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.
By “rejecting presupposition X precluding science” I meant “if one does not presuppose X (some philosophical position or explanation), then the successful practice of science is not possible.”
I suppose I am making a modal argument. I take “presupposition for science” to mean being the case on all possible worlds where science is done. So if I can find a possible world where science can be done successfully and the presupposition does not obtain, then it cannot be a presupposition for science.
For my argument, it does not matter what you, Walto, believe about truth and language, only whether there are possible worlds where other philosophical theories are the case and science still works.
FFM:
Yes, that’s true. It is my view that science is a stand-alone enterprise that doesn’t need Christianity.
Whether and to what degree and in what way science arose in Europe due to (or in spite of) the influence of Christianity is a complex historical question and subject to debate. Some argue that Christianity inhibited and delayed the flowering of science in Europe for a thousand years. I haven’t the expertise (or the time to acquire it) to really judge competing historical claims.
In any event, even granting Christianity an historical role in the emergence of the collections of practices and institutions we call science (inevitable, as Patrick points out above, given that it governed almost all European practices and institutions for centuries) it doesn’t follow that it was necessary to that emergence, or that it would not have occurred absent Christianity at other times and places. But human history is contingent, and we’ll never be able to run that experiment.
Again, science can be conducted without there being any theories of truth. Presumably it was conducted prior to their being any theories of truth.
And of course my views about truth and language are irrelevant to whether science can be conducted! I think, however, that if, e.g., the correspondence
theory of truth is correct, then it is correct in every possible world, and if it is not correct, then it is not correct in any possible world.
I think the problem here is your use of such phrases as “can be done successfully without….” Those are ambiguous as between:
(1) Necessarily, if there is no such thing as truth there can be no such thing as science.
and
(2) Necessarily, if nobody has (a good? any?) theory of truth, there can be no such thing as science.
Now, the term “presupposition” suggests somebody presupposing something. And that suggests that we’re talking about about (2). But I’m trying to defend something like (1), that science, being truth-seeking, depends on a notion of truth. Admittedly, that’s paradoxical, since I don’t want to claim that anybody has to actually HAVE that notion to conduct scientific experiments. But the substitution of lots of words for “truth” in (1) produces obvious falsehoods, while leaving “truth” in there does not. I think that difference is important and suggests that truth is at least something like a “presupposition” that is required for science. For the reasons set forth above, “presupposition” is probably not the best word for this requirement, though.
It’s the culture as a whole, rather than the theology, that matters here. It is very difficult to determine to what extent the culture derives from the theology. And, for that matter, it is difficult to determine to what extent the theology derives from the culture.
Is there any other kind?
Sorry, but shouldn’t that be Jovians?
Three separate comments:
1. Does the above mean you think that philosophical explanations, or at least the theory of truth, are a priori? (The presuppositions don’t seem like Kripike-style a posteriori necessities, although I have not thought a lot about that possibility ETA: and I suppose your comment could be interpreted that way).
2. If something being correct (ETA:
on the actual world[oops– original version was Kripke I think]) means it is necessary, then I agree it is a presupposition for science. The problem is it is then also presupposition for everything else. So it is uninteresting and possibly misleading to call it out as a presupposition for science in particular (this situation is a more general version of my “presupposition for human existence” argument.)3. If you say “if my theory is correct”, then I understand that as admitting it could be incorrect (and would be on all possible worlds, I guess). Which means there could be possible worlds where it did not apply (again, all of them, according to my understanding of what you are saying). But there could still be science on those worlds, unless you have a separate argument saying that the philosophical theory is necessary for science. So it cannot be a presupposition for science.
Once I understand where you are coming from on this point, I might be able to say something useful about the rest of your post.
Good to know.
Of course, the (English-) Canadian sense of humour does owe at lot to the UK, so that would also explain it. Although living beside the US (as opposed to say Belgium) does present one with many more opportunities to expand one’s sense humour in new directions.
I started my own. That way I know it’s correct!
You could try sticking to the topic raised by the OP.
I would agree. I’d also say science is intentional.
1. is hard. Philosophy seems to be not really a priori. It’s some kind of conceptual analysis. I do think that, whatever it is, if some theory of truth or other is correct, nothing could be truth in any possible world without sharing the features so explicated. They’d be essential to the concept.
2. I think that some proposition p being necessarily true is neither necessary nor sufficient for p being a presupposition for science. Science would have to INVOLVE p in some sense not captured by that. So, for example, it may be a necessary truth that I am not Phyllis Diller, but that is not a presupposition for science. Again, it may be that induction is presupposed by science, but I don’t think it follows from that that induction works in every possible world.
3. My theory “could be” incorrect means that it it’s epistemically possible for me for it to be incorrect. It doesn’t mean that there is some possible world in which it is not correct. It’s important to distinguish epistemic possibility (For all I know, _____) from metaphysical possibility (Every possible world is such that ______). I think that if my theory (or any theory of truth) is correct, then it is correct in every possible world, but that doesn’t mean that if it is correct, it’s epistemically necessary.
