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

[athon]

Will you be my next science "guru"? Man you have some amazingly interesting things to share. Thank you.

No problem. Although I don't pretend for a second to have it clear in my head. Science is fascinating as a social practice, but is damn complicated. So many people try so hard to isolate religion and science, and ironically end up making science more into a religion. The greatest benefit science can give is its realisation of how much we can all be religious if we're not careful.

The process of isolating "cause and effect" relationships is highly important to "empirical science". Cause/effect relationships typically can only be determined via "empirical experimentation", involving real life physical 'control mechanisms". Where some branches of science "lose their way" and get lost in metaphysical pursuits, is by under emphasizing the importance of true empirical experimentation, with actual physical control mechanisms, and overemphasizing the importance of math alone and validating the idea with something like 'computer modeling" where the only thing of importance is the mathematical model.

This more or less ties into the whole 'what is evidence?' argument. There is no single thing that makes something evidence. Logical positivists tried to make it about direct observation, which conflicted with much that was happening in theoretical physics during the day. Falsificationists tried to do it as well, but found it again impacted on potentially useful theories. Many fields of science cannot ever be set up and tested in situ in a laboratory, leaving us to pull theories apart, test what little we can and then try to find natural experiments to observe.

Along the way, we often fill in gaps with terms that explain somthing temporarily. Gravity, for instance, remains a useful stop-gap. It's akin to a god-of-gaps except for one important distinction; it does't presume more than we observe. It is a term that describes a force that attracts bodies of mass. That's all. It's not labelled with a personality, a history, a wife and kids. Philosophically it is a quality without a deeper context. That's fine, and quite useful. We don't know what's smaller than the smallest particle, hence can't say what makes them do what they do. For now the observation is useful only as a described quality.

The problem of course is that computers can create "virtual worlds" where the laws of physics no longer apply and the model in the computer no longer behaves like "the real world" in terms of the physical cause/effect relationships.

That might be true to a point, but it'd take more to dismiss a computer simulation than to just treat physicists like idiots and presume they don't know the strengths and weaknesses of their simulations. It'd be like you telling me the model of my house is useless simply because it hasn't got plumbing.

Nobody is stopping you from pointing out unreasonable conclusions made on particular simulations. That happens all the time in science. But computer models are incredibly useful things if the limitations are kept in mind.

Isolating real cause/effect relationships is a critically important process that is highly valued in "science". To isolate "real" physical cause/effect relationships, requires "real" empirical physical "tests" of concept, not simply a mathematical model.

I'm afraid this is where we have to disagree. I think mathematical models have been incredibly useful. A lot of brilliant physics has been discovered through modelling. True, if we can't predict observations using it, it is less than useful (see string theory, for instance). However, they shouldn't be dismissed purely on the grounds of not being 'real'. Mathematics is simply quantified logic, and without logic to apply to our observations, science is a crippled beast.

Athon

 

[Perpetual Student]

Philosophers love to play games with definitions. They inevitably confuse rather than extend our knowledge and understanding. The gamesmanship we have seen here with the word "evidence" is a good example.
Standard dictionary definitions tell us the meaning clearly enough, but like so many fundamental concepts, definitions are inevitably circular. Fundamental concepts within the world of science are burdened with undefined terms. For example, try defining a point in space without using a word like position, place or spot.

Science depends on evidence for its existence as a human activity; without evidence there is no science. The meaning of that last statement is quite clear to all but those whose intellects and education are inadequate. No definition of the word "evidence" is necessary.
In contrast, religion does not depend on evidence. Religions may use the word evidence to support beliefs but the beliefs themselves exist outside of the need for evidence. They use words like faith, acceptance and trust for their core support. Evidence is an afterthought, inevitably misused and faked in their apologies and polemics to justify nonsensical systems of beliefs.

 

[PingOfPong]

When a Cirbesterian belches he thinks it is evidence of the almighty Cirbest.

Ahh, now you're starting to understand Cirbestrianism. By the way, what makes you think that you're in charge of defining words? Look up the definition of evidence and you'll find that it simply means "anything which tends to support the truthfulness of an assertion". That's fairly broad.

