicrous things are believed by faith, how can the assumptions be a matter of faith.

Who said anything about that? Is that your opinion?

That is what I infer, as neither my lifted quotes nor my words said they were ludicrous. I only said some of us consider them to be matters of faith.

I don't know why you're getting hung up on the word 'ludicrous'. It was a somewhat colourful way of saying that these assumptions, for practical purposes, seem justified.

'Justified"
For 'practical purposes, seem justified'.
Yes, true or not, pragmatically speaking, they are justified.
Have I said any less?
They are still assumptions, as stated by professional organizations of Science.
To my knowledge, there are no exceptions, no professional organizations who disagree, so your claim - that #4 are #5 are not assumptions, according to the Science community, seems ludicrous, not justified.

I still contest that #4 can be empirically verified, and therefore does not need to be assumed. #5 is also empirically verified and is a consequence of the scientific method, not an assumption required to use the scientific method. And #6 is just a consequence of the scientific method, also not an assumption.

Well, you choose to be a deviant.
That is fine.
The Scientific Method verifies #5, so #5 is not an assumption required to use the SM.
Wow, that is ludicrous.
I have some sacred books that I can recommend, that you should find very interesting.
For example, the Qu'ran verifies that it is the true word of God, no need to doubt it, question it, or support it with any other source.
That would be right up your alley.

Do you have anything other than argument from authority to argue against those points?

How about logic?
Oh, never mind, you don't fancy it much.
How about this.
Core beliefs require no support.

I suspected you were a no-nothing about such things.
No point in trying to educate you now.
Core beliefs are above reproach, need no justification, although certainly believers have justification for their acceptance of core beliefs.
Too bad you do not understand such things.

So, after further consideration, which is it?
Do you accept the core beliefs of the Science community, that these five points are all assumptions, or are you a deviant?

According to you, I'd be a deviant. No issue with that, we have no problem with deviants in science. According to me, the NSGA article was sloppy in their attempt to explain science to a general reader, and included in its list of assumptions certain items that are not assumptions at all.

Not just NSGA, but every professional organization in existence, unless you can give any examples otherwise.
Deviant is too nice a word for you, it seems to me heretic is more fitting.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 10:26:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 9:51:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:27:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:07:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 8:39:44 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 6:12:55 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 12:02:12 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

The national Geological Society of America is not 'a person'.
It is not they alone who says these things, as they quote their source.

So Nickels and the NGSA represent the entire scientific community? I don't think so. And I think this report, meant for laypeople, was sloppily constructed in some ways.

No, but all professional organizations of Science do represent the Science community.
You and the Grand Pupah - not so much.

All professional science organizations agree with that list of assumptions? You certainly haven't substantiated that claim yet.



Do you understand the meaning of 'core beliefs'?
Of course they represent the entire community.
You disagree with core beliefs of the Science community.
Members of a community of believers accept core beliefs as true, no explanation needed.
If someone presents themselves as a community member, but disagrees with core beliefs, well, heretic comes to mind, although that is a strong word.
If someone rejects core beliefs, their allegiance is certainly in question.

As I said, these assumptions are not required to be believed about reality. They are required practically for using the scientific method meaningfully. Outside of practising science, scientists aren't required to have any position on these assumptions.

Of course, scientists are free to worship all the Invisible Pink Unicorns they want, but not when they do their science.
When any person speaks as a Scientist, they are not free to speak their deviant beliefs as representing Science. The speak for themselves only.
A point that seems to escape you.

And when did I claim to represent science or the scientific community?


Wait, there is another possibility.
Maybe your belief system is structured differently than the majority of the Scientific community.
Maybe these principle of Science, developed by Science, based on Science, are too limiting for your belief system, which goes further, goes beyond Science.
The Science community has set the limits, the point of demarcation, you disagree, so you do not speak as a representative of Science.
Your beliefs, differ from the Science community.
This is not so remarkable, except, correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read of your posts, you do seem to want others to believe you do speak for the Science community.
The is confusing for the weak minded, that might be among the subsets of lurkers reading these threads.
Please, state you intentions clearly. Are you a representative of the Science community, or not.
if you are, how do you explain this disagreement with their core principles.

The assumptions don't mean that we must take these to be true about reality. The assumptions are simply what are required in order to justify the pursuit of improved understand through science, and in order to interpret the results of experimentation.

To be honest, I think it's rather remarkable that all of what we obtain from science only requires that you assume that reality exists,, that we can learn about reality through experimentation, and that a natural explanation exists for all phenomena. Surely, the transformative effect science has had on our culture and society suggests that these assumptions are not completely ludicrous.

Ay yes, only ludicrous things are believed by faith, how can the assumptions be a matter of faith.

Who said anything about that? Is that your opinion?

That is what I infer, as neither my lifted quotes nor my words said they were ludicrous. I only said some of us consider them to be matters of faith.

I don't know why you're getting hung up on the word 'ludicrous'. It was a somewhat colourful way of saying that these assumptions, for practical purposes, seem justified.

'Justified"
For 'practical purposes, seem justified'.
Yes, true or not, pragmatically speaking, they are justified.
Have I said any less?
They are still assumptions, as stated by professional organizations of Science.
To my knowledge, there are no exceptions, no professional organizations who disagree, so your claim - that #4 are #5 are not assumptions, according to the Science community, seems ludicrous, not justified.