I agree with that.
1. Upon thinking some more, it may be that what I am really doubting is a necessary link between any of the presuppositions and science per se (that is being a presupposition for science without also being so for human existence).
2. So then there needs to be an argument for p being a presupposition for science. Possibly that is what you are trying to give in your description of truth. But at best I understand it, that argument shows that a notion of truth is needed for ability of humans to use language. Is there anything extra needed by science beyond that human capability?
3. I don’t really understand this. If it is possible for you to be incorrect epistemically, then, assuming that is because some other theory is correct, does not mean that other theory would be correct on all possible worlds, according to your 1?
2. I think you made that language argument here, not me, so I’ll leave you to suss out whether that works. My point was that science is essentially truth-seeking. That’s the sense in which it depends on there being such a thing as truth. I don’t know whether that’s a function of science needing to be conducted through language or not. Could be.
3. But now, what does “could be” mean? Epistemic possibility (for me) is, roughly, consistency with everything I know. It’s like if you ask, “Is 69893677777345 prime?” and I say, “It’s possible.” I’m not saying there’s a possible world in which that number is prime, I’m saying that for all I know, it’s prime. So when I say that it’s possible for Tarski to have been wrong, I’m not saying there’s a possible world in which he’s wrong. In fact, I believe that if he’s right, there’s no possible world in which he isn’t. But it’s epistemically possible (for me) for Tarski to be wrong even if he was right (and therefore right in every possible world). Why? Because I’m not that smart.
“Science is intentional” would seem to be a phrasing that might raise Gregory’s hackles.
But it is interesting to ask how the homorphism of scientific models compares to the intentionality of language or (ie?) human thought. Let me sleep on that one.
OK, thanks for helping to clear some of the fog about “epistemic possibility”. Time for my pestering to stop.
I’m not dodging I just telling you how it will go.
You asked 8 silly questions I gave you 8 hasty answers.
Now you ask equally silly follow up questions. I will if you persist answer these silly questions as well.
However you won’t be satisfied with those answers and will ask even more silly questions which I will reluctantly answer. etc etc etc
This will continue indefinitely. I will never concede that I’m mistaken and you will never be satisfied with my answers. That is what it looks like to have mutually incompatible worldviews.
It’s just not an exercise that I find especially interesting or fruitful . However if you want to continue I will oblige you
peace
I don’t belong to the church I was born into and I don’t believe in luck
peace
That is why I recommended Stark’s book he makes a convincing argument that it is precisely the monotheistic tendency to birth sects that compete with each other to claim the mantel of the true Church that lead to the sort of competitive search for knowelege that is the backbone of science
you really should check it out
peace
OK Prove it
How do you know stuff in your worldview?
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
It’s refreshing that you admit that you mind is closed, I suppose.
Your “worldview” is an absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that your religious beliefs might be unsupported by any evidence. It’s that bumper sticker theology I’ve pointed out: “The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” Calling that a “worldview” is like putting lipstick on a pig.
fifthmonarchyman,
I’d be willing to bet you were indoctrinated in a broadly similar church as a child. Statistically speaking, very few theists deviate too far from what they were taught before they were able to think critically.
fifthmonarchyman,
That doesn’t make science the product of Christianity. When you’re willing to apply the scientific method to your beliefs, then perhaps you’ll have a better case.
fifthmonarchyman,
You’ve got some chutzpah, given how lacking in intellectual integrity you are when it comes to supporting your own claims.
Did you move house?
And I don’t believe you are ever going to post an OP with your design detection tool! How is that going, by the way?
Again for probably the 50th time I’m not making any claims whatsoever
I’m merely sharing my presuppositions and asking what yours are. So far it’s been crickets from most of you with the exception of walto
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
You made the explicit claim that “Jesus is lord” and claimed to be able to support it. You haven’t.
You make claims that your particular brand of Christianity is true, but you dishonestly attempt to evade the burden of proof by calling your claims “presuppositions”. Calling a dog’s tail a leg doesn’t mean dogs have five legs.
It’s now coded into an app in the Processing language this is a JavaScript based language . It’s even more fun in this format. Way cool if I do say so myself.
I went to place the JavaScript code into an blogger page and it did not work for lots of reasons. At that point I decided to learn HTML for myself and build a website from scratch.
I bought a book and am working my way through it
Programming seems a lot easier when you look at it from the outside. To actually code is tough exhausting work especially for someone with my particular tendency for not paying close attention to detail.
I’ve asked for volunteers to debug and put the tool on the web and received no takers. So I will countine to slog through it.
In the mean time I will be happy to send the tool to anyone interested either in excell or this format
https://processing.org/
peace
Lord means boss. Do you actually doubt that I consider Jesus to be my boss?
peace
fifth,
You can deploy a website for free using GAE:
http://www.fizerkhan.com/blog/posts/Free-Static-Page-Hosting-on-Google-App-Engine-in-a-5-minutes.html
You just need a simple webpage that runs your code.