 

[athon]

Philosophers love to play games with definitions. They inevitably confuse rather than extend our knowledge and understanding. The gamesmanship we have seen here with the word "evidence" is a good example.

Poisoning the well...check.

Standard dictionary definitions tell us the meaning clearly enough, but like so many fundamental concepts, definitions are inevitably circular.

Huh? Dictionary definitions are merely groups of words that are similies for single words. They aren't meant to be anything more. They also aren't very good at capturing the nuances of a word, such as the connotations.

But there really isn't much ambiguity here. In nearly every instance of the use of the word 'evidence' it means the same thing;

It's an observation.
It increases or decreases your confidence in a concept.

At that point, we agree. What you have done is add to that another qualifier that means it must be scientific. Meanwhile, science is defined as different to religion because it is evidence based.

And you can't see how that is ridiculous?

Fundamental concepts within the world of science are burdened with undefined terms. For example, try defining a point in space without using a word like position, place or spot.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Are you saying that 'evidence' cannot be defined?

In any case, are you saying I couldn't use the word 'coordinate', or explain how space can be defined according to dimensions? Seriously, this is your argument?

Science depends on evidence for its existence as a human activity; without evidence there is no science. The meaning of that last statement is quite clear to all but those whose intellects and education are inadequate. No definition of the word "evidence" is necessary.

Oh, wow. You are saying that. My...

I'm not saying that science doesn't rely on evidence. My point is that if you try to define evidence by science, it becomes a circular argument.

You say to a creationist 'that isn't evidence'. They say 'well what do you mean by evidence?'. At this point, you would shrug and say 'evidence cannot be defined'? Honestly?

Alternatively you could say 'evidence is anything we sense that influences our belief in an idea'. At that point, you would probably state that it also has to be scientific and not religious. Of course, to explain 'what makes it scientific and not religious?', it seems from what you said earlier that it has to use evidence.

And around we go.

A third option is to state science uses evidence, and evidence is any observation that influences our belief in something but also survives evaluation according to a list of criteria; measures we call 'scientific'. I suspect any agreement we might have lies here, but my problem with option three is that is it suffers from the demarcation problem, hence returns us to a position where evidence is subjective.

Given its common usage, I feel it's best to avoid using the term objectively to describe how science is done, and simply focus on how evidence as a subjective term is evaluated.

In contrast, religion does not depend on evidence. Religions may use the word evidence to support beliefs but the beliefs themselves exist outside of the need for evidence. They use words like faith, acceptance and trust for their core support. Evidence is an afterthought, inevitably misused and faked in their apologies and polemics to justify nonsensical systems of beliefs.

Lots of well poisoning, assertions, conjectures, but not much in the way of reason.

Shame, PS. You strike me as somebody who knows a lot of stuff and deserves respect for being well informed, but when it comes to applying it and using some good old fashioned reasoning skills, you resort to condescension, smugness, emotional appeals and blind assertion to make an argument.

Athon

 

[athon]

By the way, what makes you think that you're in charge of defining words? Look up the definition of evidence and you'll find that it simply means "anything which tends to support the truthfulness of an assertion". That's fairly broad.

Exactly. When used in court, it only needs to influence a judge or jury into taking your view. Science doesn't come into it. People use the word in many different situations and context, all referring to beliefs. Stating that the scientific use is the only use, or only important one, is not only naive and ignorant, it makes it impossible to communicate science effectively to people.

While people in my profession are desperately trying to rip down the ivory tower and help make science accessible and understandable to people, others are busy building it up and making the rest of the population feel stupid and isolated. Talk about making my job harder...

Athon

 

[tsig]

Sorry, I really don't understand what you're meaning here.



No.

Look, honestly, if you have something critical to say, I'm all ears. I might not agree with PS, but I really am grateful for his effort (even if it is slightly smug and condescending) to outline in detail his problems with my reasoning. I'm finding your input to be chips in from the peanut gallery frustrating because they're little more than one sentence murmurs of dissent.