I still contest that #4 can be empirically verified, and therefore does not need to be assumed. #5 is also empirically verified and is a consequence of the scientific method, not an assumption required to use the scientific method. And #6 is just a consequence of the scientific method, also not an assumption.

Well, you choose to be a deviant.
That is fine.
The Scientific Method verifies #5, so #5 is not an assumption required to use the SM.
Wow, that is ludicrous.
I have some sacred books that I can recommend, that you should find very interesting.
For example, the Qu'ran verifies that it is the true word of God, no need to doubt it, question it, or support it with any other source.
That would be right up your alley.

You're misunderstanding. I'm not saying that those points are assumed and then verified by science. They never needed to be assumed in the first place. They are verifiable by science, and did not need to be assumed in order to make that verification. Can you give me any indication as to why #4, #5, or #6 would need to be assumed in order to do science?

Do you have anything other than argument from authority to argue against those points?

How about logic?
Oh, never mind, you don't fancy it much.
How about this.
Core beliefs require no support.

I suspected you were a no-nothing about such things.
No point in trying to educate you now.
Core beliefs are above reproach, need no justification, although certainly believers have justification for their acceptance of core beliefs.
Too bad you do not understand such things.

Core beliefs generally are unsupported, but I am of the opinion that even core beliefs should be justified.

Please do present your logic. It would be more productive than silly attempts to just insult me.

So, after further consideration, which is it?
Do you accept the core beliefs of the Science community, that these five points are all assumptions, or are you a deviant?

According to you, I'd be a deviant. No issue with that, we have no problem with deviants in science. According to me, the NSGA article was sloppy in their attempt to explain science to a general reader, and included in its list of assumptions certain items that are not assumptions at all.

Not just NSGA, but every professional organization in existence, unless you can give any examples otherwise.
Deviant is too nice a word for you, it seems to me heretic is more fitting.

Why don't we keep the burden of proof on the one claiming that "every professional organization in existence" maintains these 6 'assumptions'?

Call me what you will. It has no bearing on whether my statements are valid or invalid. If you want to argue about what it takes to do science, why don't you become a scientist?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 11:08:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 10:26:47 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:51:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:27:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:07:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 8:39:44 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 6:12:55 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 12:02:12 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

When any person speaks as a Scientist, they are not free to speak their deviant beliefs as representing Science. The speak for themselves only.
A point that seems to escape you.

And when did I claim to represent science or the scientific community?

Here is my question to you, post #10: The Science community has set the limits, the point of demarcation, you disagree, so you do not speak as a representative of Science.
Your beliefs, differ from the Science community.
This is not so remarkable, except, correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read of your posts, you do seem to want others to believe you do speak for the Science community.


You make no denial, so this issue have been covered,

From the same post: This is confusing for the weak minded, that might be among the subsets of lurkers reading these threads.
Please, state you intentions clearly. Are you a representative of the Science community, or not.
if you are, how do you explain this disagreement with their core principles.


So again I give you the same opportunity - Deny that you speak as a representative of the Science community, and the matter will be settled.
If you were just a better reader, this would be so much easier.



The assumptions don't mean that we must take these to be true about reality. The assumptions are simply what are required in order to justify the pursuit of improved understand through science, and in order to interpret the results of experimentation.

To be honest, I think it's rather remarkable that all of what we obtain from science only requires that you assume that reality exists,, that we can learn about reality through experimentation, and that a natural explanation exists for all phenomena. Surely, the transformative effect science has had on our culture and society suggests that these assumptions are not completely ludicrous.

Ay yes, only ludicrous things are believed by faith, how can the assumptions be a matter of faith.

Who said anything about that? Is that your opinion?

That is what I infer, as neither my lifted quotes nor my words said they were ludicrous. I only said some of us consider them to be matters of faith.

I don't know why you're getting hung up on the word 'ludicrous'. It was a somewhat colourful way of saying that these assumptions, for practical purposes, seem justified.


Well, you choose to be a deviant.
That is fine.
The Scientific Method verifies #5, so #5 is not an assumption required to use the SM.
Wow, that is ludicrous.
I have some sacred books that I can recommend, that you should find very interesting.
For example, the Qu'ran verifies that it is the true word of God, no need to doubt it, question it, or support it with any other source.
That would be right up your alley.

You're misunderstanding. I'm not saying that those points are assumed and then verified by science. They never needed to be assumed in the first place. They are verifiable by science, and did not need to be assumed in order to make that verification. Can you give me any indication as to why #4, #5, or #6 would need to be assumed in order to do science?


Do you even read what you write?
Your words: I'm not saying that those points are assumed and then verified by science. They never needed to be assumed in the first place. They are verifiable by science,


You complain because I say they are assumed, then self verified, because, you contend, they are self verified before they are ever assumed.

How can they possibly be verified, until, before, they are assumed?
First the assumption, and then the verification.
Am I being pranked? Come on, fess up.

I am not the one who says they are assumptions, the Scientific community says these things, your disagreement is with them. You disagree with your peers, and want me to explain what they are thinking, I will have none of it.
Whether I agree with them is not the issue.
Whether I understand why they say these things is not the issue.
I present the core beliefs of the Science community.
Accept them, or not , as you choose.

