Questioning science

When I claimed that science was untouchable, Reason_Alliance named 10 unproven presuppositions that science makes:

"1) The existence of a theory independent, external world
2) The knowability of the external world
3) The existence of truth
4) The laws of logic
5) The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
6) The adequacy of language to describe the world
7) The existence of values used in science
8) The uniformity of nature and induction
9) The existence of numbers and mathematical truths
10) Aesthetic & moral truths, etc"

However, a quick glance at these shows that many of these presuppositions are neither provable nor disprovable. So, what is the relevance or significance of pointing them out? We MUST assume that the laws of logic are objectively true otherwise, we lack the means to argue and reason. We MUST assume that there are mathematical truths otherwise, we're stranded when it comes to understanding the universe. And when we do make these presuppositions, they produce consistent success, like how we transferred our knowledge of gas laws to create engines.

My point is, these presuppositions may or may not be true, but there is no necessity for human beings to find out...and it is also impossible for human beings to find out. So, on what grounds do you question science?

At 6/17/2012 9:52:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
When I claimed that science was untouchable, Reason_Alliance named 10 unproven presuppositions that science makes:

"1) The existence of a theory independent, external world
2) The knowability of the external world
3) The existence of truth
4) The laws of logic
5) The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
6) The adequacy of language to describe the world
7) The existence of values used in science
8) The uniformity of nature and induction
9) The existence of numbers and mathematical truths
10) Aesthetic & moral truths, etc"

However, a quick glance at these shows that many of these presuppositions are neither provable nor disprovable. So, what is the relevance or significance of pointing them out? We MUST assume that the laws of logic are objectively true otherwise, we lack the means to argue and reason. We MUST assume that there are mathematical truths otherwise, we're stranded when it comes to understanding the universe. And when we do make these presuppositions, they produce consistent success, like how we transferred our knowledge of gas laws to create engines.

My point is, these presuppositions may or may not be true, but there is no necessity for human beings to find out...and it is also impossible for human beings to find out. So, on what grounds do you question science?

The majority of the presuppositions are not ones that science makes, but everyone makes, as they are truths which we assume, because by assuming them we can develop forwards. It's more about if X, then Y, Y, therefore X. It's abductive logic to justify science. However, most of them are abductive logic to justify knowledge. All people do this. It's pretty much needed.

At 6/17/2012 9:56:50 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

The majority of the presuppositions are not ones that science makes, but everyone makes, as they are truths which we assume, because by assuming them we can develop forwards. It's more about if X, then Y, Y, therefore X. It's abductive logic to justify science. However, most of them are abductive logic to justify knowledge. All people do this. It's pretty much needed.

Couldn't agree with you more. I'm just curious how people can deny those necessary presuppositions, and argue for supernatural things,...while still making those presuppositions through the very act of arguing.

At 6/17/2012 9:52:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
When I claimed that science was untouchable, Reason_Alliance named 10 unproven presuppositions that science makes:

"1) The existence of a theory independent, external world
2) The knowability of the external world
3) The existence of truth
4) The laws of logic
5) The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
6) The adequacy of language to describe the world
7) The existence of values used in science
8) The uniformity of nature and induction
9) The existence of numbers and mathematical truths
10) Aesthetic & moral truths, etc"

However, a quick glance at these shows that many of these presuppositions are neither provable nor disprovable. So, what is the relevance or significance of pointing them out? We MUST assume that the laws of logic are objectively true otherwise, we lack the means to argue and reason. We MUST assume that there are mathematical truths otherwise, we're stranded when it comes to understanding the universe. And when we do make these presuppositions, they produce consistent success, like how we transferred our knowledge of gas laws to create engines.

My point is, these presuppositions may or may not be true, but there is no necessity for human beings to find out...and it is also impossible for human beings to find out. So, on what grounds do you question science?

They can all be proven. But thats his job as a theologin is to point out problems so we have to believe in God. and they are all true. lol.. This is what he really thinks!

