Knowledge ..Science and Religion

[_marg]

Leeirons, I've transferred the beginnings of our discussion to this thread, since it was completely off-topic in Gaz's thread on Doctrine. I've separated out our posts using colors. I've asked you a few questions and I'll probably wait for your answers before I add anything more.


Lee's post
marg wrote: In presenting a case it is important that evidence be considered as part of a complete package alongside other evidence. One piece of evidence on its own may seem unreliable or insignificant but considered alongside other evidence that one piece may add to the puzzle to help solve it and present a clearer picture, so it should not be dismissed.


Lee: A preponderance of evidence is the approach used in the American criminal court system (and turns out to lead juries to the wrong conclusion in many well-known cases). As far as science goes, a prepondernance of evidence is only used in the formation of postulates (i.e. conjectures with no known counterexamples). Trying to build a scientific case on postulates is dangerous. All it takes is one counterexample, and the logical analysis collapses like a house of cards.

This is the main difficulty between people who take a religious persopective and people who take a scientific perspective. Those who wish to use the scientific approach to analyzing the truthfulness of a religion must use preponderance of evidence to make postualtes that they then use to develop a scientific proof of their hypothesis that a religion is false. Then a person comes along using a religious approach to provide a counterexample to any one of the postulates in the anti-religion proof.

Example: Faith-healing. A scientifically minded person could use a preponderance of evidence that faith-healing does not work, and therefore, the religion claiming to have such power is therefore false. But then, another person comes along and provides a primary source counterexample in their own personal experience with faith-healing. No matter how much the "scientist" says, "But it did not work in these cases," the "faithful" says, "Yeah, but it worked in my case."

Thus, we are in a never-ending stale-mate dance.

This is why religious proof is uniquely personal, unlike scientific proof that must be independently duplicatable.

-----------------------------------------
My reply:
previously: In presenting a case it is important that evidence be considered as part of a complete package alongside other evidence. One piece of evidence on its own may seem unreliable or insignificant but considered alongside other evidence that one piece may add to the puzzle to help solve it and present a clearer picture, so it should not be dismissed.

leeirons wrote; A preponderance of evidence is the approach used in the American criminal court system (and turns out to lead juries to the wrong conclusion in many well-known cases). As far as science goes, a prepondernance of evidence is only used in the formation of postulates (i.e. conjectures with no known counterexamples). Trying to build a scientific case on postulates is dangerous. All it takes is one counterexample, and the logical analysis collapses like a house of cards.


Yes, juries are fallible. The hope is that 12 heads are better than one, but that isn't necessarily the case. It could be that a case is won by the effective persuasion of a lawyer rather than by evidence leading to a correct verdict, or juries are not educated enough to fully understand the evidence, or there isn't enough evidence or it is not very strong etc. In any case in the legal system a case is presented and after all the evidence and arguments are made, then the jury makes a decision. They don't hear one piece of evidence, and decide the case on that.

Regarding your last sentence what postulates does science use?


leeirons wrote:
This is the main difficulty between people who take a religious persopective and people who take a scientific perspective. Those who wish to use the scientific approach to analyzing the truthfulness of a religion must use preponderance of evidence to make postualtes that they then use to develop a scientific proof of their hypothesis that a religion is false. Then a person comes along using a religious approach to provide a counterexample to any one of the postulates in the anti-religion proof.


Those who make claims..be it religious or scientific have the burden of proof. This is something Jason has mentioned..burden of proof. Scientific claims are open to independent scrutiny by peer review and anyone else who can prove a theory wrong or outdated and verified claims are accepted. Most religious claims particularly involving the supernatural are not open to independent scrutiny and are not verifiable. This leads to truth simply being a matter of whatever is asserted...not a function of a best approximation to reality that we can perceive universally.

leeirons wrote:
Example: Faith-healing. A scientifically minded person could use a preponderance of evidence that faith-healing does not work, and therefore, the religion claiming to have such power is therefore false. But then, another person comes along and provides a primary source counterexample in their own personal experience with faith-healing. No matter how much the "scientist" says, "But it did not work in these cases," the "faithful" says, "Yeah, but it worked in my case."

And it would be extremely poor reasoning to accept any claim made by anyone without evidentiary support which is verifiable. Would you like to use pharmaceutical drugs which are put on the market without any sort of controls and verification that the drugs do as they claim?

leeirons wrote:
Thus, we are in a never-ending stale-mate dance.

This is why religious proof is uniquely personal, unlike scientific proof that must be independently duplicatable.

Scientific theories are not proofs they are best fit explanations for phenomena.

There is no stalemate between scientific theories and various religious claims. Scientific theories don't address claims be it religious or not which are not verifiable. Science has nothing to do with religious claims which are asserted without evidence.

Religious beliefs for the most part are faith based that is no evidence is required.
------------------------------------------------------
Lee's reply:
Wow! Where do I begin...

I think the only thing I can say is that you need to review the foundations of modern science... Greek logic. In Greek logic, every theoretical framework is built upon a foundation of agreed upon definitions (classification systems) and postulates (assumptions based upon observations for which no counterexamples have been found, yet). The Greeks developed math using their logic. And math was used to develop physics. Physics theoretical frameworks are all held up by many assumptions, a few laws (things demonstratable and duplicatable by experiment), and progressive theorems which are mathematical derivations developed by combining laws with higher order definitions. All other sciences are built upon Greek logic, math, and physics. Mankind's whole understanding of the universe is built upon a foundation of assumptions (postulates). And approximately every four centuries, a new brilliant mind comes along, shatters that foundation, and builds a new framework on new postulates.