Do you have anything other than argument from authority to argue against those points?

How about logic?
Oh, never mind, you don't fancy it much.
How about this.
Core beliefs require no support.

I suspected you were a no-nothing about such things.
No point in trying to educate you now.
Core beliefs are above reproach, need no justification, although certainly believers have justification for their acceptance of core beliefs.
Too bad you do not understand such things.

Core beliefs generally are unsupported, but I am of the opinion that even core beliefs should be justified.

Wrong.
Core beliefs are never supported, except by apologists.
Your opinion does not matter much.
You want to write a new textbook, have at it.
Core beliefs stand on their own merit, and support the belief system.

Please do present your logic. It would be more productive than silly attempts to just insult me.

There is no need, as I indicated.
That is the secondary reason, and the first has not been refuted, except by your completely unsupported opinion.

So, after further consideration, which is it?
Do you accept the core beliefs of the Science community, that these five points are all assumptions, or are you a deviant?

According to you, I'd be a deviant. No issue with that, we have no problem with deviants in science. According to me, the NSGA article was sloppy in their attempt to explain science to a general reader, and included in its list of assumptions certain items that are not assumptions at all.

Not just NSGA, but every professional organization in existence, unless you can give any examples otherwise.
Deviant is too nice a word for you, it seems to me heretic is more fitting.

Why don't we keep the burden of proof on the one claiming that "every professional organization in existence" maintains these 6 'assumptions'?

Give the full quote. Try to be honest.
"every professional organization in existence, unless you can give any examples otherwise"

Honestly, I lowered the bar as far as possible.
Show one, and my statement will need amended.
You ask me to show thousands, and I ask for one, well, since I pluralized the word, two would be better.

Call me what you will. It has no bearing on whether my statements are valid or invalid. If you want to argue about what it takes to do science, why don't you become a scientist

I do not have to be a dog, to learn about dogs.
Another point of logic, that probably escapes you.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 11:57:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 10:26:47 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:51:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:27:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:07:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 8:39:44 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 6:12:55 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 12:02:12 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:

If you want to argue about what it takes to do science, why don't you become a scientist?

I am in the process of reading Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
He did get his PhD in physics, but he was not a scientist before he wrote this book, that is arguable one of the three most important books about Science in the last century.
I know what your advice to him would have been before he published.
'Be a scientist first.'
I am no Thomas Kuhn, do not accuse me of that claim.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 1:03:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The argument marshaled by our Original Poster is that if a body of observers makes a procedural assumption based on observation, then a body of believers is equally justified in explaining anything on no evidence at all.

There are four key criteria to the legitimate use of assumptions:

1) Parsimony: An assumption should not be adopted at all unless it is both credible and procedurally necessary;
2) Uncertainty: An assumption is not an explanation, but a documented uncertainty of process;
3) Diligence: All assumptions should be tested constantly for validity; and
4) Falsification: Any assumption must yield to conflicting evidence.

Pseudoscience and other faith-based beliefs are built on ignoring these principles. Assumptions aren't parsimonious but profligate; they're treated as facts rather than uncertainties; there is no diligence in seeking to refute them; and conflicting evidence is ignored rather than invalidating the assumption.

This is why science is able to make exact predictions, adapt to new information and improve itself, and why both religion and pseudoscience conspicuously fail to do so.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 2:33:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 1:03:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
The argument marshaled by our Original Poster is that if a body of observers makes a procedural assumption based on observation, then a body of believers is equally justified in explaining anything on no evidence at all.

There are four key criteria to the legitimate use of assumptions:

And how do you verify that these are the necessary and sufficient criteria?
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 3:23:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 2:33:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/18/2015 1:03:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
The argument marshaled by our Original Poster is that if a body of observers makes a procedural assumption based on observation, then a body of believers is equally justified in explaining anything on no evidence at all.
And how do you verify that these are the necessary and sufficient criteria?

It depends on our purpose in reasoning.

Let's suppose our purpose is to produce effective, robust insight. Procedurally we may need to make assumptions simply because our environment is uncertain and we may not have the time or resources to reduce the uncertainty.

So we're willing to carry some risk in order to make progress, but we don't want the risk to become prolonged, systematic error.

So we make assumptions, but document and manage them carefully.

How do the principles of parsimony, explicit uncertainty, diligence and falsification help with this?

Parsimony reduces exposure by minimising the scope of potential falsehood, and ensures that the assumptions don't beg the question;
Uncertainty: flagging assumptions explicitly lets us consider risk as part of solution;
Diligence: reaffirms validity by retesting assumptions as the observations and inferences grow;
Falsification: promptly discarding false assumptions reduces the impact of any error that is detected.

These steps are made necessary by our intention; they're not sufficient to produce truth, but our commitment to rigour and robustness requires them.

Of course, if your intention isn't rigour and robustness -- if it's just to gain influence over the minds of the ignorant, say -- you wouldn't do it that way. Firstly, you wouldn't be parsimonious in assumptions: you'd load up on as many fanciful but reassuring assertions as you needed to produce the desired answer, you'd cherrypick evidence in support, and and ensure it was either subjective or opaque. Instead of being diligent in challenging your own assumptions, you'd make your dogma doctrinal and insist that it's an offense to question it. And in the face of conflicting facts, you'd work to discredit or dismiss the facts rather than challenge the assumptions.

