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

>"You see that "science and religion are concerned with 'truth' on different levels, and that they shouldn't be confused", and I see both as belief systems, sometimes blindly adhered to by their supporters."

The more humble view of science - as a pragmatic, pedantic search for useable theories - is not, IMO, a 'belief system', for the reason I outlined above - ie, it does not ultimately depend on 'Faith' with a capital 'F'. I would agree that it *does* take a leap of 'Faith' to be able to believe that science can come up with some sort of over-arching 'theory of everything' (ie, a substitute for religion) because there isn't really any evidence - to my knowledge - to support the view that it can do this, or that science is even designed with this in mind. So, yes, I would agree that *that* view of science can be seen as a 'belief system'.


>"Did you hear The Prig on BBC Radio 4 this morning, talking about the creationist outbreak in the North-East?"

No, I missed that... 'creationist outbreak' - you make it sound like some sort of illness.


>"Since when did humans wait until they understood what they were talking about before they deigned to comment? Do you? Do I? In fairness, isn't one of the purposes of discussion to learn from other contributors?"

Point taken. I suspect that much of my irritation at the Prince probably boils down to the fact that a member of the Royal Family only has to burp to get their wisdom aired and debated endlessly in the media. Aren't the Reith lectures normally presented by someone who is an expert in the field they're talking about? I would have preferred to see someone with a bit more expertise arguing those points. But, of course, that would have attracted far less attention. Anyway, I don't want to labour the point anymore, because as I say it's (for me) probably mixed in with a fair amount of resentment at the way royalty manipulate the popular media, and that's another subject altogether...


>"I assumed you are a scientist because you seem to have a basic (as in 'fundamental', not 'limited') understanding of science and what it's about."

Personality disorder or not I'm pleased to hear you say that. Especially coming from someone who actually *is* (you are, aren't you?) a scientist.

Ta ta for now,

Lear

Well, I've not been following this debate with great acuity I have to say, as I haven't had time to read through and comprehend and consider all the posts made - although those I have read have been of excellent quality, everyone! Pats on the back and all around I think.

In my opinion, it seems that science and religion are *both* needed in order to form a 'complete' worldview, whatever that might be. Modern science is an amazing thing, but there are still many aspects of the human perception of 'life' that it cannot explain - hence the need for religion, which is to me based more on how people feel about things than how they actually are. There may not be any beings higher than ourselves, but if it feels that way, does it make it wrong to behave as if they are there?

Well, yes, I suppose it can be. Especially since there's no reason to bow down and worship something that doesn't exist - but many people who do such things claim that they have proof which satisfies them that whatever they believe in exists, and to me that sounds like science - true religious belief appears to be like science - a scientist won't follow a theory he or she doesn't believe is true - unless of course they're attempting to prove that it isn't true. Yes, the standards of proof are different, and while all scientists will probably eventually agree on one explanation of a particular theory, since they can usually be proved through experiment and mathematics, I doubt the human race as a whole will ever agree on one religion, simply because everybody's experience of life is different.

However, I do think that the scientific explanations for the way the world works are correct - there's just an element missing that science hasn't worked out yet. I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility of intelligent design of the Universe, but to be honest all the talk about how amazingly improbable it is for us to have evolved on a planet like this purely by chance is totaly poppycock, because if we did evolve by chance, it happens, and if anyone can remember their conditional probability theory from school you'll realise that once something's happened, how improbable it was is irrelevant. It's happened, we're here, now we need to work out what to do with it.

Of course, I suppose knowing how we got here would be a start on knowing where we should be going next...

Hi Lear,

This is fun! Well I'm enjoying it anyway!

<>

Science, even at this level of common-sense and correspondence with the real world as we perceive it, depends on axioms (assumptions), which I find indistinguishable from faith. Perhaps this is faith with a small "f"?

Faith may be required, even for pragmatic science, because there is no proof (nor can there be, IMO) that the world model science gives us is a true reflection of the Real World.

Actually, it doesn't matter: the model needn't resemble the Real World at all, provided they *behave* similarly. But if you wish to portray the world as the scientific model describes it, you need faith.

MaW crystallised it for me: <> Thanks, MaW!! Science and religion *are* both belief systems:

~ They differ (IMO) in the standards/nature of the
proof(s) they require.

~ They are the same in that their 'proofs' can
never be demonstrated to be objective,
absolute or certain.

~ They differ because the most open-minded
religious believers know and understand this,
and it doesn't bother them, whereas only the
tiniest majority of science-ists understand
that their sacrament of Objectivity is not
accessible to humans.