At 6/17/2012 9:52:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
When I claimed that science was untouchable, Reason_Alliance named 10 unproven presuppositions that science makes:

"1) The existence of a theory independent, external world
2) The knowability of the external world
3) The existence of truth
4) The laws of logic
5) The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
6) The adequacy of language to describe the world
7) The existence of values used in science
8) The uniformity of nature and induction
9) The existence of numbers and mathematical truths
10) Aesthetic & moral truths, etc"

However, a quick glance at these shows that many of these presuppositions are neither provable nor disprovable. So, what is the relevance or significance of pointing them out? We MUST assume that the laws of logic are objectively true otherwise, we lack the means to argue and reason. We MUST assume that there are mathematical truths otherwise, we're stranded when it comes to understanding the universe. And when we do make these presuppositions, they produce consistent success, like how we transferred our knowledge of gas laws to create engines.

My point is, these presuppositions may or may not be true, but there is no necessity for human beings to find out...and it is also impossible for human beings to find out. So, on what grounds do you question science?

My point in showing these presuppositions was to point out a fatal flaw in your scientism: The view that any truth must be scientific. Which is what you hold to when the question of God is on display... it's an epistemological issue therefore.

The problem with admitting that science is omnipotent was to show that there are many things science itself is impotent to prove. Whereas philosophy has adequate answers for such presuppositions. And where philosophy is impotent to account for some of those presuppositions, Theology proves useful. These are higher order disciplines.

So it's not that science fails because of these presuppositions, rather it's that the cumulative sum of the human intellect is too variegated to make hasty conclusions based upon one part of that battery of knowledge only.

At 6/17/2012 10:15:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 6/17/2012 9:52:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
When I claimed that science was untouchable, Reason_Alliance named 10 unproven presuppositions that science makes:

"1) The existence of a theory independent, external world
2) The knowability of the external world
3) The existence of truth
4) The laws of logic
5) The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
6) The adequacy of language to describe the world
7) The existence of values used in science
8) The uniformity of nature and induction
9) The existence of numbers and mathematical truths
10) Aesthetic & moral truths, etc"

However, a quick glance at these shows that many of these presuppositions are neither provable nor disprovable. So, what is the relevance or significance of pointing them out? We MUST assume that the laws of logic are objectively true otherwise, we lack the means to argue and reason. We MUST assume that there are mathematical truths otherwise, we're stranded when it comes to understanding the universe. And when we do make these presuppositions, they produce consistent success, like how we transferred our knowledge of gas laws to create engines.

My point is, these presuppositions may or may not be true, but there is no necessity for human beings to find out...and it is also impossible for human beings to find out. So, on what grounds do you question science?

They can all be proven. But thats his job as a theologin is to point out problems so we have to believe in God. and they are all true. lol.. This is what he really thinks!

You misrepresent me. First, I'm not a theologian, I'm an earth scientist & student philosopher of science. Second, I do not use a Gap-approach to point out the total battery of human intellect is left wanting- so therefore God. No, I simply point out that one part of that battery (science) cannot give us a conclusion for truths which aren't science-dependent. Pretty-please, give my angle a better hearing lest a straw-man is set up. It's a pandemic on this site.

At 6/17/2012 10:01:43 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/17/2012 9:56:50 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

The majority of the presuppositions are not ones that science makes, but everyone makes, as they are truths which we assume, because by assuming them we can develop forwards. It's more about if X, then Y, Y, therefore X. It's abductive logic to justify science. However, most of them are abductive logic to justify knowledge. All people do this. It's pretty much needed.

Couldn't agree with you more. I'm just curious how people can deny those necessary presuppositions, and argue for supernatural things,...while still making those presuppositions through the very act of arguing.

My angle is misrepresented yet again, I do not deny such necessary truths which make science possible in the first place, doing so would lay down my best weapon of reason! Indeed such presuppositions make way better sense on a theistic paradigm than an atheistic one! So if anything, it's the atheist who ought to deny science's presuppositions.