Then, in order to shield yourself from arguments of fallacy, laziness and deceit, you'd insist that all assumptions are equivalent, and claim that everyone does things the way you do.

And whether deliberate or not, that's what we have in the Original Post.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 12:52:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 11:08:54 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 10:26:47 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:51:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

When any person speaks as a Scientist, they are not free to speak their deviant beliefs as representing Science. The speak for themselves only.
A point that seems to escape you.

And when did I claim to represent science or the scientific community?

Here is my question to you, post #10: The Science community has set the limits, the point of demarcation, you disagree, so you do not speak as a representative of Science.
Your beliefs, differ from the Science community.
This is not so remarkable, except, correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read of your posts, you do seem to want others to believe you do speak for the Science community.


You make no denial, so this issue have been covered,

From the same post: This is confusing for the weak minded, that might be among the subsets of lurkers reading these threads.
Please, state you intentions clearly. Are you a representative of the Science community, or not.
if you are, how do you explain this disagreement with their core principles.


So again I give you the same opportunity - Deny that you speak as a representative of the Science community, and the matter will be settled.
If you were just a better reader, this would be so much easier.

You are in error, so I am correcting you. No one speaks for the scientific community, including myself. I am fairly certain that I have only stated that I am a member of the scientific community. These are clearly not the same thing.


You're misunderstanding. I'm not saying that those points are assumed and then verified by science. They never needed to be assumed in the first place. They are verifiable by science, and did not need to be assumed in order to make that verification. Can you give me any indication as to why #4, #5, or #6 would need to be assumed in order to do science?


Do you even read what you write?
Your words: I'm not saying that those points are assumed and then verified by science. They never needed to be assumed in the first place. They are verifiable by science,


You complain because I say they are assumed, then self verified, because, you contend, they are self verified before they are ever assumed.

Something that is verified isn't assumed, by the definition of 'assumed'. I can see why my statement was ambiguous though. I am was saying that I did not mean (A and B), but that I meant (not(A) and B) (additionally, not(A) because B), where A is property of being assumed, and B is the property of being verified.


How can they possibly be verified, until, before, they are assumed?
First the assumption, and then the verification.
Am I being pranked? Come on, fess up.

They can't. That's not what I'm saying. That doesn't even make sense. To make make it simple, 4 through 6 are not assumed because they are verified, in the same sense that I don't need to assume a priori anything that I can verify empirically.

I am not the one who says they are assumptions, the Scientific community says these things, your disagreement is with them. You disagree with your peers, and want me to explain what they are thinking, I will have none of it.
Whether I agree with them is not the issue.
Whether I understand why they say these things is not the issue.
I present the core beliefs of the Science community.
Accept them, or not , as you choose.

What does that even mean? The scientific community unanimously agrees that these are six of the assumptions in science? Most of the scientific community? Certain scientific bodies (you've only presented one, as far as I can tell, who state these assumptions in a report directed to laypeople)? Who speaks for the scientific community, in your mind?

By the way, I disagree with my peers frequently, so even if it were true, that wouldn't trouble me at all. That is a normal part of us working together in science.

Do you have anything other than argument from authority to argue against those points?

How about logic?
Oh, never mind, you don't fancy it much.
How about this.
Core beliefs require no support.

I suspected you were a no-nothing about such things.
No point in trying to educate you now.
Core beliefs are above reproach, need no justification, although certainly believers have justification for their acceptance of core beliefs.
Too bad you do not understand such things.

Core beliefs generally are unsupported, but I am of the opinion that even core beliefs should be justified.

Wrong.
Core beliefs are never supported, except by apologists.
Your opinion does not matter much.
You want to write a new textbook, have at it.
Core beliefs stand on their own merit, and support the belief system.

That may be your definition of "core belief", but that doesn't address what I said. Let me rephrase it. All core beliefs should be questioned and validated or invalidated to the extent possible.

Please do present your logic. It would be more productive than silly attempts to just insult me.

There is no need, as I indicated.
That is the secondary reason, and the first has not been refuted, except by your completely unsupported opinion.

You had a primary reason? Either we have very different definitions of 'reason', or whatever real point you attempted to make was drowned out by all of the noise you make, which seems to be your true goal.

Not just NSGA, but every professional organization in existence, unless you can give any examples otherwise.
Deviant is too nice a word for you, it seems to me heretic is more fitting.

Why don't we keep the burden of proof on the one claiming that "every professional organization in existence" maintains these 6 'assumptions'?

Give the full quote. Try to be honest.
"every professional organization in existence, unless you can give any examples otherwise"

Did you not understand what I said? How does leaving out that clause imply dishonesty? I clearly indicated that you were shifting the burden of proof. No need for you to reiterate my point that you are shifting the burden of proof.

Honestly, I lowered the bar as far as possible.
Show one, and my statement will need amended.
You ask me to show thousands, and I ask for one, well, since I pluralized the word, two would be better.

I asked you to show thousands? Where did I ask you that? I asked you to justify your own claim, and somehow you think the burden of proof is on me to prove that your absurd claim is false. Remember that you said "every profession organization in existence". The National Basketball Association does not state that the assumptions you listed are indeed the assumptions made by science. Oh of course, you meant to say scientific organizations. Here is the list of assumptions made by science according to UC Berkeley's resources for new science undergraduates: http://undsci.berkeley.edu... Notice how the assumptions they list don't include the three that I contended. And that was just the first place I looked.