Lear: <<'creationist outbreak' - you make it sound like some sort of illness.>>

<SMILEY_TYPE=INNOCENT+NAIVE> No, really? Someone as impartial as myself would *never* do that deliberately...

Lear: <> <<...I'm pleased to hear you say that. Especially coming from someone who actually *is* (you are, aren't you?) a scientist.>>

Well I'm a software designer - I would describe myself as a craftsman (but that's another discussion - any takers? ) - but I think my education and training would qualify me to call myself a scientist if I wanted to.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Science does not involve faith or belief. Scientists accept scientific theories as "fact" after they have been independently proven, on the basis that should they so chose, they can also run the same experiments and also prove the validity of the theory.

For example there is a well known scientific theory that the Earth is round. There are also lots of ways of proving this theory including some that require nothing more than the naked eye and some simple home made instruments. Of course the most striking proof is a photograph of the Earth taken from the surface of the moon.

On the other hand there is the well known religious belief that the world is flat. Try proving it.

The arguments over creationism vs evolution are similar in nature. Science has demonstrated that lots of aspects of evolutionary theory are "fact". Creationism simply points out that this work is not complete and that there are areas still to be addressed. However there is no science behind creationism and certainly no science to prove creationism.

Hi Madent,

As I said: "...only the tiniest majority of science-ists understand that their sacrament of Objectivity is not accessible to humans." It wasn't a joke or an exaggeration. The proofs you describe are not objectively verifiable by a human. And if you can't verify something, it ain't proven.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Sorry PC

I was hoping we wouldn't get on to the objective/subjective argument again since neither view can be "proven" except within an individuals own fundamental world view.

Madent

We don't have to get onto that argument.

Is it a religious argument that the world is flat? Does it say in any religious text or oral tradition that the world is flat? Probably some, but if you consider the major religions, the vast, vast majority of which seem to have accepted that the world is round, would you find anything?

Madent: <>

My fundamental point is that human perception is not objective/absolute/accurate/certain. Do you dispute this? The truth (or not) of what I say follows ineluctably from this.

You see, the "objective/subjective argument" isn't just dry and irrelevant philosophy. This is an example of how it impacts directly on real life and (if there is such a thing ) the real world.

Science is useful and worthwhile because it works. This gives us the confidence to assign (very) high probabilities to its predictions. But if there is an 'objective/absolute/accurate/certain' foundation for it to rest upon, we cannot confirm it, even though many people assume otherwise.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Human perception is never absolutely certain, true enough, and this is why scientific theories are, strictly speaking, never 'provable' (sp?) - they are only 'falsifiable'. No theory, if I understand correctly, is ever regarded as absolutely 'proven' - it simply hasn't been falsified, for the time being, and people will stick with it until such time as it is.

Yes, I would say that's the small 'f' kind of 'faith'. Which, to my mind, is really fundamentally different from the large 'F' kind. It requires an entirely different mindset.

P-C: <>

Lear: <>

This is the point I find interesting: Does it really require a different mindset, or do we just think so? If I'm right, then scientists are seriously limiting their own perception by mistaking the very nature of their work, and their relationship with the external world.

Pattern-chaser

"To those who are *certain* they know the truth, new knowledge is invisible, learning impossible."

Oh, bum! I've only just discovered that I'm a Rastafarian and now it's Tuesday. I didn't even have time to get the wooly hat out. I don't know anything about Rastafarianism, I'll have to have a look.

I don't know much either, but I can contribute that the name comes from Ras Tafari, which means Prince Tafari, and I think it applies to Haille Sellasie (sorry about the speeling!).

I and I *are* right in assuming that rastafarianism is a subset of christianity, yes?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

* blinks *

I know very little about it either. Oh well. I'm sure deackie will provide us with lots of useful information.


Today happens to be the vernal equinox, which makes it the Pagan festival of Ostara, when the Young God and the Maiden Goddess unite and the Goddess becomes pregnant, thus urging all the creatures and plants of the world to breed.

Except in the southern hemisphere, it's Lughnasdh (which I can't spell or pronounce yet), the harvest festival, when the God is preparing to depart the world, and the Mother Goddess begins to change to the Crone.

And if it sounds strange having two completely different festivals in different parts of the world, that's fine - it's weird to me too. It fits with the whole idea of an Earth-based religion though - you celebrate based on what's happening in the environment around you, and let the rest of the world deal with what's there in their own way.

Ooops, that was embarrassing - it's actually Mabon in the southern hemisphere...