At 6/17/2012 11:06:15 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 6/17/2012 10:01:43 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/17/2012 9:56:50 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

The majority of the presuppositions are not ones that science makes, but everyone makes, as they are truths which we assume, because by assuming them we can develop forwards. It's more about if X, then Y, Y, therefore X. It's abductive logic to justify science. However, most of them are abductive logic to justify knowledge. All people do this. It's pretty much needed.

Couldn't agree with you more. I'm just curious how people can deny those necessary presuppositions, and argue for supernatural things,...while still making those presuppositions through the very act of arguing.

My angle is misrepresented yet again, I do not deny such necessary truths which make science possible in the first place, doing so would lay down my best weapon of reason! Indeed such presuppositions make way better sense on a theistic paradigm than an atheistic one! So if anything, it's the atheist who ought to deny science's presuppositions.

The Fool: but to assume God is to beg the question? You not warrented to make the claim. Even if you had an equantence the definition of God have not demarkable features. There is not way you can tell if you know i.

Spirit come from to breath, and ghost from noisy air, this made sense at the time. because they didn't know anybetter, overtime the meaning got forgoton, But they are Ghost 'words' There is not actual meaning in them anymore its just been assumed. because it been used. THere is now way you can know what it is because even the other predicates are irrational. There is not demarcation for you to say oh yeah thats it. These come from the original Greek orthadox which was just to give power to the emperor. While the rest is just a spin of like, Frasier. And sure your version is difference, I am not even denying the possibity, but not that way. not that way,.

The Fool: and instead of giving this everything about science is hopeless, Why are you not helping fixing the bugs. That is may attitude, I think its can be proven that we are progressing for sure. I have some awsome theories. Its a matter of communication, But I am saving it for my thesis.

At 6/17/2012 11:42:00 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 6/17/2012 11:06:15 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 6/17/2012 10:01:43 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/17/2012 9:56:50 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

The majority of the presuppositions are not ones that science makes, but everyone makes, as they are truths which we assume, because by assuming them we can develop forwards. It's more about if X, then Y, Y, therefore X. It's abductive logic to justify science. However, most of them are abductive logic to justify knowledge. All people do this. It's pretty much needed.

Couldn't agree with you more. I'm just curious how people can deny those necessary presuppositions, and argue for supernatural things,...while still making those presuppositions through the very act of arguing.

My angle is misrepresented yet again, I do not deny such necessary truths which make science possible in the first place, doing so would lay down my best weapon of reason! Indeed such presuppositions make way better sense on a theistic paradigm than an atheistic one! So if anything, it's the atheist who ought to deny science's presuppositions.

The Fool: but to assume God is to beg the question? You not warrented to make the claim. Even if you had an equantence the definition of God have not demarkable features. There is not way you can tell if you know i.

Can you articulate this clearer please? All I could make out is that I'm assuming God, which I'm not, I said the presuppositions of science fit better & more cogently in a theistic paradigm than an atheistic one. I don't conclude that therefore God exists from that.

Spirit come from to breath, and ghost from noisy air, this made sense at the time. because they didn't know anybetter, overtime the meaning got forgoton, But they are Ghost 'words' There is not actual meaning in them anymore its just been assumed. because it been used. THere is now way you can know what it is because even the other predicates are irrational. There is not demarcation for you to say oh yeah thats it. These come from the original Greek orthadox which was just to give power to the emperor. While the rest is just a spin of like, Frasier. And sure your version is difference, I am not even denying the possibity, but not that way. not that way,.

Again, no clue what you're talking about here other than a possible genetic fallacy emerging from your argument.

At 6/17/2012 11:46:50 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: and instead of giving this everything about science is hopeless, Why are you not helping fixing the bugs. That is may attitude, I think its can be proven that we are progressing for sure. I have some awsome theories. Its a matter of communication, But I am saving it for my thesis.

Again, you misrepresent me. I'm not saying science is hopeless so therefore God. What I am saying is that the presuppositions of science render it ineffective for it to encompass all knowledge. Science is empirical, but there are also rational truths.

