NationStates Jolt Archive

I suspect you already KNOW how I would respond to this question, since you have debated enough religion threads with me to be (one assumes) fairly conversant with my Implicit Atheism. There is no 'logical' standpoint from which to declare that there IS or IS NOT a deity, unless one has a personal evidence of such... and even that 'personal evidence' can be taken as no kind of generic proof. The same must be true in all situations where observation cannot rationally be quantified or qualified.

The flipside, of course, is that the thousands of people who believe they saw UFO's MIGHT be right... but they might also be wrong... and the simple fact that I cannot PROVE "that they didn't see an alien craft unless"... I... "could show them something that to them is a more rational source"... does not mean that they DID see Martian invaders.

Belief is NOT automatically equal to reality.

I totally agree with the last line. The suggestion that has been made on the last couple of pages is that it is irrational. The point is that it is not irrational simply because evidence is not emperical. This is quite simply the part that Brenchley does not get.

Science does not say, for example, THERE IS NO LIFE AFTER DEATH. Science says, based on available emperical evidence we have no reason to believe there is life after death, if they comment on it at all. Brenchley doesn't seem to get that 'based on available emperical evidence' is assumed at the beginning of every theory and hypothesis in science and, as you pointed out, available emperical evidence does not and most likely cannot mean ALL evidence.

I think it's amusing when people complain that science doesn't support my philosophy when it doesn't support theirs either.

Not at all. Reality SEEMS to be finite, and human perception SEEMS to be finite. Both are reasons why science may never have 'all' the answers.

Also, one must remember that every answer brings with it MORE questions... and SOME of those questions may well be beyond the capacity of science to ever adequately explain.

As an example - one could look at the formation of matter. We isolate the atom - and it opens a new can of worms... WITHIN our smallest part, we find interactions... so we have to redefine what is POSSIBLE to know. We isolate the sub-atomic, and again we find evidence for lesser interactions - so again we move the boundary of what CAN be known. What lies BELOW the quark level of interaction? Can it ever be observed? If it cannot - there will always be speculation... but never certainty. If it CAN - we will again be in a position where we are looking at a lowest denominator that has levels BELOW it... since, even if there IS a true 'smallest particle'.. it is still an entity of energetic reaction - and the mechanisms behind THAT reaction will stretch the boundary still further...

This is simply not true. Observation affects the observed on a quantum level - thus we can NEVER 'know' ALL the answers.

There are, of course, OTHER reasons why we will never 'know' everything... since there are certain situations in which it is impossible to know two data about the same object...

Shhhh... he gets paid to 'do science' so he can't be wrong about it. He already told me he can't be wrong about science or they wouldn't pay to 'do science'. So, of course, he would know these little things about the limitations of science.

Shhhh... he gets paid to 'do science' so he can't be wrong about it. He already told me he can't be wrong about science or they wouldn't pay to 'do science'. So, of course, he would know these little things about the limitations of science.

Now, THERE is an interesting conundrum, no?

I also get paid to 'do science'... and yet I differ with this other character about what 'science' even means...

So - one of us (Brenchley or I) MUST be 'wrong' about science... and yet both of us get paid for it? Is A Puzzlement.

Now, THERE is an interesting conundrum, no?

I also get paid to 'do science'... and yet I differ with this other character about what 'science' even means...

So - one of us (Brenchley or I) MUST be 'wrong' about science... and yet both of us get paid for it? Is A Puzzlement.

Brenchley seems unfamiliar with Godel's theorem. Brenchley believes that science will eventually know everything.

I know, I know - it's impossible - but Brenchley says it's true, so it must be so! :rolleyes:

Now, THERE is an interesting conundrum, no?

I also get paid to 'do science'... and yet I differ with this other character about what 'science' even means...

So - one of us (Brenchley or I) MUST be 'wrong' about science... and yet both of us get paid for it? Is A Puzzlement.

Oh, it gets better, I work for an engineering firm designing various kinds of systems. I get paid to 'do science' as well. I help out with research on occasion, but for the most part I'm in the practical applications area of science, however, it certainly qualifies.

And while you and I view science more similarly than say Brenchley and I there are still three differing views among the claims of there being this homogenous infallible scientific group.