By all means, dig in. But make an effort of it or keep it to yourself, because it's not serving to really show anybody where my reasoning is falty.

Athon

I am sorry that the only way you can understand anything is if I type a whole lot of words however i have noticed that there is a habit of hiding any meaning or contradictions under a bushel of words and so i try to make my statements short and to the point.

If you find my inputs uncomfortable that could be because they give you no room to maneuver.

You could have tried to reply the content instead of criticizing the style.

 

[tsig]

Shame, PS. You strike me as somebody who knows a lot of stuff and deserves respect for being well informed, but when it comes to applying it and using some good old fashioned reasoning skills, you resort to condescension, smugness, emotional appeals and blind assertion to make an argument.

Athon

A condescending, smug, emotional blind assertion posed as an argument.

 

[tsig]

Exactly. When used in court, it only needs to influence a judge or jury into taking your view. Science doesn't come into it. People use the word in many different situations and context, all referring to beliefs. Stating that the scientific use is the only use, or only important one, is not only naive and ignorant, it makes it impossible to communicate science effectively to people.

While people in my profession are desperately trying to rip down the ivory tower and help make science accessible and understandable to people, others are busy building it up and making the rest of the population feel stupid and isolated. Talk about making my job harder...

Athon

You shouldn't call others " naive and ignorant" because they disagree with you.

Whining about others making your job harder hardly strikes me as any kind of an argument.

 

[Perpetual Student]

athon:

You know full well when we point to the fissile record as "evidence" of evolution, the word "evidence" is used in a universally understood way. All may not agree that the evidence is adequate or valid, but the word is understood by all. There is no need to define a word every time we put it in a clear context, as in the above example.
When I say science is based on evidence, I am using the word with the same meaning as above. I could have used other examples of its usage in countless experiments and observations. We all know what it means.
When Christians say they believe in the holy trinity, they do so by virtue of their so called faith or naive belief. They may refer to to their scriptures and claim it is evidence. Again we all know what they mean when they use the word "evidence." We do not need a definition.
That having been established, (now try to follow this) is their religion actually based on evidence, or do they simply naively believe in the holy trinity? Do Christians perform lab experiments in their seminaries to demonstrate the existence of the holy trinity? Do they point to the fissile record to show evidence of the holy trinity? Do they perform mathematical calculations to demonstrate the existence of the holy trinity? No! They simply point to their scriptures and claim that it is evidence -- and they actually do believe it is evidence. Again, there is no need to define the word "evidence." We all know what they mean.
The point I have been making -- that you seem to have so much trouble understanding -- is that their belief does not depend on evidence, it depends on their naive belief or faith.
There can be no science without evidence; the very very fabric of science is based on evidence. In contrast, religions and superstitions do not need evidence; they need naive belief, though they may use what they think is evidence in their apologies and polemics.
We do not need to dizzy ourselves with definitions of the word evidence. Just try to follow the argument. Try to come out of your cloud of pompous obfuscation.

 

[Perpetual Student]

In any case, are you saying I couldn't use the word 'coordinate', or explain how space can be defined according to dimensions? Seriously, this is your argument?

Athon

I guess you really don't get it. Now try defining the word "coordinate."

 

[Perpetual Student]

athon:

If the point isn't clear yet, here's one more thought.
Let's take a Christian who believes in the holy ghost and a physicist who believed in Phlogiston. Both think they have evidence (let's not belabor the definition -- we know what they mean).
If one gives convincing counter arguments to the physicist he will either change his mind or go to his grave believing his evidence is superior. Now, when we give counter arguments to the holy ghost guy, the christian may do one of three things: change his mind, believe his evidence is stronger or reject all evidence and rely on his faith.
There is the crux of the matter. The physicist will never rely of faith. His beliefs are evidence based; that is not necessarily true of the holy ghost believer. Got it now?

