h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I know...

OK, so you're asking me to explain what science is so that you can claim that I have said I am an expert on what science is and what it is not. I make no such claim. I've merely said I think neither evolution nor creationism are scientific, based on my understanding of what they both claim to be.

However, though I do not claim to be an expert, I have an /opinion/ as to what I reguard as science, logic, faith and truth.

To explain this opinion, I go to a draft of an unfinished column I started working on over two years ago that is supposed to explain my position on the question "What is truth?" in detail. It is mostly concerned with defining the terminology I am going to use and only /then/ using the terminology to explain my actual position.

Under the heading "Faith" it contains the following faith-based principles which I believe in and base my view of what science is on:

1. Truth is a universal constant, which all true scientists objectively seek.
2. For all intents and purposes, the observable Universe exists, and must be treated as real.
3. The Universe, in the midst of it's apparent chaos, is orderly and predictable.
4. Science is limited to making observations based on the observable Universe.

Of course, the wording of these changes quite often as I try to clarify them as much as possible. I don't think I have used these in a debate before (so this is the first new information I have brought to the table thus far) and do not attempt to /prove/ them. These seem to me to be the minimum requirements to believe in science, they are stated /before/ I say I actually believe in science.

In trying to clarify some of this all of these points have several footnotes attached to them, some of which include:

Point #1 is basically the main thesis statement for all of my arguments. This is also my affirmation of objective reality.

Point #2 doesn't nessicarily mean that anything that is not observable must be treated as unreal.

Point #3 implies that it is possible to predict the future with a considerable degree of accuracy if given enough correct information about the past and present and absolutely no incorrect information.

Point #4 implies several things - one of which is that if you can't observe it, you can't apply science to it.

(I haven't finished typing all this but I've got to go for now, be back later )

I'll let you finish your response before I comment fully, though I would like to comment on a few things you said:

"OK, so you're asking me to explain what science is so that you can claim that I have said I am an expert on what science is and what it is not."

Honestly, that is not what I'm am attempting. You claim evolutionary biology is not science. Scientists seem to disagree with this, therefore there is some difference between what you and I think science is, right? What I'm trying to get at is what that difference is. I was then hopefully going to try and see if this difference was confined to you or all creationists. It might be a root cause of this whole debate.

Then of course the question would become if this difference in understanding is deliberate or not. That's where I'm going with all this.


"I make no such claim. I've merely said I think neither evolution nor creationism are scientific, based on my understanding of what they both claim to be."

And again, what I am trying to find out is what your understanding of science is. I don't actually know what you think science is and I think it's quite important when we are discussing what is and isn't science, don't you?


"However, though I do not claim to be an expert, I have an /opinion/ as to what I reguard as science, logic, faith and truth."

Well, the thing is science and logic are strictly-defined things. Faith and truth less so. Your opinion on the two former concepts is really not relevant to any discussion on the two.


All the best,
Ste

If you want to find out what creationists in general believe about science, I suggest you direct your questions to the Institute for Creation Research. I am speaking for myself on this, I cannot even claim to speak for my church on alot of this.

When one is asked what science is and why one believes in it, one is really confronting a philosophical question.

Now, I would agree with you that science and logic are rigidly defined things - but they are intimately connected with one's perception of truth. For example, if one believes that truth is relative to one's point of view, then science has no solid facts to apply logic to. It is only once one acknowledges (by faith/assumption) the constant nature of truth that one can allow for the existance of solid facts to begin reasoning from.

So once one has a constant (truth/objective reality) one can begin to evaluate the relationships of other ideas relative to it. Thus, I believe that truth is not relative to one's point of view, but instead one's point of view is or should be relative to the truth. Or to simplify that: the truth is true no matter what you or I think about it.

Hopefully at this point you are getting a general idea of the philosophical ground I stand on as I try to explain what I think science is, and what qualifies as science.

OK so I've jumped around quite a bit, but later in the piece it gets down to the section on "Logic" which is very short because so much as already been written on logic that is accepted by such a vast majority of educated people (irrespective to their position in the origins debate) that I didn't think a very lengthy explanation was nessicary.

In the piece, I define logic thus: Logic is a method of taking information and implying other information. At some point, the original information is accepted as true by faith/assumption. If one's logic is based on other logic then that logic has to be based on information that is accepted as true by faith/assumption. Otherwise, if one's logic is based only on an endless chain of more logic then one is practicing what is called "circular logic" which, as Mr. Spock would tell you, is "illogical" with the raise of a Vulcan eyebrow.