I agree with your last statement. No evidence is required, especially because I do not base my faith on other people's opinions or experiences. I get information from other people, but ultimately I make my own decisions on what I believe. And as I get older, my believes "evolve," just as yours. We all have belief systems. Some people's are based upon others experiences...some people's are based on their own experiences. Most of us are somewhere in between. We all follow somebody or some "group" to some extent with a certin amount of trust, because none of us know everything.

------------------------------------------------
my reply:
Lee wrote: : Wow! Where do I begin...


Well for starters I'd appreciate it, if you would quote whatever section of my reply you are addressing and then address what I actually say.

So first please answer my question that I posed to you previously. What postulates does science use?
--------------------------------
Lee's reply:


I failed to see almost any point in what you were saying, so I could not address anything specific. The only thing I saw was a general lack of understanding of the scientific method. Just because you say you have proved a point does not make it so.

marg wrote:
[ie]So first please answer my question that I posed to you previously. What postulates does science use? [/i]


I assumed you had been formally trained in science and just needed a refresher as to its foundations. Now that you ask a cogent question, I can give a cogent answer.

Examples of postulates used in science:

The following is quotes from "Principles of Physics," a text that was authored by Raymond A Serway and John W. Jewett, both respected professors in the field of physics, "Einstein based his relativity theory on two postulates: 1. The principle of realtivity: All laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. 2. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light."

Einstein's second postulate of course disagreed with the Newtonian mechanics postulate of the relativity of velocity.

The postulate of evolution says that all life evolved from basic amino acids. I would challenge you to design a scientific experiment to prove this. You can't, because it deals with past history, which, by definition, is past, and therefore cannot be repeated. You can dig up bones and describe some correlation to a possible evolutionary classification system, but correlation does not demonstrate causation. All evolutionary scientists accept their premise as a postulate.

The basic premise of all scientific measurement is based upon the postualtes of Greek geometry and algebra, and the physics postulates associated with time. (And if you question that math has postulates, you are either silly or ignorant.) ALL quantities are based/derivable from only two types of measurement: measurement of distance and measurement of time. These are the only two things that we can truly measure. All measuring instruments are physical devices that mechanically (or electrically) implement algorithms that calculate whatever we are measuring by using distance displacement and time. For example, a spring scale that "measures" weight (a force), "calulcates" this force by using the distance displacement of the scale as you stand on it to displace a pointer that moves along a calibrated scale to point at a number. You are not really measuring a force, you are really measuring a displacement but are relating it to a force. Displacement is a measurable quantity. Force is a "theoretical" quantity that can't be measured directly. The fact that things accelerate implies there is a force, but even acceleration is a theoretical quantity based upon displacement and time measurements. SO, the postualtes that measurements of time and distance are absolute (as assumed by Newton) formed the basis of Newtonian mechanics. Newton said, "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external." According to Einstein, a time measurement depdends on the reference frame in which the measurement is made." I could go into length contraction, but I with withold. Einstein postualted that distance and time and not absolute.

I get the impression that the word "postulate" is a dirty word to you. Postulates are not bad. They are absolutely necessary to move the development of science forward. However, this also means that NO science is absolute. It is constantly modified based upon new information, and old postulates are constantly being set aside for new ones.

At this point, I consider any further discussion unproductive. You have your opinions of what science is that I consider to be wrong, and I feel I have demonstrated that you need to spend some personal study time on topics in science.

Just because you disagree with a religion or are an atheist does not make you a scientist.
----------------------------
my reply:
leeirons wrote:
I failed to see almost any point in what you were saying, so I could not address anything specific. The only thing I saw was a general lack of understanding of the scientific method. Just because you say you have proved a point does not make it so.

I see you are interested in a fruitful discussion.
I want you to list the points I've made so far, that you take exception to. Also I want you to quote me where where I said I proved a point.

I'll address the rest of your post later. I've got other things to do atm.

[_marg]

Leeiron:

I get the impression that the word "postulate" is a dirty word to you.

That is your faulty reasoning. I asked a question, I made no comment with regards to postulates.

Leeiron:

Postulates are not bad. They are absolutely necessary to move the development of science forward. However, this also means that NO science is absolute.

Science makes no claim to absolutes in theories. It is you who lacks an appreciation of the scientific process and what science does provide with regards to knowledge.

Leeirons;

It is constantly modified based upon new information, and old postulates are constantly being set aside for new ones.

It is not so much that assmptions/postulates are set aside for old ones but rather that within different theoretical models different postulates are used. What might be applicable on earth would not necessarily be applicable in calculations out in space.


Leeirons:

At this point, I consider any further discussion unproductive.

You sound like a small minded coward to so quickly leave a discussion in which all I've done so far is ask you a question or 2, but what you've been doing from the get go is attack me personally.

Leeirons:

You have your opinions of what science is that I consider to be wrong, and I feel I have demonstrated that you need to spend some personal study time on topics in science.

It is you who has a poor understanding of what the scientific method entails.

Leeirons:

Just because you disagree with a religion or are an atheist does not make you a scientist.

You sound like a bit of a nut. Where have I claimed to be a scientist. A good critical thinker would not jump to conclusions on so little evidence as you have done.

[_JAK]

marg hardly sounds like “a bit of a nut.”

Leeirons:
Quote:
Just because you disagree with a religion or are an atheist does not make you a ------scientist.
-------------
A scientist is considerably farther from religion than one who accepts some (any) religious dogma over evidence which is offered and presented and sought by science. While Leeirons’ statement is technically correct, the implication is that one can embrace religious doctrine and at the same time possess the objectivity required for scientific observation is incorrect. Objective science and subjective religious doctrine are hardly moving closer together.

JAK