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

Hmm, mathemathics fit with reality so much it´s scary. The 2 and 4 thing is just a matter of agreeing with the definitions, if you do that it all fits.

Peet - By definition logic can not be used to disprove any fundamental axioms. It can only show that two axioms are inconsistent with one another. We then just have to choose which one to go with.

Only observation can disprove an axiom. But it can never prove one. Only logic can prove the consequence of accepting axioms, but it can never disprove one.

Logic and observation never properly meet - in the gap lies metaphysics and the real Universe.

Axioms are the bridge between the real and the conceptual.

This is getting too heavy!

I think the basic problem here is that the meaning of the word theory has changed with time.

Science has always recognised that certainties are few and that it is wisest to talk in terms of weights of probability. As the evidence for Evolution of life on earth, Darwinist or not, and the geological evidence of the age of our planet increases, so the possibility of gathering enough evidence to prove an alternative theory becomes more and more remote. Only a fool would attempt to gather enough evidence to 'prove' that the universe was created in 6 days.

Yes, those American States that have decided not to teach evolution are fools, and I feel that The Whizzard of Oz must be feeling a bit foolish or a bit in need of verbal fight to see any sense in this decision.

Remember, human beings are not very good with things like balances of probabilities. As the millions of dollars lost by ordinary human beings attempting to beat the various probabalistic systems in Las Vegas demonstrates. So the word 'theory' is a difficult one to understand.

Science wins over religion because the heretics in science are recognised - if the weight of probability is that they are right. Remember that in the 1940's none of the Universties on the San Andreas fault held much truck with the new-fangled plate tectonics theory. Thirty years later, they were working out ways to make their own plate slip a bit more quietly than it had done in 1906. In science it's okay to disagree with fondly held beiefs and you don't get set on fire for it.

Meanwhile, the word 'theory' has become equated with the word 'faith', as in 'I have a theory the roulette ball will stop on black'. In just the same way, the word 'standard' has come to mean 'below average' rather than the best that can be attained, and the word 'large' has come to mean 'small' when applied to a cup of coffee.

I'm not so sure 'theory' has changed its meaning. It still means 'proposed explanation' except when it is misused as in "theory the ball will land on black" - that is just a confusion with 'prediction' or 'theory that predicts the ball will land on black'.

Science isn't so different to religion in some ways. They both have to be believed to make any sense of the world. It seems we have much better reasons to believe in science. But remember there's a point beyond which science can not go - its axioms.

Science isn't nearly infallible, but at least it will eventually base itself on newer theories.. How many 'advances' has religion seen in the past millennium?

'Nonnie

'Nonnie, that's a question you should ask the Mormons...

I'm not taking about cross-religion changes.. How many major Doctrines of the Catholic Church (for example) have radically changed? I know there have been a few minor social changes, I'm not saying there has been none.. but compare that with the leaps and bounds Science has made in the same length of time, and the radical differences in beliefs.

'Nonnie

No way would I argue for religious beliefs. But the methods aren't very different. And in the end we may have to settle for belief. There is a real logical and philosophical problem about science providing ultimate answers.

Rober Kaplan "The Nothing That Is - A Natural History of Zero" is an unmissable book in relation to all this. It looks like and reads like a mathematics book for most of the time, but in the end it deals with the whole of reality. Also Paul Davies "The Mind of God" is great on religion from a physicists viewpoint.

Those are very good points, my tiny infectuous friend. I wanted to point out that while I agree with your statement that both science and religion require belief at some point, there is a significant difference in believing something that you can observe for yourself versus something you cannot. Every good scientific theory is based on observations that can be repeated - perhaps not by the common everyday man, but given the same equipment and circumstances, observations of phenomena or other events can be repeated. This isn't quite the nature of most religious beliefs. In fact, the very definition of faith seems to preclude the ability to observe for oneself; at least, that's how I feel about the concept, though I know some Priests who would disagree with me. Personally, it is that one thing, the discouragement of individual thought and reasoning that has turned me off of religion. I like to make up my own mind, not be told what to think.

In any event, I don't wish to jump on the soapbox again, especially since I think I'd be preaching to the choir here anyway. It's true we have to believe in axioms, otherwise logic fails and science fails along with it. There are relatively few axiom, I think, and they are so basic that I've never had a problem with them. But having faith in logical axioms (such as, "that which is, is itself" to paraphrase one logical axiom) is a far cry from having faith that God became flesh, died for ous sins, and is really just a part of a trinity of three-gods-in-one, or any of a host (sorry, bad pun) of the things I was taught to believe without question as a youth in the Catholic Church. It puzzles me, as what I see are the best things about religions are not things that really require belief in obscure explanations of things, but more of faith in ourselves as a race or a culture. Science and religion both exist ostensibly as a search for truth. The goal is one and the same, but the methods are different. How different depends on the religion and the (mal)practice of the scientist in question, and sadly we've seen some mixtures of the two, particularly in the present "information age." As I've said in another thread (there's something like four of 'em in this forum taliking about similar stuff, if I'm not mistaken), I like to think of religion and science as being complementary rather than competing methods to view The Truth, whatever that is.

I just thought I'd drop by and mention that I agree with what's been said recently around here.

Hi JD - You've got a point about dying on the cross, not fancying the neighbours ox and all that. I suppose I just see all that as the random and unimportant stuff that grows up around any attempt to explain the world. It's simply the attempt to explain that is significant and equivalent, and the type of logic used, not the conclusions themselves.

I'm also not sure about scientific axioms being based simply on what we see - and that this is different to religious beliefs. The original religious beliefs were based on observation - it's raining so God must have sent rain, any fool can see the rain so there's the proof - it's just that the logic doesn't appear to hold up to much examination.

The axiom 'God exists' leads to 'God sent the rain' - the axiom 'two parallel lines never meet' leads to Euclid's problems. The axiom 'forces exist'leads us to posit gravity without any evidence whatsoever for a connecting force beyond just the behaviour of things that aren't themselves forces. The axiom 'I am rational' leads to all this nonsense.

I've always had a problem with Mathematical axioms as well.. In fact, I can't even remember them unless I can see -why- they work. Just telling me anything -is- just because it -is- is asking for questions and confrontation.

'Nonnie