Or you could go here and (if it’s a single file or something that runs in some framework) paste the code:
http://pastebin.com/
And report back the URL then perhaps someone will host it! 😛
OMagain,
Would you like to help?
I’ll be happy to send you the processing “sketch”
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
That is pathetic.
You didn’t say “Jesus is my lord.” You said “Jesus is lord.” That got into a discussion where you were unable to provide any evidence that any person resembling the Jesus of your bible even existed. Even if one accepts for the sake of argument that someone like that did exist, you have yet to provide evidence that a person who has been dead two millennia is “lord”.
You know, if you just admitted that you are unable to support your claims and that you hold your religious beliefs due to faith despite the absence of evidence, that would at least be honest (if not particularly intellectually rigorous). What you are doing instead is just . . . distasteful.
I would agree, for certain values of “truth”. I usually use “reality”. But I think I mean the same thing.
But in that case, what would “Jesus is Truth” mean?
It works like this: Jesus’ Lordship is progressively expanding getting bigger and bigger all the time. We don’t see the full extent of his Lordship as of yet.
Right now I can show you that he is Lord of me and folks like me. Every day there are more of us. Every day the extant of his reign expands
quote:
And he said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.”
(Mar 4:30-32)
and
And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”
(Mar 4:26-29)
and
At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. 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
(Heb 2:8b-9a)
and
As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found………………………………………………………… But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
(Dan 2:34-35)
peace
Did you miss it when I posted this syllogism ?
1) Truth is what God believes.
2) The logos is the exact image of The Father his being his thoughts and beliefs
3) therefore the Logos is truth
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Jesus, if any single person even remotely similar that described in your bronze age tales even existed, has been dead a very, very long time. If you want to support your claim, you need to provide some objective, empirical evidence that he still exists.
It’s a monotonous game you play, FMM.
“How do you know stuff in your worldview?
“I know things by means of X.”
“How do you know you know things by means of X?”
“I know I know things by means of X because Y. Given Y, I can know things by means of X.”
“How do you know that given Y, you can know things by means of X?”
See the problem? An uncomprehending bot following a few rules of sentence construction (something like the original Eliza) can pose the questions you are posing, and keep the game going forever due to the self-referential paradox inherent in “Knowing how one knows.” (But how do you know?) The paradox is completely independent of content, which is to say, the paradox is empty.
I don’t see evidence that more thought goes into your questions than that. It’s an empty bore, Fifth.
Does a song exist if it is not written down somewhere? How would I provide objective, empirical evidence of a song in my mind that has yet to be written down?
What about a joke or story that I make up and tell a friend. How would I provide objective, empirical evidence that the joke exists?
peace
Actually there in no paradox in my worldview it works like this
How do you know
God revealed it to me
How do you know that God revealed it to you
see above
———-
infinite regress averted paradox solved
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Sing it.
Are you admitting that Jesus exists only in your mind? If so, that doesn’t support your claim that “Jesus is lord.” If not, you’re just evading the question yet again.
Cowboy up and show some integrity.
FMM:
“See above” is shorthand for the same empty paradox. It unwinds like this:
“How do you know?”
“God revealed it to me.”
“How do know that God revealed it to you?
“God revealed to me that he revealed it to me.”
“How do you know that you know that God revealed it to you?”
“God revealed to me that he revealed to me that he revealed it to me.”
“How do you know that you know that you know that God revealed it to you?”
Etc. Same emptiness. Same bore.
Was it Einstein who said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? For many of you, your machine learning algorithm seems to be incapable of evolving.
First the Angry At God thread, and now this one. fifth has been as unchangeable as God Himself, and you all continue to beat your heads against a brick wall. Repeatedly. Good luck with that. 🙂
Maybe try a different approach.
You don’t appear to have tracked the conversation, Mung. Fifth was asking me, once again, for foundational presuppositions, when I already clearly reported to him my belief that science has no single foundation analogous to that he claims for his particular brand of Christianity. (And as well all know, everyone likes their own brand). He’s the headbanger, in this instance.
fifth,
Well, at least you’ve learned something from this whole experience.
This is the source for the list presented in the OP, which I originally cribbed from a secondary source.
– Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview, p. 348
It’s in Part IV. Philosophy of Science and not surprisingly in the section on Scientism (hello Patrick). As I set forth in a previous post, the point is that “each of these assumptions has been challenged” and that “the conclusions of science cannot be more certain than the presuppositions it rests on and uses to reach those conclusions.”
The most interesting debate currently taking place in the thread isn’t the one over whether or not Jesus is lord, it’s the one between BruceS and walto over whether science would even be science without the assumption that truth exists. What would science without truth even look like? So just a note of thanks to you two.
That “all” seems slightly exaggerated.
I know, right? It’s a mystery why everyone isn’t a Christian. keiths could start his own brand of Christianity in which Christianity is false.
Sorry, I meant to say ya’ll. 🙂
Mung,
Don’t need to. It already exists, and it’s called ‘Christianity’.