 

[athon]

athon:

If the point isn't clear yet, here's one more thought.
Let's take a Christian who believes in the holy ghost and a physicist who believed in Phlogiston. Both think they have evidence (let's not belabor the definition -- we know what they mean).
If one gives convincing counter arguments to the physicist he will either change his mind or go to his grave believing his evidence is superior. Now, when we give counter arguments to the holy ghost guy, the christian may do one of three things: change his mind, believe his evidence is stronger or reject all evidence and rely on his faith.
There is the crux of the matter. The physicist will never rely of faith. His beliefs are evidence based; that is not necessarily true of the holy ghost believer. Got it now?

Given none of my points have been addressed, I'm not sure where this is going.

I know your point, PS. Repeating it over and over won't make me suddenly accept it if I think it is wrong. And I've explained my reasoning.

You maintain that the meaning of evidence is universally understood in a simple, pure way; it is scientific. So it can only be scientific. I've argued why this is incorrect, and you've resorted only to well-poisoning and assertions of being right.

You refuse to provide a clear definition, saying that all definitions are cyclic, as if it dismisses the need for clarity. This is absurd, if not a straight cop-out! If I ask you what you mean by a word, surely you can find more words to represent it and provide us both with a common ground of understanding. It may not be perfect, but it's sure better than having two conflicting understandings.

So I'll have on last attempt at seeing if we can get some common ground here;

1. Do you or do you not think that the word 'evidence' represents observations that changes one's confidence in a belief they hold?
2. Do you or do you not think that 'evidence' has to be scientific in nature for it to be understood by all people as being evidence?
3. Do you or do you not think that all people share the same understanding of what 'science' constitutes?

Three simple questions that you have avoided addressing, instead dismissing flippantly. I'm not holding my breath, but I would hope you could maybe address the real point here rather than repeating the same assertions that evidence is scientific and religious stuff isn't.

Athon

 

[athon]

I guess you really don't get it. Now try defining the word "coordinate."

I do get it - you're claiming if you state one term, you need more terms to define it. We then need to define them.

It's a non-sequitor, though. If I don't know what you mean by 'point', or we disagree, we might find common understanding with more terms. You use the word 'coordinates on a 3D grid' and I might then find I know what you mean now.

Not entirely difficult. If we find we disagree on what coordinate means, then we might continue to have a problem. Fortunately, while science means different things to different people, coordinate doesn't suffer from a demarcation problem.

Athon

 

[athon]

You know full well when we point to the fissile record as "evidence" of evolution, the word "evidence" is used in a universally understood way. All may not agree that the evidence is adequate or valid, but the word is understood by all. There is no need to define a word every time we put it in a clear context, as in the above example.

Of course I know full well. It's something we've sensed in some way that increases our confidence in our beliefs in evolution.

No, no need to define it at all. But it isn't evidence for everybody, even if they understand it. It won't increase their confidence at all. How can you objectively state they are wrong?

When I say science is based on evidence, I am using the word with the same meaning as above.

I know what you're meaning. I might quibble over 'based on', as science is often non-empirical, especially when it starts theoretically. You might say it isn't science then...but I think you'd have trouble convincing a lot of theoretical scientists that their work isn't scientific until an experimentalist gets their hands on it.

In any case, that's another discussion.

I could have used other examples of its usage in countless experiments and observations. We all know what it means.

There's another assertion. 'We all know it means exactly what I think it means'. No, most people don't. Most people don't discriminate evidence without a qualifier as only being scientific. If you say 'scientific evidence', they might start to think things like experiments and men in lab coats. But even then, there'd be disagreement. Is it still evidence is it didn't come out of a laboratory? Is it still evidence if it hasn't been peer reviewed? Is it still evidence if I didn't see it with my own eyes?

Those things are important when communicating science. Telling somebody that what they have 'isn't evidence' when they think it is is an objective claim. Yet evidence isn't an objective fact - it is a subjective opinion on an observation. It's an argument you'd never win, so I say why bother making it?

The point I have been making -- that you seem to have so much trouble understanding -- is that their belief does not depend on evidence, it depends on their naive belief or faith.

Then you really haven't been talking to many Christians. Go through the forums and count how many point out what they see as evidence of God in the world. Find how many will seek out miracles to support their faith, or refer to the Bible. Of course, you'll say it isn't scientific (it isn't), but here we are again - your assertion that evidence must be scientific to be evidence.

