Non-Scientists and Science

[Beth]

Asserting that the universe can be understood does not rule out the existence of gods.

Agreed. Also, asserting the existance of gods does not rule out the idea that the universe can be understood. Nevertheless, science begins with the assumption that our world can be understand without invoking any supernatural explanations. To me that means that science starts with the axiom that either gods do not exist or that they have no direct influence on our observations.

If you don't understand why, it would be pointless for me to try to explain.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

[KingMerv00]

Sometimes I wonder if he got to be a professor in the same way a lot of untalented women became lead actresses.

Way to plant that image in my head. I hate you forever.

 

[KingMerv00]

Agreed. Also, asserting the existance of gods does not rule out the idea that the universe can be understood. Nevertheless, science begins with the assumption that our world can be understand without invoking any supernatural explanations. To me that means that science starts with the axiom that either gods do not exist or that they have no direct influence on our observations.

Science starts out with enough humility to admit that it has no way of experimenting on supernatural causes. They are not predictable in the same way natural laws are.

No assumptions.... just self-imposed limitations.

 

[Beth]

Science starts out with enough humility to admit that it has no way of experimenting on supernatural causes. They are not predictable in the same way natural laws are.

No assumptions.... just self-imposed limitations.

Isn't saying it's a self-imposed limitation the same as saying it is a postulate or axiom of science? If not, how do you perceive your statement as being different from mine?

 

[KingMerv00]

Isn't saying it's a self-imposed limitation the same as saying it is a postulate or axiom of science? If not, how do you perceive your statement as being different from mine?

A self-imposed limitation is not the same as an axiom. It is a matter of pragmatism not a matter of assuming truth.

Science has not (and in principle cannot) rule out supernatural causes, including God(s). Where exactly are you getting the idea that science is not even open to the possibility of the divine? Granted, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations, but that is only because the scientific method forces them to.

Science is willing to to say "I don't know". Religion never seems to get the hang of that.

 

[Mojo]

Science is willing to to say "I don't know". Religion never seems to get the hang of that.

That's the trouble with omniscience.

 

[Beth]

A self-imposed limitation is not the same as an axiom. It is a matter of pragmatism not a matter of assuming truth.

I guess, we'll have to disagree here. To me, assuming that there are no supernatural causes is an axiom of the scientific method and the reason for doing so (i.e. pragmatism in your view) is irrelevant to whether or not it is an axiom and assumed true.

Science has not (and in principle cannot) rule out supernatural causes, including God(s). Where exactly are you getting the idea that science is not even open to the possibility of the divine? Granted, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations, but that is only because the scientific method forces them to.

Where do I get the idea that science is not open to the possibility? From the fact science is never allowed to postulate a supernatural cause. Instead, as you point out, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations. That seems to me to be stating that science is not open to the possibility of the divine. How is it that you reconcile this concept of science with the idea that science is open to the possibility of the divine?

 

[KingMerv00]

I guess, we'll have to disagree here. To me, assuming that there are no supernatural causes is an axiom of the scientific method and the reason for doing so (i.e. pragmatism in your view) is irrelevant to whether or not it is an axiom and assumed true.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Science does not rule out supernatural causes. It cannot. It cannot confirm them either. As such, scientists to not go looking for the supernatural because it would be unable to come a useful conclusion anyway.

Where do I get the idea that science is not open to the possibility? From the fact science is never allowed to postulate a supernatural cause. Instead, as you point out, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations. That seems to me to be stating that science is not open to the possibility of the divine. How is it that you reconcile this concept of science with the idea that science is open to the possibility of the divine?

The reason science keeps looking for natural causes while excluding the supernatural is twofold:

1) As stated above, science cannot test the supernatural.

2) When should you stop looking for a natural cause? Even if current attempts prove fruitless, there is no reason to think QM couldn't be explained through pure mechanistic beauty in 10 million years. Should we just call it a day at 9 million and attribute the Casimir effect to the Mad Hatter's magic tea powers?

 

[Beth]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Science does not rule out supernatural causes. It cannot. It cannot confirm them either. As such, scientists to not go looking for the supernatural because it would be unable to come a useful conclusion anyway.

Agreed. Science does not rule out supernatural causes. Neither does it confirm them. No failure to communicate on that issue.

But my interpretation is that the reason such causes, if they exist, lie outside the bounds of science due to the fact that science is built upon the axiom that god, if he/she/it exists, does not intervene in any perceptable way with our universe.

The reason science keeps looking for natural causes while excluding the supernatural is twofold:

1) As stated above, science cannot test the supernatural.

Science cannot test whether the cause of something is supernatural. I understand this. Again, we agree.

2) When should you stop looking for a natural cause? Even if current attempts prove fruitless, there is no reason to think QM couldn't be explained through pure mechanistic beauty in 10 million years. Should we just call it a day at 9 million and attribute the Casimir effect to the Mad Hatter's magic tea powers?

I don't understand your point here. When should we stop looking for a non-supernatural cause? Whenever we are comfortable accepting the cause on faith - whether that faith rests on the premise that the unexplained has a natural causes that someday science can explain or a supernatural cause beyond the bounds of science matters not. What has this to do with the idea that science assumes axiomically that there are no supernatural causes?

 

[KingMerv00]

Agreed. Science does not rule out supernatural causes. Neither does it confirm them. No failure to communicate on that issue.

Sweet.

But my interpretation is that the reason such causes, if they exist, lie outside the bounds of science due to the fact that science is built upon the axiom that god, if he/she/it exists, does not intervene in any perceptable way with our universe.