At 6/17/2012 12:51:27 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 6/17/2012 11:46:50 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: and instead of giving this everything about science is hopeless, Why are you not helping fixing the bugs. That is may attitude, I think its can be proven that we are progressing for sure. I have some awsome theories. Its a matter of communication, But I am saving it for my thesis.

Again, you misrepresent me. I'm not saying science is hopeless so therefore God. What I am saying is that the presuppositions of science render it ineffective for it to encompass all knowledge. Science is empirical, but there are also rational truths.

But nothing beyond science is "knowable". In order for one to know something, that fact must be a) logically understandable, and b) capable of being interpreted by our limited senses. Empiricism therefore dictates our understanding.

You're right in saying that science does not encompass all knowledge, but my argument is that science encompasses all "achievable" knowledge. I'd like it if you could elaborate on what part of theism provides more legitimate knowledge than science. Otherwise, there is no necessity to believe in theism.

I can know that there is a table in front of me via direct observation. I can know mathematical truths by arranging concepts in my mind. I can understand that a married bachelor is an incoherent concept by thinking about the definitions involved.

None of those methods employs science unless you stretch the definition of 'science' to encompass all human reasoning, which is extremely unhelpful. Science isn't the sole reasonable method by which we come to our beliefs.

Why is scientism so popular nowadays? Good grief.

At 6/17/2012 1:54:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why is scientism so popular nowadays? Good grief.

Ironically, I'd always though Bahnsen had stifled that line from the more empiricist-related atheists.

At 6/17/2012 1:30:41 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/17/2012 12:51:27 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 6/17/2012 11:46:50 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: and instead of giving this everything about science is hopeless, Why are you not helping fixing the bugs. That is may attitude, I think its can be proven that we are progressing for sure. I have some awsome theories. Its a matter of communication, But I am saving it for my thesis.

Again, you misrepresent me. I'm not saying science is hopeless so therefore God. What I am saying is that the presuppositions of science render it ineffective for it to encompass all knowledge. Science is empirical, but there are also rational truths.

But nothing beyond science is "knowable".

^this is my aim, this is what I want to bring out & deny right here. Science is predicated upon the very things which it cannot prove, so by definition there ARE other knowable things apart from science, & which, interestingly enough, make science knowable in the first place.

We know 2+2=4 because the Peano axioms are immediate to us, we know that no event precedes itself because it's immediate to us that temporal becoming is real, we know that the external world is real because it's immediate to us.

These are all rational truths which science presupposes yet doesn't seek to prove. So by definition there are other truths, indeed important ones, other than science.

In order for one to know something, that fact must be

a) logically understandable, and
b) capable of being interpreted by our limited senses.

Empiricism therefore dictates our understanding.

^these criteria logically contradict themselves: For example, is something that is logically understandable capable of being interpreted by our limited sense? No! You might say we perceive them to be true or they are self-evident, but that's not being apprehended by our senses. So at best what you offer as a criteria for knowledge is necessary but not sufficient conditions.

Further still, is it empirical that empiricism dictates our understanding? No! It's rational to accept empirical proves, but that's rationalism at the end of the day, something that Empiricism presupposes.

Indeed this is a weak evidentialist account of epistemology, and has since been refuted by the greatest modern philosophers of science. See Plantinga, McGrew, Goetz, Koontz, Rescher, Lennox (James & John), etc.

You're right in saying that science does not encompass all knowledge, but my argument is that science encompasses all "achievable" knowledge. I'd like it if you could elaborate on what part of theism provides more legitimate knowledge than science. Otherwise, there is no necessity to believe in theism.

I'm not saying if we believe in theism than we believe it necessarily, man this crowd really misrepresents me with so many straw men! It's really quite predictable. lol!