Call me what you will. It has no bearing on whether my statements are valid or invalid. If you want to argue about what it takes to do science, why don't you become a scientist

I do not have to be a dog, to learn about dogs.
Another point of logic, that probably escapes you.

I agree, and I never implied otherwise. Yet if you wanted an inside perspective on what is required to do good science, then it certainly helps to be a scientist. Do you disagree?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 7:27:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 12:52:23 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 11:08:54 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Here is the source of several major points of disagreement between us, and your cohort as well.
There is no sense proceeding if we cannot iron out this issue.

WW: Core beliefs are never supported, except by apologists.
Your opinion does not matter much.
You want to write a new textbook, have at it.
Core beliefs stand on their own merit, and support the belief system.

UndeniableRreality That may be your definition of "core belief", but that doesn't address what I said. Let me rephrase it. All core beliefs should be :questioned and :validated or invalidated to the extent possible.

This is not my definition. This is standard usage of the terms "core beliefs" and "belief system".
You do not get to make up your own meaning, in conversations across belief systems.
I have lifted some quotes and provide the link to show that belief systems cannot be judged across belief system lines.

Scientists or Atheists do not have the credentials to judge other core beliefs, and belief systems, such as Theistic belief systems.

They do not get to name the necessary and sufficient conditions for assumptions that form core beliefs of other belief systems, only their own.

This essay was written by members of the Applied Mathematics department of a University, not some religious blog.
You and your friend are in the habit of making questionable and erroneous claims, and when I call for an explanation, there is only silence.
I ask for substantiation of bogus claims, and get nothing. This is more true for your friend, whom you endorse as being honest and honorable.

When the burden of proof in up to your side, for some reason it is not provided, only opinions, that I know are not consistent with actual events.

~
The use of the term "belief system" can be highly confusing. Psychologists, political
scientists and anthropologists tend to use the term in rather different senses. There is
some network of interrelated concepts and propositions at varying levels of generality,
and there are some processes by which a human or a computer accesses and manipulates that knowledge under current activating circumstances and/or in the service of particular current purposes. Belief systems are structures of norms that are interrelated and that vary mainly in the degree in which they are systemic. What is systemic in the Belief system is the interrelation between several beliefs. What features warrant calling this stored body of concepts a belief system? Belief systems are the stories we tell ourselves to define our personal sense of Reality. Every human being has a belief system that they utilize, and it is through this mechanism that we individually, "make sense" of the world around us.
~
The species Homo sapiens developed so-called belief systems. These are sets of beliefs reinforced by culture, theology, and experience and training as to how the world works cultural values, stereotypes, political viewpoints, etc. Beliefs are often considered as convictions or as religious beliefs, but as scientists, there are also philosophical beliefs relating to the sphere of daily life. If a stimulus is received, it may be interpreted through the belief system to be whatever the belief system might lead the recipient to rationalize. A belief system need have no basis in reality so long as it consistently provides adequate explanations. It takes us to define a human being like Homo religious.

[The characteristics and elements of belief systems are then listed, followed by a conclusion.]
CONCLUSIONS
Conflict between two groups, including war, may be defined as a battle between beliefs Systems. Symbols emerge strongly in such conflicts: they may be revered objects as stones, writings, buildings, flags or badges; whatever they may be, they may symbolize the central core of belief system. When people become symbols, the real person may become obscured behind the projected symbolic image or person. Organizations develop their own in-house culture and belief system, too, which leads them to act and behave in ways that might not seem entirely rational to an outsider. Then:
a) Conflicts are not over Ideological Technology but over what symbolizes technological difference.
b) Substantive beliefs are understood only in terms of ideal values, criteria of validity, language and perspective.
c) Believer is usually better able to verbalize substantive beliefs than he is values, criteria, logical principles or orientation, which is apt to be the unquestioned bases from which he proceeds.
d) Ideal values, criteria of validity, language and perspective may have been built up around a substantive belief to give it significance and justification.

http://www.vub.ac.be...
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 8:54:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 7:27:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/19/2015 12:52:23 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 11:08:54 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Here is the source of several major points of disagreement between us, and your cohort as well.
There is no sense proceeding if we cannot iron out this issue.

WW: Core beliefs are never supported, except by apologists.
Your opinion does not matter much.
You want to write a new textbook, have at it.
Core beliefs stand on their own merit, and support the belief system.

UndeniableRreality That may be your definition of "core belief", but that doesn't address what I said. Let me rephrase it. All core beliefs should be :questioned and :validated or invalidated to the extent possible.

This is not my definition. This is standard usage of the terms "core beliefs" and "belief system".
You do not get to make up your own meaning, in conversations across belief systems.
I have lifted some quotes and provide the link to show that belief systems cannot be judged across belief system lines.

Okay. Then this is the common definition of 'core beliefs'. What does us agreeing on this have to do with the point of contention? Take notice that the point of contention is not whether core beliefs are unquestioned by definition, even though I may have emphasized the wrong portion of my statement. What I am saying is that all beliefs should be questioned, including core beliefs.

