|
Scientificity (and "intelligent design") (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
I cringed at this. We can never prove anything right, we can only prove that an opposing option is wrong (disproving a null hypothesis). |
That's true, but quite often scientists naively behave as if it were possible. Notice that I said it was accepted (i.e. there's some kind of agreement), not proven. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
That's true, but quite often scientists naively behave as if it were possible. Notice that I said it was accepted (i.e. there's some kind of agreement), not proven. |
I can totally see why they would try to believe they are proving something right. Once you realize that for the rest of your scientific career you will only show that the opposite of what you want is false and that only lends support to your view...you get a little depressed cause it sounds so insignificant. So you make it sound a little more grandiose.
and this is all about the scientific lexicon that has been pounded into my head these years in school. they all have specific ways of terming things, and I have learned that nothing is right, only that the it has a lot of support, so I cringed that any scientist could accept anythign as being right.
but in the grand scheme of things it is a little detail, you were not wrong, in fact I would say that the opposite of what you said is false and I lend some support to your statements :D |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Well, I believe that the order you talk about is not a coincidence. I believe that order can not spontaneously exist, but had to be created. |
why do you believe this?
| quote: |
Order requires and orderer.. |
why? who ordered the orderer then?
| quote: |
Your worldview seems 100% based on what our 5 senses can detect. What about all the stuff we have no idea about? Things we can't detect, realities beyond our comprehension, outside of our own dimensions. We know they exist, but the laws of physics limits our observations to inside our "container" we call the universe where we physically will remain isolated forever from the outside. |
very true, but im not about to entertain outlandish ideas simply because they might be true, that's just silly. i find the massive collection of things we don't know to be fascinating, but not reason enough to go inventing "god's unseen hand" into every little thing we don't know (which is what religion has done throughout history).
| quote: |
That's where philosophy and religion make their uses. |
religion has a use? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
That's true, but quite often scientists naively behave as if it were possible. Notice that I said it was accepted (i.e. there's some kind of agreement), not proven. |
so again, how do you explain the advent of working technologies that are examples of scientific proof? |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I believe there is a super-intelligence outside of our own reality that could have "designed" the laws of nature. But, we'll never scientifically know because this "being" exists outside of space and time, unobservable to us, unmeasurable. I agree ID is not scientific. It is more of a philosophy more than a science. That's where I think the ID debate belongs, not science. IDer's go into their "research" already biased towards the existance of "god". Scientists really can't do that going into an experiment. But as a philosophy, it's something I believe. I also believe humans are sensitive a higher plane of existance, call it heaven, call it whatever you like..
I'm not a bible-thumping evangelical though..:p |
I'm close in thinking to you. While I don't strictly 100% believe in a higher power, I am open to the idea of one. Like any good scientist I take into account all proof and base my judgements on that but when it comes to an issue such as that, I don't mind delving more into the philosophical side of things purely because it's impossible to explain it in a scientific way.
Personally, I refuse to discredit the notion of a possible unexplained higher power which is why I'm so against atheism and consider it just as bad as religious zealotry. I believe in the big bang and evolution but why did it happen? Where did the necessary elements and rules come from? It really is fascinating stuff and definitely beyond our knowledge. Really makes you wonder what is truly out there but I guess we'll never know. All we can do is hypothesize. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
so again, how do you explain the advent of working technologies that are examples of scientific proof? |
Because, right or wrong, it works :D
Newtonian physics had numerous flaws, but it was also useful in several different occasions. I know it sounds absurd at first, but that's science :p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Ellie Arroway: You want me to quote you? "lronically, the thing people are most hungry for; meaning,is the one thing science hasn't been able to give them."
Palmer Joss: Yeah.
Ellie Arroway: [humorously] Come on! lt's like you're saying that science killed God. What if science simply revealed that He never existed in the first place?