Wrong. If God really did intervene and everyone knew it, science would/could/should make no comment. Something along the lines of "Holy crap! Did you see that?!?!" might be appropriate however.

The reason supernatural causes are left out of the scientific method because there is no way to test for them.

Science cannot test whether the cause of something is supernatural. I understand this. Again, we agree.

Again...sweet.

I don't understand your point here. When should we stop looking for a non-supernatural cause? Whenever we are comfortable accepting the cause on faith - whether that faith rests on the premise that the unexplained has a natural causes that someday science can explain or a supernatural cause beyond the bounds of science matters not. What has this to do with the idea that science assumes axiomically that there are no supernatural causes?

How exactly do you START looking for a supernatural cause anyway? How would you go about selecting which supernatural cause is to blame? Magic? God? FSM?

Faith is alien to me. How people get through life using faith is beyond my comprehension. Belief should be a conclusion not some whispy a priori. How do you choose the correct a priori?

I can't think of any other way to explain the scientific method and its attitude toward the supernatural...perhaps someone else would like to try.

 

[69dodge]

Where do I get the idea that science is not open to the possibility? From the fact science is never allowed to postulate a supernatural cause. Instead, as you point out, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "supernatural". What's the difference between a supernatural cause and a natural one?

Science just wants to understand stuff. Is postulating a supernatural cause for some phenomenon really any different from simply saying, "I don't currently understand this phenomenon, and furthermore I never will"? If that's pretty much what "supernatural" means, then of course science doesn't want to say that.

It's possible there are some phenomena that we won't ever be able to understand. But we're guaranteed not to understand them if we don't even try.

 

[Beth]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "supernatural". What's the difference between a supernatural cause and a natural one?

Actually, this is a really good question and why I have pondered quite a bit. I have not, however, come to a conclusion. What are your thoughts on what separates a supernatural cause from a natural one?

Science just wants to understand stuff. Is postulating a supernatural cause for some phenomenon really any different from simply saying, "I don't currently understand this phenomenon, and furthermore I never will"? If that's pretty much what "supernatural" means, then of course science doesn't want to say that.

It's possible there are some phenomena that we won't ever be able to understand. But we're guaranteed not to understand them if we don't even try.

I agree.

 

[Beth]

How exactly do you START looking for a supernatural cause anyway? How would you go about selecting which supernatural cause is to blame? Magic? God? FSM?

Faith is alien to me. How people get through life using faith is beyond my comprehension. Belief should be a conclusion not some whispy a priori. How do you choose the correct a priori?

I don't know how to choose the correct assumption a priori. How can anyone? That is why I am an agnostic. But how can you claim that faith is alien to you when you appear to possess a strong faith in science. Unless I have misunderstood you, you believe that even those things we cannot currently explain could someday be explainable through science if humans wished to expend adequate effort to do so. That is faith.

Believing everything happens for a reason is faith whether you believe that the reason is rational and can be understood through scientific methods or whether you believe that the reason is god's will and not understandable by mere humans.

I can't think of any other way to explain the scientific method and its attitude toward the supernatural...perhaps someone else would like to try.

I'm sorry if I have frustrated you. I feel I understand science reasonably well. It just seems to me that science proceeds from the apriori assumption that no god exists, or at least, never intervenes in earthly affairs.

 

[Rolfe]

I'd take a stab at "natural" being fully explicable within the workings of the universe we inhabit, and "supernatural" being a situation where another universe or mode of being is postulated to have interacted with this one.

Now feel free to shoot me down.

Rolfe.

 

[rwguinn]

Sweet.



Snip..


How exactly do you START looking for a supernatural cause anyway? How would you go about selecting which supernatural cause is to blame? Magic? God? FSM?

Faith is alien to me. How people get through life using faith is beyond my comprehension. Belief should be a conclusion not some whispy a priori. How do you choose the correct a priori?

I can't think of any other way to explain the scientific method and its attitude toward the supernatural...perhaps someone else would like to try.

Well, if we were to find, embedded in granite somewhere, a fossill T-rex with a human encased inside, which was holding a crucifix which cured death, we would probably begin to wonder...

And yes, I specified granite because it is far for sedimentary...

 

[Mojo]

Where do I get the idea that science is not open to the possibility? From the fact science is never allowed to postulate a supernatural cause. Instead, as you point out, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations.

Well, yes, you're right here. Science never postulates a supernatural cause. That's because science, by definition, always tries to find a natural explanation. That's the way it is.

If Newton hadn't looked for natural explanations, we might still have no idea of how bodies behave when forces are applied to them.

If scientists hadn't looked for natural explanations, we wouldn't be using computers to communicate with each other.

 

[Beth]

I'd take a stab at "natural" being fully explicable within the workings of the universe we inhabit, and "supernatural" being a situation where another universe or mode of being is postulated to have interacted with this one.

Now feel free to shoot me down.

Rolfe.

Not necessarily shooting you down, but if the other universe or mode of being interacts with this one in predictable ways, obeying the laws of physics as we understand them, how is that different from having a "natural" explanation?

Beth

 

[Mojo]

Not necessarily shooting you down, but if the other universe or mode of being interacts with this one in predictable ways, obeying the laws of physics as we understand them, how is that different from having a "natural" explanation?

What "other universe?" The universe is all that there is. Anything not within our universe is not observable. It can't interact with our universe.

 

[Mojo]

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

 

[Beth]

What "other universe?" The universe is all that there is. Anything not within our universe is not observable. It can't interact with our universe.

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

No need to apologize. You have your beliefs about how the universe works and that's fine. Perhaps you are right. I'm just not as certain as you are about such things.