How do you deal with the 'science is a religion' crap?

[athon]

The point is that all scientific theories are testable and potentially falsifiable.

I'm aware that this is your assertion. I'm stating that this isn't how science works, hence my argument that an observation of some mysterious being or the discovery of a rabbit-like skeleton in the Cambrian rock strata wouldn't mean we automatically disqualify the theory of evolution.

A simultaneous hallucination seen by seven billion people would certainly get our attention, although I'm sure there would be many holdouts.

It would be noticed, but it's still an observation. Even an anomalous observation, however, wouldn't serve as an automatic falsification. This was one of the motivations that influenced Imre Lakatos (a student of Popper's) to propose his research programmes theory of scientific progress.

A task for science would then be to test the theory of a global hallucination vs. the theory of a deity. It would still be science, not religion, which does not embrace testing and potential falsification.

True, but the theory of a deity would require a working definition. The very quest you're suggesting (appearance of a deity equals the falsification of evolution) conflicts with your claim that religion differs to science because it cannot be falsified. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, it seems.

Athon

 

[athon]

IMO Popper is largely overblown in his impact on science

I agree, in some part. However, the arguments in this thread stand as testimony to the influence he did have. I've lost count of the number of 'falsification is science' discussions I've had over the years.

The scientific method is roughly:

Make observations
Use those observations to form a hypothesis
Develop predictions based on that hypothesis
Test those predictions against further observations

What Popper is saying is that this only works if you test can achieve a negative result. I.E. if the all of the possible outcomes of the test support the hypothesis then the test isn’t adding any new information and therefore doesn’t add any support to the hypothesis.

I think his position on science only progressing under falsification is often hyperbolised. While he is often accused of opposing the very thought that a theory could be confirmed, to the point that we can't even have confidence in it with successive testing (Sokal has said as much), he has admitted that science benefits from induction. I can't reconcile these comments as both being correct.

Athon

 

[Perpetual Student]

The history of science is cluttered with dead theories that did not pass the tests of new observations and experiments. They are dead simply because they were falsified. New theories were then developed that lasted until they were in turn falsified. All current theories are subject to this same scrutiny. Even though we cannot see how a particular current theory might be falsified, that does not negate the potential for falsification. For example, it was simply not possible for a medieval astronomer to imagine how the heliocentric theory might be falsified. It was once unimaginable that Newtonian mechanics could be falsified. So, today we may ponder how evolution may be falsified and have no rational idea (I think we can agree that finding a 600 million old dog skeleton is not a realistic expectation) -- that may be because evolution is indeed a fact or it may be because of our ignorance. We can all choose our preference here.
In any case, the point of this thread is to compare and contrast science with religion. It is true that religions do die out, but I know of no case where that occurred because a religion was falsified.

 

[popscythe]

This is the first thread I viewed here.

To answer the OP, "Laughter, and a dictionary."

 

[athon]

The history of science is cluttered with dead theories that did not pass the tests of new observations and experiments. They are dead simply because they were falsified. New theories were then developed that lasted until they were in turn falsified.

Constantly asserting this is the case doesn't make it so. Even if you were correct in saying that all theories can be falsified, a first years student of HPS could tell you that isn't the same as saying past theories were dropped because they were all falsified.

Past theories died out for many reasons. In nearly all cases, it was a gradual shift over the generations resulting from an increase in supporting evidence for a new and better theory, and not a sudden overnight shift. Seriously, for a better insight into this I suggest you read up on Imre Lakatos.

New observations gained the confidence of that period's scientists. It was a slow, progressive evolution of an idea, and not a sudden shift in the face of a new fact. This shift was the result of many factors, of which conflicting observations were only one. Indeed, they were significant and carried a lot of weight, but they weren't always the deciding factor. For instance, I can't think of anybody who openly falsified Lamarck's theory of evolution before coming to the conclusion that Darwin's natural selection idea was the one to back. Feel free to point an example of it (in fact, I would be most appreciative if you do have such an example).