-- Contact |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
im also thinking of a something Ive learned whereas if a theory explains everything, it is useless. it was something along those lines, and I usually hear discussions involving religion and ID resort this this... god made it that way, or its because of god. I wish I could remember where and when I heard this though. |
That's similar to Karl Popper's basic idea. If a theory is unfalsifiable, it may be because it's just really good at predicting stuff; on the other hand, it may be because it says little or nothing about the empirical world. Good theories, Popper said, are ones that forbid certain things from happening, because if those things happen, then the theory can be proved wrong; you can know what to expect and what not to expect. If a theory makes no predictions at all, it effectively asserts nothing. It's scientifically meaningless. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
why do you believe this? |
Well, I already can sense the hostility through your words, so do you really want to hear more philosophy?
I think of the universe as a machine. Machines are designed and constructed to perform a specific function, therefore the machine has a purpose. Applying this notion to the universe, it would then seem obvious that the universe has been engineered.
| quote: | | why? who ordered the orderer then? |
Cause and effect? Keep reading, and again I want to remind you we've stepped outside of physical science ;)..
On Causality..
| quote: | In his lectures on cause and chance in physics, Max Born (1949) stated three assumptions:
1. "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect."
2. "Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect."
3. "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." |
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/causal.htm
Now..
Causality essentially needs a connection of time and space between entity A and entity B. Well, outside of the universe, there is no space or time. So the question of, "who ordered the orderer" is not correct because the questioner is trying to apply causality to the supernatural.
To more directly answer your question, no one ordered the orderer. As the orderer has created, time is a part of the physical laws of nature. You shouldn't think of time as ubiquitous, and existing outside space-time.
| quote: | | very true, but im not about to entertain outlandish ideas simply because they might be true, that's just silly. i find the massive collection of things we don't know to be fascinating, but not reason enough to go inventing "god's unseen hand" into every little thing we don't know (which is what religion has done throughout history). |
Well then, you can't knock what you don't know..;)
| quote: | | religion has a use? |
Many..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are basically 3 FUNDAMENTAL assumptions that people, even scientists, have to believe in one of them.
Worldview 1: There is a god outside the cosmos. (Theism)
Worldview 2: There is no god, therefore the cosmos just is. (Naturalism)
Worldview 3: The cosmos is god. (Pantheism)
My worldview starts at #1, so therefore the rest of my beliefs will stem from this one assumption. Think of it as, I see the world through an eye-glass that allows for supernatural existance. Your worldview on the other hand, #2, looks through the eye-glass where the supernatural does not exist. Therefore, the rest of your views stem from this basic assumption. Everyone's basic beliefs start at fundamental philosophical axioms (assumptions), even scientists. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
I'm close in thinking to you. While I don't strictly 100% believe in a higher power, I am open to the idea of one. Like any good scientist I take into account all proof and base my judgements on that but when it comes to an issue such as that, I don't mind delving more into the philosophical side of things purely because it's impossible to explain it in a scientific way.
Personally, I refuse to discredit the notion of a possible unexplained higher power which is why I'm so against atheism and consider it just as bad as religious zealotry. I believe in the big bang and evolution but why did it happen? Where did the necessary elements and rules come from? It really is fascinating stuff and definitely beyond our knowledge. Really makes you wonder what is truly out there but I guess we'll never know. All we can do is hypothesize. |
Religious folk can't prove 100% there is a god. Atheists can't prove 100% there isn't a god. Where are we at? Nowhere!! They cancel each other out!:o As an objective mind, one must understand this discrepancy. Most people who take this into account into their worldview tend to be more moderate, such as myself, where I fully admit there is no physical proof of a god, but philosophically speaking, we can still talk about god all day. |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Itchy
you know what would be really great? if I could find a way to go outside and play basketball when its raining and not get wet! |
fixed |
|
|
| Lira |
| Hey, guys, you should see on the bright side: IDers just want to bring God back to science. Here in Brazil we've got bloody kardecists asking scientists to recognise the existence of not just God, but all kinds of spirits and parallel worlds :( |
|
|
|
|