There can be no science without evidence; the very very fabric of science is based on evidence. In contrast, religions and superstitions do not need evidence; they need naive belief, though they may use what they think is evidence in their apologies and polemics.

And there is the crux of our argument right there. 'What they think is evidence'.

Why is it not evidence?

We do not need to dizzy ourselves with definitions of the word evidence. Just try to follow the argument.

THAT is the argument! THAT is my claim, that you're trying to refute (or not, as the case has seemed). I'm not arguing that religion isn't based on a belief in a deity, or that they have to return to those a priori beliefs. I'm not arguing that it is the same system as science, or that their evidence could change their minds.

I'm arguing against an undefensible, illogical need to describe science as evidence based and describe evidence as science based.

Athon

 

[athon]

I am sorry that the only way you can understand anything is if I type a whole lot of words however i have noticed that there is a habit of hiding any meaning or contradictions under a bushel of words and so i try to make my statements short and to the point.

Ironically, I've found people tend to hide meaning in short, ambiguous sentences, giving them room to move if somebody 'misunderstands' what they meant.

If you find my inputs uncomfortable that could be because they give you no room to maneuver.

No, I find them hard to understand. I'd rather not assume your meaning - I'd rather it was clear so you couldn't obfuscate it later.

You could have tried to reply the content instead of criticizing the style.

See the first thing I said -'Sorry, I don't understand'. Kind of hard to reply to something when I'm not 100% clear on its meaning.

Athon

 

[athon]

In my experience, more often than not it is because there is not 'cause/effect' relationship established between the thing that is observed and the thing/idea/concept that the observation is being attributed to.

True, but again, 'is established' is again subjective. I'm not stating that it is meaningless, but rather that nobody can observe a cause. You can only observe two events and argue over the reasons behind why you think they might be related.

Of course, sometimes two events aren't observed at all. One is, and the qualities of a second event are implied. For instance, I might see a ball fly in through my window. I won't observe the causal event, but the I can make useful assumptions about its qualities from what I do observe.

Well, IMO "empirical science" is somewhat different than "science" in a generic sense. The lines only really become blurry when the 'science' isn't based on empirical fact.

You'd have fit in well at the Vienna Circle.

Unfortunately, logical positivism went the way of the dodo because too much useful stuff came from non-empirical sources.

Athon

 

[PingOfPong]

too much useful stuff came from non-empirical sources.

I certainly agree with that. Maxwell's analysis of electric and magnetic equations led him to believe that light was a combined electromagnetic wave. He offered no experimental proof at the time he derived it. Was Maxwell's mystical mumbo jumbo mathematics unscientific? If we're going to be strict empiricists then we have to say that it most certainly was unscientific. Of course, we know in hindsight that Maxwell was correct but the idea was in a metaphysical limbo for many decades before Hertz devised an experiment to confirm conclusively that light is in fact electromagnetic waves.

When I studied the ME's (Maxwell's equations), I could see the mathematical appeal of it. The wave function of light could be derived from observations which had nothing to do with light. Even without Hertz's famous experiment one would have to conclude that it is correct. MM I know you're objection will be that "we can experiment on light here on Earth". That's true. We can now but there was a time when we couldn't. The technology and know-how didn't exist. What was the status of Maxwell's purely mathematical light analysis during that time?

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm arguing against an undefensible, illogical need to describe science as evidence based and describe evidence as science based.

Athon

What nonsense! I'm not sure who you think has maintained that evidence is science based. You are creating circles that don't exist.
I'll try again. I am using the word "evidence" in its ordinary universal meaning, as it is used by science, as it is used by laypeople, as it is used in the courts, as it is used by devout Muslims, etc:
When we see the first glimpse of the morning light it may be evidence that the sun is rising. When we see a perfectly blue sky it may be evidence that it will not rain. When we hear a roar in the sky it may be evidence that an airplane is flying in our vicinity. When we look at the fossil record we may see evidence of evolution. When we read Genesis we may see evidence of the single almighty God, who created the universe.
OK, now my point has been that science relies on evidence and religion does not rely on evidence. There is nothing circular here: Religions may use evidence (however erroneously) but they rely on naive belief (faith). There is no such reliance on faith in science, which is solely based on evidence (which may also be erroneous).
Consequently, because science is evidence based it evolves as new evidence surfaces; science then approaches better descriptions of reality. Religions, cling to their core beliefs regardless of evidence because they are not evidence based and consequently do not move toward better descriptions of reality. Do you get it now?