We are finally coming to the section you are asking about which is entitled "Science", but which depends on everything noted above. (and possibly more relevent stuff which I may have inadvertantly left out of this summary)

My definition of science as I think I have said or at least implied before, does not include philosophy. I don't think philosophy is a science, and don't think science can be correctly applied to constructing philosophies. You can construct philosophies with similar principles to the scientific method, even possibly use some of the same principles, but you cannot then objectively (oh crap I left out the section on objectivity, I will also try to explain my view on that if you like) claim that the philosophy you have come up with is the only "scientific" position to have.

So then, my definition reads, "Science is a method of finding truth through logic based on faith/assumption. So, in this model, you have the roof of science supported by the pillars of logic which are based on the foundation of faith/assumption."

It then follows with another list detailing the steps of the scientific method, cross-referencing some of them to the four faith-based concepts I have posted previously. This list is of course rather famous, though different publications use different words and different numbers of steps to define it.

It may be possible I am leaving important steps out of this version which I have compiled by comparing different sources versions to each other. Please note that this list is a work in progress and has not yet reached a level of grammatical perfection I am happy with - one of the many reasons I do not claim to be an expert on the subject.

1. Observe some aspect of the Universe. Requires the first and second faith concepts described above.
2. Invent a hypothesis, or explanation that is logical based on what you have observed.
3. Use logic on your hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test your hypothesis by testing the predictions by controlled experiments and further observations. If you cannot test your hypothesis, it is not scientific and you are accepting it on faith. Requires the third faith concept described above.
5. Test the simple hypotheses first, and the complex hypothesis later if/when the simple ones fail. This saves time and effort allowing you to find practical applications to your discoveries more quickly.
6. If the test proves that your hypothesis is in error, use logic or more science to find out the cause of your results. Modify the hypothesis based on logic obtained from adding this new information.
7. Keep in mind the limits of the scientific discipline. Requires the fourth faith concept described above.
8. Start over. Do it over and over and over again forever.

I do of course see the redundancy of point #7, as most of it is already covered by the rather obvious implications of the second sentence of point #4, which I was thinking of giving it it's own number/point but it is not technically a step but an extra sentence I believe is absolutely nessicary to define a step.

Looking at Wikipedia's version of the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method I see that their first point is "Define the question"

When I wrote this I had not yet heard of Wikipedia, but I will probably study the issue some more in the future with the possibility of adding "Define the question" as a nessicary step in my paper if I find that idea credible. However, I think it is probably entirely possible for the question to be constantly modified and redefined as one's scientific research explores different channels of a new field, don't you think?

Of course ... that could get a scientist easily side-tracked ... but then again, wasn't that how electricity and magnetism were discovered to be related? ... (tracked down the what I think was the story I'm thinking of on WP but unfortunately it's a stub http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gian_Domenico_Romagnosi )

Of course, I've gotten rather side-tracked in this post, but have you began to see any major differences in what we both reguard as science?
Nerd42

I think you haven't got side-tracked at all. I think this is spot-on what I was asking for. Thanks


"So once one has a constant (truth/objective reality) one can begin to evaluate the relationships of other ideas relative to it. Thus, I believe that truth is not relative to one's point of view, but instead one's point of view is or should be relative to the truth. Or to simplify that: the truth is true no matter what you or I think about it."

That was the reasoning behind my previous question asking you if you believe there's an objective reality or not. I was trying to get us on the same page. I agree there is a common underlying reality out there. Science agrees too.

For an examination of the constant/truth/reality of science and the leap of faith involved, see the section on "logic".

One must be careful, however, because it is extremely easy to make errors in such comparisons when "other ideas" seem to be incompatible with the constant. Sometimes, instead of throwing out incompatible "other ideas" right away, the correct course of action would be to make sure the "constant" is being interpreted correctly. This is not to say that the truth changes, simply that our understanding or knowledge of it may need re-evaluating or adjusting from time to time. Science understands this need.


"My definition of science as I think I have said or at least implied before, does not include philosophy. I don't think philosophy is a science, and don't think science can be correctly applied to constructing philosophies."

What do you mean by "philosophy"? I don't understand what you are trying to say or to what ends. Science is a type of philosophy that deals with the natural world. Scientists get Ph.D.s (= Philosophy Doctorate). Science a way of thinking about the natural world. A very specific, narrow way of thinking. When you say "philosophies," are you talking about "ways of thinking"... "beliefs"... what?