Whether that is the standard and/or best definition of core beliefs that available is such a minor point that I don't know why we're even taking the time to discuss it.

Scientists or Atheists do not have the credentials to judge other core beliefs, and belief systems, such as Theistic belief systems.

They do not get to name the necessary and sufficient conditions for assumptions that form core beliefs of other belief systems, only their own.


You need credentials to evaluate belief systems that are not your own? By being aware of a belief system and either not adopting it, or adopting it, you have evaluated that belief system and judged its core beliefs to the degree that you are able.

In any case, usually there is no need for members of different belief systems to be in conflict, except for when their territories overlap. Science and religion are in the position of having derived mutually exclusive solutions to similar questions, and that has created conflict. Science and religion are in a position where they must sort out who is able to derive the better solution to any question which interests both sides, where those solutions are exclusive, and how to synthesize their solutions where they are compatible.What prompted you to bring up scientists and atheists judging the core beliefs of religions (and by extension, the theists judging the core beliefs of science and of each other)?

This essay was written by members of the Applied Mathematics department of a University, not some religious blog.
You and your friend are in the habit of making questionable and erroneous claims, and when I call for an explanation, there is only silence.
I ask for substantiation of bogus claims, and get nothing. This is more true for your friend, whom you endorse as being honest and honorable.

Who are you talking about and what were your questions? I'll try to answer them if I understand them.

When the burden of proof in up to your side, for some reason it is not provided, only opinions, that I know are not consistent with actual events.

~
The use of the term "belief system" can be highly confusing. Psychologists, political
scientists and anthropologists tend to use the term in rather different senses. There is
some network of interrelated concepts and propositions at varying levels of generality,
and there are some processes by which a human or a computer accesses and manipulates that knowledge under current activating circumstances and/or in the service of particular current purposes. Belief systems are structures of norms that are interrelated and that vary mainly in the degree in which they are systemic. What is systemic in the Belief system is the interrelation between several beliefs. What features warrant calling this stored body of concepts a belief system? Belief systems are the stories we tell ourselves to define our personal sense of Reality. Every human being has a belief system that they utilize, and it is through this mechanism that we individually, "make sense" of the world around us.
~
The species Homo sapiens developed so-called belief systems. These are sets of beliefs reinforced by culture, theology, and experience and training as to how the world works cultural values, stereotypes, political viewpoints, etc. Beliefs are often considered as convictions or as religious beliefs, but as scientists, there are also philosophical beliefs relating to the sphere of daily life. If a stimulus is received, it may be interpreted through the belief system to be whatever the belief system might lead the recipient to rationalize. A belief system need have no basis in reality so long as it consistently provides adequate explanations. It takes us to define a human being like Homo religious.

[The characteristics and elements of belief systems are then listed, followed by a conclusion.]
CONCLUSIONS
Conflict between two groups, including war, may be defined as a battle between beliefs Systems. Symbols emerge strongly in such conflicts: they may be revered objects as stones, writings, buildings, flags or badges; whatever they may be, they may symbolize the central core of belief system. When people become symbols, the real person may become obscured behind the projected symbolic image or person. Organizations develop their own in-house culture and belief system, too, which leads them to act and behave in ways that might not seem entirely rational to an outsider. Then:
a) Conflicts are not over Ideological Technology but over what symbolizes technological difference.
b) Substantive beliefs are understood only in terms of ideal values, criteria of validity, language and perspective.
c) Believer is usually better able to verbalize substantive beliefs than he is values, criteria, logical principles or orientation, which is apt to be the unquestioned bases from which he proceeds.
d) Ideal values, criteria of validity, language and perspective may have been built up around a substantive belief to give it significance and justification.

http://www.vub.ac.be...

Okay, this article is discussing belief at a different layer than I was talking about above. They are talking about the idealizations that drive norms and behaviour, whereas I was talking about belief in its Bayesian meaning where idealizations are iteratively derived from norms and behaviours which optimize some performance metric (the 'technology of beliefs' as they put it) with respect to some goal, which is derived by the current state of those idealizations. That makes sense, because you are trying to focus on core beliefs.

I have stated that my view on core beliefs is that even they should be subject to questioning and updating, as I just described. However, I am now considering whether you hold that core beliefs are, should, or simply do remain static?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:05:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 11:08:54 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/18/2015 10:26:47 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:51:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

By the way, I would appreciated it if you would also respond to the other points of discussion in this conversation. Yes, they exhibited a great deal of annoyance, but I took the time to respond to everything you said, and I'm requesting you do the same.

So again I give you the same opportunity - Deny that you speak as a representative of the Science community, and the matter will be settled.
If you were just a better reader, this would be so much easier.

You are in error, so I am correcting you. No one speaks for the scientific community, including myself. I am fairly certain that I have only stated that I am a member of the scientific community. These are clearly not the same thing.

Do you even read what you write?
Your words: I'm not saying that those points are assumed and then verified by science. They never needed to be assumed in the first place. They are verifiable by science,


You complain because I say they are assumed, then self verified, because, you contend, they are self verified before they are ever assumed.

Something that is verified isn't assumed, by the definition of 'assumed'. I can see why my statement was ambiguous though. I am was saying that I did not mean (A and B), but that I meant (not(A) and B) (additionally, not(A) because B), where A is property of being assumed, and B is the property of being verified.