No single person or body decides what theories are true and which are false - observations are discussed with relevance to different ideas, their significance determined through arguments and either gradually accepted or determined to be of no real use. What is 'science' is determined through an uncounted vote of confidence. Some will gain this confidence through falsification, sure, but not all.

Athon

 

[lomiller]

I agree, in some part. However, the arguments in this thread stand as testimony to the influence he did have. I've lost count of the number of 'falsification is science' discussions I've had over the years.



I think his position on science only progressing under falsification is often hyperbolised. While he is often accused of opposing the very thought that a theory could be confirmed, to the point that we can't even have confidence in it with successive testing (Sokal has said as much), he has admitted that science benefits from induction. I can't reconcile these comments as both being correct.

Athon

IMO the main reason Popper is important isn’t for his contribution to science, but to framing science in a way that isn’t at odds with philosophy. The fact is, in the end science is built on inference and inductive reasoning, both of which are fallacies if you use a strict application of logic.

By 1900 science was clearly successful so the logicians couldn’t afford to be at odds with it. The fact that science is, in strictest terms, a fallacy will inevitably take a back seat when it so clearly works. The Philosophers therefore needed to explain why it works and express that within their own framework or fall by the wayside.

I think to often people take the falsification thing the wring way. It was his way of excluding claims that can’t be tested, even in theory, from being classed as science. This would typically be religious and supernatural claims. How, for example could you test the claim “god made the earth 6000 years ago, but made when he created it he gave it all the appearance of being old.” There is no test conceivable that could test that claim, that’s the type of claim Popper was trying to exclude.

 

[athon]

IMO the main reason Popper is important isn’t for his contribution to science, but to framing science in a way that isn’t at odds with philosophy. The fact is, in the end science is built on inference and inductive reasoning, both of which are fallacies if you use a strict application of logic.

Not quite sure if I understand what you mean by 'fallacies', but I do agree with your first part.

I think to often people take the falsification thing the wring way. It was his way of excluding claims that can’t be tested, even in theory, from being classed as science. This would typically be religious and supernatural claims. How, for example could you test the claim “god made the earth 6000 years ago, but made when he created it he gave it all the appearance of being old.” There is no test conceivable that could test that claim, that’s the type of claim Popper was trying to exclude.

Popper's work followed on directly from the logical positivists (read: The Vienna Circle). They saw the problem you cited as being a consequence of metaphysics, which they felt had no place in science. Unfortunately there were problems with that, and Popper's falsification was a rather valiant attempt to reconcile those problems with science.

(Sorry - would say more, but am on the way out. Just to make clear, I'm not arguing against your response, but just clarifying my position in relation to it).

Athon

 

[geni]

All available temperatures? Come back to me when we can devise an experiment that can accomplish that.

LHC at CERN would get you withing strikeing distance. After that things get kinda tricky.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Constantly asserting this is the case doesn't make it so. Even if you were correct in saying that all theories can be falsified, a first years student of HPS could tell you that isn't the same as saying past theories were dropped because they were all falsified.

Past theories died out for many reasons. In nearly all cases, it was a gradual shift over the generations resulting from an increase in supporting evidence for a new and better theory, and not a sudden overnight shift.

You've created your own straw man. I never said old theories were rejected immediately or in a straightforward manner. Yes, it often took a generation and many twists and turns, but in the final analysis the old theories were demonstrated to be false -- otherwise they would still be with us.

Seriously, for a better insight into this I suggest you read up on Imre Lakatos.

Lakatos may very well made good reading and offer some interesting insights. I will look into his ideas further. However, I have been studying the history of science for many years now. I believe my own insights also have value. Perhaps you should read someone other than Lakatos (Great Physicists by William Cropper may be a good start).

New observations gained the confidence of that period's scientists. It was a slow, progressive evolution of an idea, and not a sudden shift in the face of a new fact. This shift was the result of many factors, of which conflicting observations were only one. Indeed, they were significant and carried a lot of weight, but they weren't always the deciding factor. For instance, I can't think of anybody who openly falsified Lamarck's theory of evolution before coming to the conclusion that Darwin's natural selection idea was the one to back. Feel free to point an example of it (in fact, I would be most appreciative if you do have such an example).