"You can construct philosophies with similar principles to the scientific method, even possibly use some of the same principles, but you cannot then objectively (oh crap I left out the section on objectivity, I will also try to explain my view on that if you like) claim that the philosophy you have come up with is the only "scientific" position to have."

Science = looking at the natural world and using reason to draw conclusions about the natural world.
Evolutionary Biology = looking at the natural world (specifically how natural life changes over time) and using reason to draw conclusions about the natural world (specifically how natural life changes over time).

Both are science. Both are a type of philosophy.


"So then, my definition reads, "Science is a method of finding truth through logic based on faith/assumption. So, in this model, you have the roof of science supported by the pillars of logic which are based on the foundation of faith/assumption.""

I would say that "science" is both the knowledge accumulated using the scientific method AND the community made up of the people who generate this knowledge - scientists. I don't see where the "faith concepts" you mention come into it - perhaps you might explain a bit more?

Here's my version:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experiment
If 4. disagrees with 2. then modify 2. accordingly and start again - or even better - have multiple alternative hypotheses to start with and let the experiment choose one.

The scientific experiment aims to peel back the layers of subjectivity and human perception and uncover the underlying reality/truth of the world/universe. A well-designed experiment is a very powerful thing.


So then, logic:

"Logic is a method of taking information and implying other information. At some point, the original information is accepted as true by faith/assumption..."

Strictly-speaking, logic sets out rules for correct thinking. A logical argument is a set of statements including premises and a conclusion that is arrived at through reasoning based upon the premises. Science uses inductive arguments where the conclusion is probable based upon the premises, unlike deductive reasoning where the conclusion is certain. Thus, no science is certain. The scientific method cannot absolutely prove anything.

If you trace science's premises all the way back (to the "original information"), all they are based on the assumption of cause and effect. That is the foundation of science. It is possible to argue this is based on faith since our evidence of cause and effect is based on seeing cause and effect - a circular argument as you said.

Notice this is a perfectly rational leap of faith - this is what we observe - it is what human reason is based on. As Noggin said, if we are uncertain about this foundation then what can we do? Now, your leap of faith requires a belief that the Bible is the Word of God and the belief that God meant the Bible to be interpreted literally, AND cause and effect AND an objective reality.

My evidence for believing in cause and effect is all human observation. What is your evidence for believing in the rest of it?

So, now we know exactly what faith is required for science as a whole. A belief in an objective reality and belief in cause and effect. Do you agree with this?

Is this why you think evolutionary biology is faith-based? - because you think all of science is faith-based? Or is it something specific about evolutionary biology you have a problem with? Do you think it doesn't use logic or science to arrive at its conclusions?


G'night

Ste

<<"My definition of science as I think I have said or at least implied before, does not include philosophy. I don't think philosophy is a science, and don't think science can be correctly applied to constructing philosophies." >>

Every world view, whether scientific or other, requires a foundation in philosophy, some account of underlying principles of thought. Philosophy is, it's true, not a science, but logic and maths are part of metaphysics, a philosophical discipline. Science is not applied to constructing philosophies, strictly speaking, but a successful metaphysics has to take into acccount that science has been extraordinarily successful in understanding and manipulating the real world, and to offer an explanationfor this success.

We seem to be in agreement that the existence of a real world, that is consistent and is what it is regardless of our knowledge of it, is a necessary "belief" that we have no viable alternative to. Logic is the study of the rules that are required for "consistency" to have meaning.

Evolutionary biology starts with observations about the world - taxonomy, genetics, fossils, geological process etc; it is itself a hypothesis about how these observations may be consistently connected by a "high level" explanation; it makes predictions about what we can expect to find, both by experiment and further observation; and these experiments and further observations have confirmed the central hypothesis, and been fruitful in suggesting new avenues of research which have extended and enriched the original hypothesis.

What more do you want?

Noggin

Strikes me that Nerd42's argument is intelligent design in reverse.

Anyway, what I mean is that instead of an argument which tries to establish scientific credentials for creationism, Nerd42's argument appears to be attempting to remove the scientific credentials for evolution.

Exactly. We've established that he thinks creationism isn't science, but also that he thinks evolutionary biology isn't science also. Noggin's and my last posts are trying to figure out why that would be.