Regarding the bold, I agree that science is about achieving more knowledge, which interestingly enough, diminishes as information increases (see Rescher). Anyhow I disagree that science encompasses all achievable knowledge. Since I can achieve the knowledge that I'm being appeared to redly when I see a red apple. All science can do is tell me about light waves interacting, it cannot tell me the mental states of my being appeared to redly. Yet I know that I'm being appeared to redly!

So it seems to me that your criteria are simply wanting, and indeed philosophers of science broadly recognize today that there are no sufficient conditions for making something 'scientific' ... see "the demarcation problem of science."

At 6/17/2012 1:54:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why is scientism so popular nowadays? Good grief.

It's intellectually lazy.

At 6/17/2012 1:54:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why is scientism so popular nowadays? Good grief.

Because science produces all these answers about the world, while philosophy d!cks around raising problems but never solving them and religion seems unconvincing. It isn't that surprising that people turn to the notion that science is the only reliable way of getting at knowledge.

At 6/17/2012 3:38:28 PM, Kinesis wrote:

At 6/17/2012 1:54:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why is scientism so popular nowadays? Good grief.

Because science produces all these answers about the world, while philosophy d!cks around raising problems but never solving them and religion seems unconvincing. It isn't that surprising that people turn to the notion that science is the only reliable way of getting at knowledge.

Philosophy has been making revolutionary solutions! Where do you think emergentism came from? The school of thought bound to change the current paradigm of science itself. If anything, science d!cks around- look at it's history of constantly proving itself wrong haha! Sure it's self-correcting but philosophy of science made that possible by propounding rigorous methodologies & epistemologies. Just look at what Francis Bacon did... and just look at the new Philosophy of Cosmology at NYU. Philosophy isn't just naval gazing man. It's the man in the cave holding the lantern- where the lantern itself is science.

At 6/17/2012 9:52:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
When I claimed that science was untouchable, Reason_Alliance named 10 unproven presuppositions that science makes:

"1) The existence of a theory independent, external world

The Fool: Start with abolute universe and categories(we just need to cooperate)

2) The knowability of the external world

The Fool: you cannot recognize you self as its on entity untill you recognize others. (law of demarcation)

3) The existence of truth

The Fool: Everything is true, it just a matter of testing correponding truth claims, and we are error correcting over tier.
\

4) The laws of logic

A priori,

5) The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

The Fool: there is not evidence to think that we will stop improving.

6) The adequacy of language to describe the world

COOPERATION! Bastards

7) The existence of values used in science

8) The uniformity of nature and induction

The Fool: I got the formula, not giving it yet though.

9) The existence of numbers and mathematical truths

The Fool: If they didn;t exist we couldn't think of the.

10) Aesthetic & moral truths, etc"

The Fool: Apply the Good under logical priniples.

At 6/17/2012 9:52:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
However, a quick glance at these shows that many of these presuppositions are neither provable nor disprovable. So, what is the relevance or significance of pointing them out? We MUST assume that the laws of logic are objectively true otherwise, we lack the means to argue and reason. We MUST assume that there are mathematical truths otherwise, we're stranded when it comes to understanding the universe. And when we do make these presuppositions, they produce consistent success, like how we transferred our knowledge of gas laws to create engines.

My point is, these presuppositions may or may not be true, but there is no necessity for human beings to find out...and it is also impossible for human beings to find out. So, on what grounds do you question science?

I agree. Whether the assumptions are true or not, they allow us to function in the world.

I think the only point in denying them is to rationalize an irrational belief. The idea is that a person believes something without foundation, then if everything is without foundation the belief is easier to sustain. The error is that some leaps of faith are easier to justify than others. The justification of logical thinking is that it works reliably. Irrational thinking is unreliable; some days your horoscope may be true, but it's unpredictable when.

Some assumptions in the list are actually not taken as premises. For example, scientists are looking for changes in fundamental physical constants over space and time, and they put bounds on the possible variations. Oddly, religious people sometimes insist that matter can not have come from nothing or that everything has a cause. Scientists are willing to allow the possibility of exception under some circumstances, but religious people argue it's categorically impossible.

There was never a question.