Given recent posts here at TSZ challenging the validity of presuppositions and self-evident truths I thought the following list might be worthy of debate.
Presuppositions of Science
1. The existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. The orderly nature of the external world
3. The knowability of the external world
4. The existence of truth
5. The laws of logic
6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. The adequacy of language to describe the world
8. The existence of values used in science
9. The uniformity of nature and induction
10. The existence of numbers
When critics object to the Logos as a presupposition and offer instead 10 other presuppositions, Ockham’s Razor flies out the window.
String theory and multiverses make me grumpy. If the constraint isn’t testability, then what’s the difference between science and mythology? I’m not putting that as a direct challenge to you — I’m just indicating why I think that giving up on testability would be a really bad idea.
I haven’t read Rosenberg.
My view would be that we get a partial ordering rather than a linear ordering. For some pairs of theories T1 and T2, we can say that T1 > T2 (to be read “is better than”).
You can have a concept of convergence with a partial ordering (as used in general topology). But it is more complex than ordinary sequential convergence. But I think there’s a problem. A theory is a finitistic entity. If we could have a convergent sequence, then they might converge to something that, while not finitistic, is at least describable in terms of a countable infinity. If we go by the more general kind of convergence that we need for partial ordering, then we might finish up with something that is uncountably infinite so not anything at all like what we would consider a theory.
As pragmatists, we do the best we can and seek improvements where possible. But we are always limited by our own finiteness.
For myself, I don’t have a problem in estimating progress, though it would give a partial ordering. But I’m not sure how to explain how I measure progress, because it doesn’t fit well with typical philosophy of science.
I agree that science evolves, but I don’t see it as a problem for philosophers.
In fact, just the opposite: How and why it does so is the source of a lot of philosophical work!
But it is a problem for those who think science requires fixed presuppositions.
You keep saying things like that, although sometimes you are more definite on how far that subordination has gone. Are you practicing for an OP?
I think we are in agreement on the other stuff. Or at least close enough to call it a day.
No, I made a promise long ago not to start an original post at TSZ. The last time I did so I ended up having a really bad temper tantrum from Gregory’s constant bullying. I’d like to think I’ve grown a thicker skin since then, but it’s better not to tempt fate.
Certainly science requires that if we want to learn about the world that we have to look at the world. Arm chair analysis only or reliance on dogma or revelation won’t do it.
Maybe that can be called a presupposition for science. I don’t see it on Mung’s list.
But beyond that, how and when to look at the world is something
the scientific processthe people in the relevant scientific community continuallyevolvedevelop. So apart from looking at the world, I don’t see any presuppositions in testingI have similar concerns.
These days, a scientist cannot get tenure in a research university unless he has a history of receiving research grants. The major universities have, in effect, outsourced their tenure decisions to the granting agencies which are often government bodies. I see that as a serious mistake.
String theory is an example of scientific imagination. When a scientist imagines something consistent with existing data, people start wondering about entailments.
The current lack of ability to test a model does not automatically imply that it can never be tested. Darwin might not have been able to envision the Lenski experiment, and Galileo and copernicus would have been surprised by Newton and Halley. Not by their success, but by their mathematics.
I find it ironic that scientific imagination is the thing most feared and loathed by IDists, and yet it is necessary for designing. the problem for IDists is that they have never imagined anything that turned out to be productive.
fifthmonarchyman,
Don’t be deliberately obtuse — it just provides further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
Your question was how to prove you had a song in your mind. If you claim to have a song in your head, singing it supports your claim with objective, empirical evidence.
The song you’re singing here is one of inability to defend your claims and the lack of integrity to be willing to try.
Already answered:
Pretty much the same thing you expect when you aren’t engaged in special pleading for the religious beliefs in which you were indoctrinated. Objective, empirical evidence, reason, logic, the usual. Kind of what you yourself would want before making a financial investment, for example.
If I’m incorrect and you make a habit of buying revealed bridges, please do provide me with your contact details. I have some great opportunities for you.