How can they possibly be verified, until, before, they are assumed?
First the assumption, and then the verification.
Am I being pranked? Come on, fess up.

They can't. That's not what I'm saying. That doesn't even make sense. To make make it simple, 4 through 6 are not assumed because they are verified, in the same sense that I don't need to assume a priori anything that I can verify empirically.

I am not the one who says they are assumptions, the Scientific community says these things, your disagreement is with them. You disagree with your peers, and want me to explain what they are thinking, I will have none of it.

Whether I agree with them is not the issue.
Whether I understand why they say these things is not the issue.
I present the core beliefs of the Science community.
Accept them, or not , as you choose.

What does that even mean? The scientific community unanimously agrees that these are six of the assumptions in science? Most of the scientific community? Certain scientific bodies (you've only presented one, as far as I can tell, who state these assumptions in a report directed to laypeople)? Who speaks for the scientific community, in your mind?

By the way, I disagree with my peers frequently, so even if it were true, that wouldn't trouble me at all. That is a normal part of us working together in science.

Do you have anything other than argument from authority to argue against those points?

How about logic?
Oh, never mind, you don't fancy it much.
How about this.

So, after further consideration, which is it?
Do you accept the core beliefs of the Science community, that these five points are all assumptions, or are you a deviant?

According to you, I'd be a deviant. No issue with that, we have no problem with deviants in science. According to me, the NSGA article was sloppy in their attempt to explain science to a general reader, and included in its list of assumptions certain items that are not assumptions at all.

Not just NSGA, but every professional organization in existence, unless you can give any examples otherwise.
Deviant is too nice a word for you, it seems to me heretic is more fitting.

Why don't we keep the burden of proof on the one claiming that "every professional organization in existence" maintains these 6 'assumptions'?

Give the full quote. Try to be honest.
"every professional organization in existence, unless you can give any examples otherwise"

Did you not understand what I said? How does leaving out that clause imply dishonesty? I clearly indicated that you were shifting the burden of proof. No need for you to reiterate my point that you are shifting the burden of proof.

Honestly, I lowered the bar as far as possible.
Show one, and my statement will need amended.
You ask me to show thousands, and I ask for one, well, since I pluralized the word, two would be better.

I asked you to show thousands? Where did I ask you that? I asked you to justify your own claim, and somehow you think the burden of proof is on me to prove that your absurd claim is false. Remember that you said "every profession organization in existence". The National Basketball Association does not state that the assumptions you listed are indeed the assumptions made by science. Oh of course, you meant to say scientific organizations. Here is the list of assumptions made by science according to UC Berkeley's resources for new science undergraduates: http://undsci.berkeley.edu...... Notice how the assumptions they list don't include the three that I contended. And that was just the first place I looked.

Call me what you will. It has no bearing on whether my statements are valid or invalid. If you want to argue about what it takes to do science, why don't you become a scientist

I do not have to be a dog, to learn about dogs.
Another point of logic, that probably escapes you.

I agree, and I never implied otherwise. Yet if you wanted an inside perspective on what is required to do good science, then it certainly helps to be a scientist. Do you disagree?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 12:52:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

They also point to something as true, due to the improbable, indemonstrable, untestable, and potentially absurd results should they not be "true".

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

So, lets conduct the opposite of these assumptions, and see what happens.

No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

The world is NOT real (and of course we have no way of demonstrating that, but...), it exists solely linked to our sensory perception of it. (that would mean this is one big grand hallucination, seemingly perpetual, and again, beyond proof).

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

Humans can NOT accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe. Considering we can, we have, and can make accurate predications about it, this assumpt doesn't seem to be too assumptive, unless of course its all part of one big single fever dream.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

If its all SUPER natural, said supernatural entity has left literally no evidence, and a lot more questions than answers, especially how such regular patterns and processes persist. EG, God does it, at all times, exactly, every time... but such an involvement cannot be in any way recorded. It would also make the persistence subjective, but that's another discussion.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

Well, I don't have perfect recall, so that's not to far off either, so this is not to assumptive, but for the sake of my example, if it applies, there is no reason for recording anything, as our perceptions would be both accurate and unbiased, immune to previous experience. Obviously this is not the case.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

Science gets it right, dead bang, dead on, center mass double tap every time it tries. Were this the case, there would be no "theory".

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.

Science is without error, and assuming the opposite position of 5, science is omniscient and omnipotent.
http://www.geosociety.org...

These assumptions are important to any discussion of Science as they are the bedrock of Science.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.


The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

Because the supernatural can't be tested or verifiably reproduced and demonstrated. What good to a group that is looking for repeatable results is an invisible dragon with a magic mushroom that grants wishes, but only to those who ask politely on certain arbitrary days?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:43:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:54:45 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/19/2015 7:27:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/19/2015 12:52:23 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 11:08:54 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:


I have stated that my view on core beliefs is that even they should be subject to questioning and updating, as I just described. However, I am now considering whether you hold that core beliefs are, should, or simply do remain static?

This reading problem of yours is getting tiresome.
In the essay, did you see any hint, any insinuation that there was an such an imperative?
I did not.
Since this is still a question in your mind, I conclude you did not understand the material I have provided.
There has not been a meeting of the minds on this issue.
You do not understand that parameters are set by the individual.