 

[athon]

OK, now my point has been that science relies on evidence and religion does not rely on evidence. There is nothing circular here: Religions may use evidence (however erroneously) but they rely on naive belief (faith). There is no such reliance on faith in science, which is solely based on evidence (which may also be erroneous).

Consequently, because science is evidence based it evolves as new evidence surfaces; science then approaches better descriptions of reality. Religions, cling to their core beliefs regardless of evidence because they are not evidence based and consequently do not move toward better descriptions of reality. Do you get it now?

My apologies - it seems we've been arguing over the wrong word. Looking back, I think we've both missed this it seems.

I'd still quibble over 'relies', but it's not something I've spent a lot of time considering to be honest. My reasoning is that I'd find it hard to define religion as just the faith. A deist, for instance, would have that same faith, but see an identical universe to ours. They wouldn't use evidence at all to defend their belief that there is 'something more' out there (except maybe a gut feeling that there should be more...which could be considered a sensation that encourages belief, maybe...).

Is that the same as being religious, though? I'd presume that religion would mean more than just having a faith in something. It implies a system of belief that involves ritual, story telling and a community of shared values. For those aspects, I'd imagine they would rely on observations, even if they're cherry picked to support that original faith.

Again, my apologies if I misunderstood your original criticism.

Athon

 

[Perpetual Student]

My apologies - it seems we've been arguing over the wrong word. Looking back, I think we've both missed this it seems.

I'd still quibble over 'relies', but it's not something I've spent a lot of time considering to be honest. My reasoning is that I'd find it hard to define religion as just the faith. A deist, for instance, would have that same faith, but see an identical universe to ours. They wouldn't use evidence at all to defend their belief that there is 'something more' out there (except maybe a gut feeling that there should be more...which could be considered a sensation that encourages belief, maybe...).

Is that the same as being religious, though? I'd presume that religion would mean more than just having a faith in something. It implies a system of belief that involves ritual, story telling and a community of shared values. For those aspects, I'd imagine they would rely on observations, even if they're cherry picked to support that original faith.
Again, my apologies if I misunderstood your original criticism.

Athon

There may be a better way to structure the argument than using the concept of reliance. In my view, the primary role (reliance?) of evidence is the key to what science is all about.
It appears that all scientific inquiry ultimately puts evidence in a position of supremacy. Theories like atomism may hang around for millennia, but will remain speculative until evidence surfaces supporting or falsifying it. We now have stuff like dark energy to cope with. Hopefully, someday evidence will settle that issue. There is no other way for science. As long as evidence is lacking or contradictory, theories remain speculative.
The reason there exist so-called "schools of thought" in fields like psychology and economics is because evidence is weak, lacking or contradictory.

OK, now, for closure:

Do you or do you not think that the word 'evidence' represents observations that changes one's confidence in a belief they hold?

I do think evidence can do so if people allow it to do so.

Do you or do you not think that 'evidence' has to be scientific in nature for it to be understood by all people as being evidence?

Evidence need not be scientific. As I indicated earlier evidence is an everyday experience for all people.

Do you or do you not think that all people share the same understanding of what 'science' constitutes?

Not at all. I believe there exists a variety of opinions as to what constitutes science --even among scientists.

______________________________________

Finally, I'll admit a strong disdain for religions and religious beliefs. My comments may be a bit extreme at times. Nevertheless, I don't know how to account for the persistence of thousands of unsupported contradictory belief systems around the world other than to conclude that evidence generally takes a back seat to naive (non-evidence based) belief. My earlier comments did not allow for much use of the concept of evidence within religious systems. You have force me to reconsider that extreme view.