I haven’t made any claims about dark energy or dark matter. You, on the other hand, repeatedly assert that “Jesus is lord” and that some god or gods exist, but never support those claims. In fact, you squirm mightily as you attempt to avoid doing so.
You could just honestly admit that you hold your beliefs by faith, without regard to evidence.
The necessity of birth is one of the reasons I believe Adam had a belly button
peace
KN,
We’ve had this conversation before. A June comment:
KN, to Neil:
I think everyone agrees that falsifiability is desirable, but let me sketch out a scenario in which string theory, with its concomitant multiverse, could come to be regarded as our best theory even if the multiverse remains unfalsifiable.
String theory is largely motivated by the desire to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity by explaining gravity in quantum terms. Let me stress that IANAP, but my understanding is that string theory is currently the most promising approach toward that unification. String theory happens to imply a multiverse, but this is an implication, not an assumption (which puts to rest the common ID claim that the multiverse is a transparent attempt to obviate the Designer).
If at some point string theory succeeds in uniting QM and GR, matches our experimental results to date, and we can find no other theory that does so without implying the existence of a multiverse, then I would say that we are justified in accepting the existence of the multiverse despite being unable to test it directly. As with all scientific conclusions, our acceptance would be provisional.
Of course the hope is that we will come up with a way to test the multiverse directly. Here’s one proposal, although I don’t know if the multiverse being tested for here is the same kind as the one predicted by string theory:
How Do You Test The Multiverse? With Bubbles
No the only inhabitants who are destined for “hell” are those who sin.
peace
fifthmonarchyman:
Woodbine:
fifth:
In whose womb did Adam gestate? Whose birth canal did he pass through? Or was it a disembodied womb/vagina combo custom-created by God, just so Adam could have the experience of being born?
Did the same thing happen with Eve?
I never said you did. I’m just trying to understand what counts as evidence in your every day life. About 96 percent of the universe is dark matter and dark matter
Do you reject dark matter and dark energy since you have no objective empirical evidence for their existence?
peace
fifth,
You didn’t answer the question, which was:
As Patrick said:
1) notice how one question has become six and I’ll bet you still won’t be satisfied.
2) I would guess a prehuman hominid
I never gave it much thought because Eve is not a candidate to be the covenant head for anyone. I would need to do some word study and exegesis before I could say.
peace
fifth, to Patrick:
There is “objective empirical evidence for their existence.” That’s why cosmologists take them seriously.
Cosmology isn’t like Christianity, fifth. You can’t just make something up (like “Jesus had to experience birth or mediation wouldn’t have worked”) and expect it to fly.
can you detail some of it here? I’m looking for direct objective empirical evidence.
this might get you started
from Wikipedia
quote:
Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but would account for most of the matter in the universe.
and
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space
end quote:
Doesn’t sound to objective and empirical to me
peace
quote:
Can you see God? You haven’t seen him? I’ve never seen the wind. I see the effects of the wind, but I’ve never seen the wind. There’s a mystery to it.
end quote:
– Billy Graham
fifth,
I won’t derail the thread by going over the evidence for dark energy and dark matter, but if you’re truly interested, this Teaching Company course by Sean Carroll is excellent.
fifth,
It’s all related to the original question, which remains unanswered:
You’re telling us that Jesus had to experience birth, and that his mediation would have failed otherwise. But why? In what specific way does mediation depend on having been a fetus at one time? Especially when you are the omnipotent creator of the universe?
If you don’t know why, then why do you believe it? You put the capital G in ‘Gullible’, fifth.
The thread is about the presuppositions of science and you derailed the thread with questions about Christmas. Why does this science stuff scare you so?
I’m quite familiar with dark matter and dark energy. What I’m not familiar with is direct empirical evidence for their existence. That is because there is no direct objective empirical evidence for these things we assume their existence based on inference alone.
We assume they exist because they fill a hole in our physics.
Why can’t you just admit that?
peace
Christ was 100 percent man God accepted his sacrifice because of that.