Ste

well, what's the official Mormon take on the whole issue?
Can't really find much on the net with a quick google, the only comments I have seen tend to be the same 'evolution has been conclusively proven wrong' without any evidence type thing. On the other hand, the comments I have seen (briefly!) don;t appear to go down the route of literal creationism as well. I can't find the exact line the momrmon church takes, but then (as may be evident from this post) I dunno a lot about the mormons.

Including how to spell it, apparently!
"momrmon" = Mormon.

I don't think Nerd's personal religious beliefs are in question here, so are of secondary relevance. Nerd has said before that he doesn't speak for his church on this. At the moment this is a discussion about what is and isn't science, and if evolution is scientific.



Ste

Oh I read that, it's just his argument follows what little I have seen of the opinions of other mormons. That's why I brought it up, might give some background on Nerd's understanding of the situation.

OK OK, I know it's not relevant to the science debate but I've got to state something clearly for the record here, sorry to go off-topic.

You think I'm a Mormon?



I'm not a Mormon! I'm RLDS!!

I'm also not Community of Christ - I'm a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (specifically the Restoration movement - I am a member of a Restoration branch of that church) which is a completely seperate, different and distinct organization from both the Utah Mormons and the Community of Christ. One might say the primary difference between me and a Mormon is that I think Brigham Young was a complete villain, and the primary difference between me and a Community of Christ member is that I know what I'm talking about. OK, strike that, the primary difference is that they might be a community whilest I am a member of a church.

We're getting too many darn "communities" in the world right now and trusting them with way too many things. Phew. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I will post again and get back to the science vs philosophy stuff.
Nerd42

"Notice this is a perfectly rational leap of faith - this is what we observe - it is what human reason is based on. As Noggin said, if we are uncertain about this foundation then what can we do? Now, your leap of faith requires a belief that the Bible is the Word of God and the belief that God meant the Bible to be interpreted literally, AND cause and effect AND an objective reality."

The things I place faith in go as follows: Truth is constant. God exists. Then the four faith-based principles I listed several posts ago. Then the sanctity/value of human life. The God-given rights of human individuals to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.... my list so far actually goes on for quite a while.

As I define (for the purposes of my articles but not always generally) the word "God" as the Judeo-Christian God - placing emphasis on Christian, and "god" as other concepts of deity, the religious topics you mentioned is really covered in the second sentence. I think having a list of the things you place your faith in is very important - everyone should do it.

I do not see what is "more" or "less rational" about statements of faith. What is the standard you use to evaulate them? How many sentences the statements have? Number of words? Whatever "scientists" say is more or less rational faith? I suppose a statement of faith that denies the constant nature of truth / objective reality could be considered "less rational" but you are on shaky ground even then, don't you think?

That is, assuming "rational" is a synonymn for "logical" ... perhaps I'm reading something into that statement that you didn't intend to be there.



I think when I put philosophy in there as not part of my definition of science I was meaning philosophy in the sense of morality, right and wrong, moral standards, the rights of man and political freedom. I should do some research and define "Philosophy" in my paper before I try to claim it is not part of science.

The difficulty with words is that you can only define them by referencing other words - and quite often synonyms.

Wow - I just made a witty observation. That should be like, quoted or something: "The difficulty with words is that you can only define them by referencing other words - and quite often synonyms." - Nerd42.
Nerd42

Am I to assume then that you think all of science is faith-based, and not something particular to evolutionary biology?

"I do not see what is "more" or "less rational" about statements of faith. What is the standard you use to evaulate them? How many sentences the statements have? Number of words? Whatever "scientists" say is more or less rational faith? I suppose a statement of faith that denies the constant nature of truth / objective reality could be considered "less rational" but you are on shaky ground even then, don't you think?"

As I said, My evidence for believing in cause and effect is all human observation. What is your evidence for believing in scripture is the word of God AND that your God intended you to read scripture literally?

In fact, reading back, you have hardly addressed any of the points and questions raised...

Ste

Yes, I'm sorry, I've got more than one thing going on at the moment. I had to take a Mexican food break and in a minute I'm going to have to take a Wall Street break.

um ... previous post was supposed to say I waasn't really finished when I posted the last long post. somehow that message didn't get thorugh.
Nerd42

Mmm. Mexican food.

strike that, next is my sister's birthday cake break, then i migh be back for a bit, then wall street break. Then I might be back on for a minute tonight but I might not post until tomorrow ... yeah like I said I'm a busy man this evening