* es and sneaks off *

hmm.

Hmm indeed. Evidently nobody found that even remotely interesting.

* wanders off to see if there's any to be had *

I'd have to agree with PC's statement that a lot of scientists are missing the point, because they do. We have the idea of a theory not ever being able to be proven for a reason (at least IMO), that human beings are not ever totally un opinionated. We include that in the method, because we acknowledge it to be true, whether or not some scientits would beleive that is really uncertain.

I'll try and give my take on science and religion into a metaphor.

I wear corrective lenses. Say I take these off, I would have view of the world from the perspective of early religions' founders. Perhaps I could see and try and understand what is going on in my vicinity (things that can impact me right away), but when I look far off, I can't see what is really going on. In my mind-set of trying to explain everything (as a religion must at least attempt to do, IMO) I have to explain the 'blur' that I can't really understand. So I make something up, that kind of fits, but is really just my opinion.

now, what if I were to put on the glasses that I owned a few years back? (probably sitting in my desk drawer somewhere, collecting dust)
I would compare this view of the world to the scientific method. I can see much more clearly what is really going on, even the things that I once could not fully explain. However, there is still that background of 'blur' that I can't ever fully explain (no one has true 20/20 vision, there's always that error of imperfection), and science, like religion, must at least attempt to explain everything as best that it can. So I have to make up a story. But in science it's called a theory, and it is also just my opinion of what I see.

the difference lies in how we take that 'story's' meaning. In religion, it is seen as exact fact (god exists) and is seen as something that can never be disproven. In science, we hold that we can /never/ prove a theory. We accept that a theory is not objective, it is subjective, by definition, and we allow that someone else may have a perfectly good theory that displaces what we thought as close to true earlier on.

but overall I would see religion and science as somewhat similar, both explanations of the world around us, but in science we've delevoped a better working eye glass, but not by any means perfect.

Hmm. I don't want to get back on the subjective/objective argument, but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to what science actually is (or at least it appears so to me).

Science isn't just about theories. It's about making predictions about the real world based on theories.

For example science can predict that a block of balsa wood of any size will float on a body of water, on the basis of information about the materials and the environmental conditions. Now scientifically I cannot say with certainty that the wood will float, but scientifically I can "prove" that it will and offer a scientific explanation of why. The test however subjective it may be is the final proof.

On the other hand, some religions claim that the world was created out of nothing by a supreme being or god. They offer no theory other than one that was written several thousand years ago in a now dead language and subsequently translated and interpreted by modern scholars and priests. This theory cannot be tested or proven in any manner at all. It is dogmatic.

However subjective our perceptions may be, we are all capable of using scientific methodologies and scientific theories to subjectively prove to ourselves that the world appears to work in a manner consistent with predictions made based on those theories.

Yes, sometimes inconsistencies exist and a scientific theory is found to be "wrong", although more properly we should say inaccurate. Newtonian mechanics were once thought to be a true description of the movement of the planets. However increasingly accurate measuring methods proved that these "laws" were inaccurate and that some refinement was required. Relativity followed. But Einstein's work would not have happened if it weren't for Newton.

So please, lets not mix up science and religion. They are two totally different fields. Science does not require belief or faith to get an experiment to work.

Ah well, rant over ....

Engels42 said <>

Is this really true? If it is, I'm wasting my time preaching to the converted. It is my experience that this is NOT true, hence the need for me (and others who believe as I do) to speak out.

Madent: <>

Agreed without reservation.

<>

Scientific theories cannot be objectively *verified* (by humans). I have said this many times now, and you are ignoring it, Madent. Yes, many religions are dogmatic, but is science really so different?

<>

And what, pray tell, is 'subjective proof'? If you accept that "proof" implies "objective proof", the nonsense becomes clear. Science has value because its predictions work most of the time. This is a fantastic achievement. To muddy the waters with so-called objective claims is to miss the point.

<>

No, it requires faith to believe that the results have objective validity.

<>

Ditto.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

PC, I specifically avoided any reference to "objective" in my post. Please don't put words into my mouth.

I reserve the right to accept as "fact" my own personal observations, however subjective my own senses and perceptions may be.

Now I suppose you could characterise that as belief, but I don't. Instead I see a world of difference between science and religion.

The first only requires you to accept that your senses and perceptions are your best (only!) source of information about the world in which you live and to maximise your ability to exist in the world, you should seek to understand the information with which you are provided in a rational manner.

The second requires you to ignore your senses and perceptions when the information they provide directly contradicts dogma, irrespective of the potential for harm that might result.