This is all relevant to the fact that Lamarck's ideas have been demonstrated to be false, which is why they have been rejected.

No single person or body decides what theories are true and which are false - observations are discussed with relevance to different ideas, their significance determined through arguments and either gradually accepted or determined to be of no real use. What is 'science' is determined through an uncounted vote of confidence. Some will gain this confidence through falsification, sure, but not all.

Name one discarded scientific theory that has not been demonstrated to be false.

 

[lomiller]

This is all relevant to the fact that Lamarck's ideas have been demonstrated to be false, which is why they have been rejected.

Never say never…

While Lamark’s ideas the way he imagined them have been rejected, epigenetics seems to be suggesting you do pass on traits based on things that happen to you in your lifetime.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081030110959.htm

The point being that no theory is ever final.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Right. But none of this is falsifiable. Unlike LCDM. Which nicely illustrates the difference between science (eg the LCDM) and religion (your mutterings) and hopefully gets us back on topic.

Of course it's falsifiable, exactly the same way LCDM is "falsifiable".

So in answer to the original question, you cask the proponent of the "science is a religion crap" what falsifiable predictions their religion of choice makes. And also what kind of evidence would convince them their religion is "wrong".

What are you talking about? My religion "predicts" exactly the same things your "science" predicts and it's "falsifiable" in exactly the same way as your "math cult".

 

[Michael Mozina]

The history of science is cluttered with dead theories that did not pass the tests of new observations and experiments. They are dead simply because they were falsified.

That's fine as long as the theory is actually falsifiable. If I substitute Godflation into your "inflation" math formulas, they are equally 'falsifiable" and equally "supernatural" too I might add.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Never say never…

While Lamark’s ideas the way he imagined them have been rejected,

They have been rejected because they can be demonstrated to be false!

epigenetics seems to be suggesting you do pass on traits based on things that happen to you in your lifetime.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081030110959.htm

Yes I have read about this interesting study. So?

The point being that no theory is ever final.

This new study could also be falsified, or not.
It is an interesting point, which highlights another difference between science and religion. Science is open; religion is closed.

 

[Perpetual Student]

That's fine as long as the theory is actually falsifiable. If I substitute Godflation into your "inflation" math formulas, they are equally 'falsifiable" and equally "supernatural" too I might add.

Have you said your EU prayers this morning?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This new study could also be falsified, or not. It is an interesting point, which highlights another difference between science and religion. Science is open; religion is closed.

That isn't technically accurate. Prior to Jesus the religion called "Judaism" could be considered "closed", in fact it could still be considered "closed' in that same exact form of thinking. "Christianity" however was a direct offshoot of Judaism, but has a different set of beliefs associated with it. Islam is newer than either of those religions. Protestant religions are newer than any of those religions. Many new religions come and go all the time. While a specific religion may be considered closed, much like a specific 'big bang' theory may be closed, there are many variations on BB theory, and many variations of religious beliefs to choose from.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Have you said your EU prayers this morning?

Why yes, and my electric toothbrush worked again this morning. My prayers were answered. (I do however have a recharger in case my prayers fail one day).

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

... many variations of religious beliefs to choose from.

And the reason we have so many is because they're all made up.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

It is an interesting point, which highlights another difference between science and religion. Science is open; religion is closed.

I think it's a similarity. A religion will incorporate ideas and rituals from other religions or belief systems, just as one scientific theory will be re-invented in a modified form years after it was originally proposed.

In fact, it could be argued religion is more open than science because there is no requirement to be consistent in religion but there is in science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And the reason we have so many is because they're all made up.

One could say the same thing for BB formulas. Do you have any idea how many of them I've seen come and go in the last 30+ years?

 

[AvalonXQ]

All available temperatures? Come back to me when we can devise an experiment that can accomplish that.

You misinterpreted. By "all available temperatures" I mean "all temperatures we have available to us for conducting tests".
The claim passes the tests we can put it to, as of today. As new tests become available, the continued veracity of claim will continue to come under test. The claim is falsifiable and scientific.