.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:53:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 12:52:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

They also point to something as true, due to the improbable, indemonstrable, untestable, and potentially absurd results should they not be "true".

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

So, lets conduct the opposite of these assumptions, and see what happens.

No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

The world is NOT real (and of course we have no way of demonstrating that, but...), it exists solely linked to our sensory perception of it. (that would mean this is one big grand hallucination, seemingly perpetual, and again, beyond proof).

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

Humans can NOT accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe. Considering we can, we have, and can make accurate predications about it, this assumpt doesn't seem to be too assumptive, unless of course its all part of one big single fever dream.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

If its all SUPER natural, said supernatural entity has left literally no evidence, and a lot more questions than answers, especially how such regular patterns and processes persist. EG, God does it, at all times, exactly, every time... but such an involvement cannot be in any way recorded. It would also make the persistence subjective, but that's another discussion.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

Well, I don't have perfect recall, so that's not to far off either, so this is not to assumptive, but for the sake of my example, if it applies, there is no reason for recording anything, as our perceptions would be both accurate and unbiased, immune to previous experience. Obviously this is not the case.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

Science gets it right, dead bang, dead on, center mass double tap every time it tries. Were this the case, there would be no "theory".

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.

Science is without error, and assuming the opposite position of 5, science is omniscient and omnipotent.
http://www.geosociety.org...

These assumptions are important to any discussion of Science as they are the bedrock of Science.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.


The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

Because the supernatural can't be tested or verifiably reproduced and demonstrated. What good to a group that is looking for repeatable results is an invisible dragon with a magic mushroom that grants wishes, but only to those who ask politely on certain arbitrary days?

Read this post: http://www.debate.org...
All of your concern are addressed.
In light of that information, your post would be comical, but I am not laughing.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 7:02:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 5:53:12 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/20/2015 12:52:22 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/17/2015 12:29:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, without proof, or convincing evidence.

They also point to something as true, due to the improbable, indemonstrable, untestable, and potentially absurd results should they not be "true".

To most of us this sound a lot like faith, and Science has some basic assumptions, and yet some scientists claim Science does not require faith.

So, lets conduct the opposite of these assumptions, and see what happens.

No one denies that Science is based on some assumptions.
To some people these assumptions are so simple and basic, they consider them to be self evident, or otherwise lacking a need to be shown true with evidence.
To other people, this is not true, they say no convincing evidence, then faith is required.
These two groups have belief systems that are different, so they have beliefs that are different, and can not be reconciled - no common ground, no movement in beliefs, on these issues.

So faith or not, Science makes these assumptions, which lack proof:

From the National Geological Society of America [ http://www.geosociety.org... ]

Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after Nickels, 1998), such as
1. The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

The world is NOT real (and of course we have no way of demonstrating that, but...), it exists solely linked to our sensory perception of it. (that would mean this is one big grand hallucination, seemingly perpetual, and again, beyond proof).

2. Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe.

Humans can NOT accurately perceive and attempt to understand the physical universe. Considering we can, we have, and can make accurate predications about it, this assumpt doesn't seem to be too assumptive, unless of course its all part of one big single fever dream.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.

If its all SUPER natural, said supernatural entity has left literally no evidence, and a lot more questions than answers, especially how such regular patterns and processes persist. EG, God does it, at all times, exactly, every time... but such an involvement cannot be in any way recorded. It would also make the persistence subjective, but that's another discussion.

4. By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccurate or biased.

Well, I don't have perfect recall, so that's not to far off either, so this is not to assumptive, but for the sake of my example, if it applies, there is no reason for recording anything, as our perceptions would be both accurate and unbiased, immune to previous experience. Obviously this is not the case.

5. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.

Science gets it right, dead bang, dead on, center mass double tap every time it tries. Were this the case, there would be no "theory".

6. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.

Science is without error, and assuming the opposite position of 5, science is omniscient and omnipotent.
http://www.geosociety.org...

These assumptions are important to any discussion of Science as they are the bedrock of Science.

The success or failure of the Scientific Method is based on these assumptions.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, they do so against the conventional wisdom of the Scientific community.

For example, looking at example #3:
Although it may be true that Scientists do not believe everything has a natural explanation, they do believe that the only answers or knowledge Science can provide is through a natural explanation.
IOW, in their roles as Scientists, only natural explanations will be considered.


The assumption is - only natural explanations will be considered.
That is from the Scientific community.

Because the supernatural can't be tested or verifiably reproduced and demonstrated. What good to a group that is looking for repeatable results is an invisible dragon with a magic mushroom that grants wishes, but only to those who ask politely on certain arbitrary days?

Read this post: http://www.debate.org...
All of your concern are addressed.
In light of that information, your post would be comical, but I am not laughing.

"Scientists or Atheists do not have the credentials to judge other core beliefs, and belief systems, such as Theistic belief systems.

They do not get to name the necessary and sufficient conditions for assumptions that form core beliefs of other belief systems, only their own."

Well, proof is in the puddin', puddin. Were those core beliefs so far off base, we wouldn't be having this conversation. By which I mean literally, computers and the like wouldn't have been invented, and more than likely we would still be living in the dark ages.

You are correct, all those points I mentioned were touched on, and explained. Sadly, to your disadvantage, but I will wait for you to figure out how. ;) Off ya go.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...