A 75 percent human could not take my place. If it could then killing a monkey would be the same crime as killing a child
peace
peace
fifth,
As “familiar” as you were with computability, Kolmogorov complexity and transcendental numbers?
Hmmm. Before you were asking for “objective empirical evidence” for . Now you’re asking for “direct objective empirical evidence”. Why the goalpost move?
I already know the answer, of course.
You realize that the evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy is far, far, better than the evidence for the truth of Christianity, right?
Unlike KN, at least I am not grumpy.
Some people spend time with RPGs (role playing games). Some people solve crossword puzzles. Some people play golf. And some physicists play string theory and multiverse theory. At least it helps them keep up their skills at mathematics. But, apart from that, I’m skeptical of the value of string theory and multiverse theory.
But why should that be desirable?
fifthmonarchyman,
So you brought it up as yet another attempt to distract the conversation from your failure to support your claims.
Already answered, in the bit you cut from my response.
Show some integrity — defend your claims.
fifth,
Why would God have refused Christ’s sacrifice if Christ hadn’t experienced birth?
What on earth is so special about being born? And why do you believe this stuff?
The evidence for dark matter is pretty solid. However, there is always a possibility that it is evidence of a problem in our understanding of gravity.
Similarly, the evidence for dark energy could be evidence of problems with big bang cosmology.
keiths:
Neil:
For the same reason that scientists valued the unification of the electric and magnetic forces, and the subsequent unification of them with the weak nuclear force.
Scientists seek theories that successfully explain more with less.
I’m not moving the goal post just trying to figure out what counts as evidence in your worldview. Does indirect evidence count? Ive haven’t heard you say
For instance would the early Christian movement count as indirect evidence for the resurrection? Would creation count as indirect evidence for a creator? Or is indirect evidence only acceptable under particular circumstances?
I just don’t know where you all stand on the subject.
peace
Exactly, dark matter is required to fill a whole in our physics just like a Triune God is needed to provide a solid grounds for knowledge.
It’s all about indirect evidence and inference
peace
again I’m not making claims just answering (endless) questions
peace
That is such a convincing argument Bill. I am compelled to agree.
No presupposition for a discipline can be derived from the operations conducted within that discipline without circularity. Therefore, by definition, they’re selected or devised on the basis of other, extra-disciplinary concerns.
As extra-disciplinary origins are inherent in all presuppositions, that a particular presupposition derives it’s legitimacy – or may find it’s legitimacy challenged – from outside of the system that presupposes it (say, a presupposition enabling science that originates in pragmatic or philosophical concerns) can’t in and of itself be counted as a weakness, or as undermining the discipline, because all presuppositions for all enterprises share such extra-disciplinary origins and justifications.
The challenge itself has to be persuasive.
fifth,
Yes, and so does direct evidence. Not all evidence carries equal weight, of course.
Don’t skip this one, fifth:
On further thought, I’ll retract that as a presupposition of science. Instead I’ll propose only 2:
1. Science is a human activity and presupposes human abilities such as communicating in language, forming co-operating social groups, and engaging in practical reasoning. Although I note this, I don’t think it is useful to mention it if the goal is to identify presuppositions peculiar to science.
2. Science presupposes the goal of explaining, predicting, and controlling the world using theories which will work for anyone.
Given 2, science proceeds by iterative development of process and theory.
(Mung: I think you have mentioned you have IT knowledge. Are you familiar with agile (iterative) development? It’s an interesting analogy for the scientific process which I can elaborate on for you if you are interested).
Which is simply not true. For example a “two” or “four” could have done just as well as the “three” you claim is required.
Explain why two or four would not be a solid ground for knowledge, but three is?
Bet you can’t.
for probably the third time
Because being born is a necessary part of being human.
Humans are rational animals
Animals are born. This is a definitional characteristic of living things in the physical realm it’s what separates them us nonliving things like robots and thunderstorms
http://www.saburchill.com/chapters/chap0001.html .