My view and perhaps the most widely held view as there is much evidence to support it both emperically and logically is that our growth in knowledge approaches an assymptote but we will never actually reach. The assymptote isn't even ALL knowledge but only all knowledge that can be gained through scientific observation and derivatives of observation.

I suspect you agree with that.

And as far as your comment earlier, I think we generally understand each other which is why I was willing to present your view for you which is admittedly both cocky and generally bad form. To be fair, I feel that you understand me well enough that I would have no problem with you presenting a general view like that for me in a thread (assuming I was participating). I think it's a nice change when people who have differing views on something as core to our persons as our views of absolute reality can actually be respectful of each other, and even better actually respect each other (yeah, there's that hubris again).

Brenchley seems unfamiliar with Godel's theorem. Brenchley believes that science will eventually know everything.

I know, I know - it's impossible - but Brenchley says it's true, so it must be so! :rolleyes:

Actually, I don't like Godel. I don't think being logically inconsistent should be accepted in proofs, as proof.

Oh, it gets better, I work for an engineering firm designing various kinds of systems. I get paid to 'do science' as well. I help out with research on occasion, but for the most part I'm in the practical applications area of science, however, it certainly qualifies.

And while you and I view science more similarly than say Brenchley and I there are still three differing views among the claims of there being this homogenous infallible scientific group.

My view and perhaps the most widely held view as there is much evidence to support it both emperically and logically is that our growth in knowledge approaches an assymptote but we will never actually reach. The assymptote isn't even ALL knowledge but only all knowledge that can be gained through scientific observation and derivatives of observation.

I suspect you agree with that.

And as far as your comment earlier, I think we generally understand each other which is why I was willing to present your view for you which is admittedly both cocky and generally bad form. To be fair, I feel that you understand me well enough that I would have no problem with you presenting a general view like that for me in a thread (assuming I was participating). I think it's a nice change when people who have differing views on something as core to our persons as our views of absolute reality can actually be respectful of each other, and even better actually respect each other (yeah, there's that hubris again).

No insult was taken. You seem to have a fair grip on what I might offer... perhaps even to the point that you literally COULD make a 'Grave_n_idle' post. :)

You certainly have my respect... and, from many of the times we have crossed swords, or even 'fought on the same side', you also have my admiration.

Does it count as hubris if it is justified? :)

Again - in this post - you are correct in assuming my agreement. I think that it is the height of arrogance to assume that ANY system of learning could EVER answer every question or 'know' everything. There are some questions that will NEVER really fit into certain arenas... and this applies from both sides of the trench. There are certain questions philosophy will never answer, and there are certain questions science will never answer....

Personally, I don't see your opinion and mine much divided on this issue. We may disagree over a prime originator, but we both seem to agree over how that matter can (or cannot) be assessed.

No insult was taken. You seem to have a fair grip on what I might offer... perhaps even to the point that you literally COULD make a 'Grave_n_idle' post. :)

You certainly have my respect... and, from many of the times we have crossed swords, or even 'fought on the same side', you also have my admiration.

Does it count as hubris if it is justified? :)

Again - in this post - you are correct in assuming my agreement. I think that it is the height of arrogance to assume that ANY system of learning could EVER answer every question or 'know' everything. There are some questions that will NEVER really fit into certain arenas... and this applies from both sides of the trench. There are certain questions philosophy will never answer, and there are certain questions science will never answer....

Personally, I don't see your opinion and mine much divided on this issue. We may disagree over a prime originator, but we both seem to agree over how that matter can (or cannot) be assessed.

Well, I think we agree on a core point, as Socrates pointed out, the greatest of human wisdoms is in recognizing the limits of our knowledge, only he said as accepting that we truly KNOW nothing.

I think it's funny that in one thread we arguing against those that think science can falsify God and in the other we are arguing against those that think science can include hypothesis that include God. The funny thing is the reason both are wrong is the same. Science cannot prove the nonexistence of something unless a core part of its existence would be that emperical proof would have to be available. Thus because science can't falsify God, He cannot be included in hypotheses or addressed by science in any way for good or ill.