A physical being that was not born would not be animal and therefore by extension would not be like me.
Here is the quote that settles the matter
quote:
But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.” And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Behold, I and the children God has given me.” Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
(Heb 2:9-18)
quote:
Notice how one question has now become many
Circular much? You read the Bible like a textbook, but it’s in fact a story book.
So is there a quote that “settles the matter” why only god in 3 pieces could be a foundation for knowledge, and why 2 or 4 or 5 would not have been the same?
I’ll take that bet
Communication of revelation requires a sender (1) a receiver (2) and a signal (3).
That is three
Two would not suffice for communication, four would have at least one unnecessary element.
Did i win?
peace
Except the part about him being born of a virgin.
And having no biological father.
And having magical healing powers.
I see it as a failure in politics only. Further, I don’t see a separation between the values of science and politics in the sense the any involvement of politics in scientific values is prohibited.
Kitcher sees three levels of values in science:
1. Broad: what problems should be solved? This depends on what people value and how societies and life should be organized. Choices should be made politically, eg by allocation of funding and by regulatory frameworks (such as for research into biological weapons).
2. Cognitive: what type of knowledge will help solve the chosen problems. Mainly a decision for the scientific community, but subject to regulatory frameworks.
3. Probative: what specific questions and tests are needed to obtain the desired knowledge.
For 1, the political process can fail by:
1. Allowing corporate interests to control the political decision process (as in the US Congress, I believe).
2. Failing to fund research centers such as universities, forcing them to rely on biased sources of funding, such as corporate or religious interests.
3. Letting fringe groups control the regulatory or funding process, such as the role of certain groups in setting GMO regulatory decisions in Europe.
4. Letting political dogma set limits to scientific research, such as Lysenkoism in USSR but also social science research in (eg) China.
(BTW, since OP mentioned scientific values, I think this post is on topic.)
Think parthenogenesis no biological father still an animal
Not magic miracle. Unless you are saying that miracles are impossible for humans. If that is what you are saying you have ruled out Christianity a prioi
peace
I see these issues are a failure in the political process as per my post to KN.
The situation here in Canada at UBC where a president quit after only one year and a tenured professor was subject to pressure regarding free speech in her blog provide another example of how the corporate interests providing major funding attempt to subvert academic freedom (although there is some question about the ability of the president to manage large organizations based on his background).
There was an interesting recent article recently in Atlantic about over-concern for students’ personal feelings in academic debate. It pointed to a switch from academic to business background in university leadership, presumably in order to tap corporate funding. But people with business backgrounds tend to see universities as businesses and students as customers and so prioritize customer (ie student) satisfaction ahead of free academic debate and research.
ETA: the business background of university administrators probably also plays a role in the choice of some US universities to devote millions to funding college sports at the expense of academic research and teaching: Billion dollar ball.
Fifth, first you claim Jesus had to be like us ‘in every respect’. You bizarrely include in that criteria ‘being born’.
But when it’s pointed out that Jesus’s birth was spectacularly unlike any other human in history then the goalposts suddenly start to shift. Being born was a precondition of parity between Jesus and man….but his lack of a biological father and a virgin birth somehow doesn’t matter?
The virgin birth mattered enough to make it a tenet of the religion but according to you it’s not terribly important because, you know, pathogenesis and all that!
There’s also the fact that Jesus was incapable of sinning. So, yet again, Jesus was not in the least like us ‘in every respect’.
Does it? I’ll take your word for that.
And where is it written that unnecessary elements are a problem?
No. Who is the sender, who is the receiver and who is the signal?
Given that it’s you receiving the revelation, are you saying you are part of the triune god? Which part?
Why don’t amputees ever get healed? What does God have against amputees such that they will never ever regrow however much prayer is offered?
Everyone else seems to get healed, cancer, blindness, paralysis. But not amputees. Why fifth, why?
That’s not going to work without a communications channel (4).
Many are provided phantom limbs.
What else would you expect?