The Grand Assumption of Science

[YT2095]

if we see things in color or as you say like a heat sensitive cam and in gray scales, that only succeeds in changing the Labels we put on them as names, nothing else.

 

no animal was born with Dipole antennas (excluding the TeleTubbys) either, and yet our instruments can pick up radio signals just fine.

[lucaspa]

it is an assumption, unless you consider human experience to be an accurate way to observe said phenomenon. Which I don't.

 

Human experience is considered to be an accurate way for ALL observation. All evidence is human experience. For everything. To say that human experience can't be used to obtain information about deity is to engage in Special Pleading.

 

In a sense, ALL hypotheses are "assumptions", in that we assume they are true in order to test them.

 

The hypothesis of deity can be derived as explanation from the observations:

1. The universe exists. Why does it exist?

2. The universe has a particular order. Why does it have this order rather than some other one?

 

Deity is proposed as a hypothesis for both questions. There are other hypotheses also proposed for both.

 

And also, maybe he can and choses not to, and he never has done so.

 

That doesn't explain the 2 groups. That would be used if NO ONE had experience of deity and that isn't the situation we have. To propose this you have to make and demonstrate another hypothesis first: none of the experiences of deity by people are genuine.

 

What percentage of people would claim to have a divine experience? And, what percentage of those would be lying or delusional? We may never have a way of knowing that. ... I was simply referring to those people who appear to be prophetic because of their divine experience... sparse. You're right, if we consider everyone to be telling the truth and/or not delusional, then sparse is inaccurate.

 

And, before we can decide that everyone who claims experience of deity to be either lying or delusional, then we must have an indepedent test of honesty and sanity.

 

The idea that people who report experiences of deity are either lying or delusional is what is called an "ad hoc hypothesis". The hypothesis would be "deity does not exist". Personal experience constitutes falsification of that hypothesis. So, now you propose 2 ad hoc hypotheses to avoid the falsification:

1. The people are delusional.

2. They are lying.

 

In science, for ad hoc hypotheses to be valid they must be testable independent of the hypothesis they are trying to save. And THAT turns out to be a big problem:

 

"But why should anyone think such a combination of faiths might be necessary, or indispensable on a quest for fundamental truth? There are two reasons for thinking it might be. One would be to have first-hand, experiential evidence of God which was personally convincing. The second is because to dismiss belief in God summarily is to pass premature and unwarranted judgement on the sanity, honesty, and intelligence of a vast number of our fellow human beings who claim to have such experiential evidence, many of them the same persons we do trust implicitly when it comes to other matters." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pp. 281-282.

 

For instance, Bishop Spong is one of those claiming experiential evidence. I can't find any evidence he suffers from delusions or that he lies. His written works are brutally honest. I have a friend who is a surgeon that claims experiential evidence. He is always rational and truthful and I would trust him implicitly to perform surgery on me. Bottom line, I don't have an independent means to back either ad hoc hypothesis.

 

I didn't state the universe is 'everything', I was arguing the basis of that statement assumed the universe is everything, hence 'stands alone'.

 

With all due respect Snail, you said "if we're to take the universe as 'everything', which by definition the universe is." Do you see "by definition the universe is" If you reorder the sentence you have "by definition the universe is everything" That's not an assumption anymore. It sounds like you are saying that you did not intend to say this. But you unintentionally did and I cannot, unfortunately, read your mind to know what you intended, but can only react to what you actually write.

 

I believe certain areas are undefined until they can be tested. I think 'deity' is undefined, and open to interpretation...interpretation can't be tested. I also don't think 'deity' is appropriate for the discussion.

 

First, I'm using "deity" here because to use "God" means a particular theory of deity -- the Judeo-Christian Yahweh.

 

Second, I don't think you want the term "undefined". I think you want the term "unknown". I suggest that what you want to say is "the existence of entities cannot be determined by science until they can be tested."

 

Third, I would argue that "interpretations" = theories about the nature of deity. And those can be tested, and have been tested over the centuries by theists. The theory of deity that was the Greek pantheon that lived on Olympus was tested and refuted -- by theists.

 

I would also argue that the universe includes what we're yet to discover, so 'what we can observe' will change over time. However, 'what we can observe' is another matter of convenience, and I completely agree with that definition as far as science is concerned.

 

I don't think you understand. As far as part of science is concerned, everything = what we are able to observe (our universe) + what we can NEVER observe.

 

In Bubble Universe, we can never observe the other bubbles, because they are moving away from us faster than light. Yet the "universe" is both what we can observe (all the galaxies, quasars, etc) + all the other bubbles. "Universe" is then also used to denote just our bubble.

 

nope color is not wavelengths of light sound is not vibration of material and heat is not motion of molecules. wavelengths of light are wavelengths of light there is nothing color about them. vibration of material is vibration of material there is nothing audible about it. motion of molecules is motion of molecules nothing more. color and sound and heat are sensations ascribe to these things created by our minds.

 

As YT says, you are arguing Labels (and here I'll use the caps for emphasis) and not what they refer to.

 

Yes, our eyes perceive electromagnetic waves of 700 nm as red. But do you see? Now we can define "red" not as "what I perceive thru my eyes" but as an objective entity independent of the person. What you call "red" might be slightly different than what I call red, but 700 nm is 700 nm for both of us.

 

What we have are individual detecting units for objective reality called our senses. We have made names for the output of those detectors: color, sound, heat. However, what those detectors detect is wavelenghts of light, vibrations of air, and motion of molecules. So, using the correspondence principle in math where a = b = c, therefore a = c, we have:

vibrations in air = what is detected by ear = sound, therefore vibrations in air = sound.

 

that's what the question, "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" is meant to show.

 

Now you can see the answer is "yes". Since sound = vibrations in air, the falling tree does make a sound. It is simply that there is no detection device present. My sanity is still intact. Your reasoning ability, OTOH ...

In fact i would even take it a step further and say if no animals with ears were self aware there be no sound.

 

You end up denying cause and effect. As YT pointed out, our eyes do not detect a lot of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Since you say objects don't exist unless we can "see" or "hear" them, then I suggest you go stand next to a high energy gamma ray emitter. After all, you don't see any "colors", so those photons don't exist ... by your logic. Perhaps YT will help me explain to your next of kin how you were totally sane so that they won't be so distressed by the manner of your death.

 

 

the universe is everything, energy. nothing more nothing less.

 

The way you said this it says "the universe is energy". That's not the case. The universe is more than energy.

[Royston]

With all due respect Snail, you said "if we're to take the universe as 'everything', which by definition the universe is." Do you see "by definition the universe is" If you reorder the sentence you have "by definition the universe is everything" That's not an assumption anymore. It sounds like you are saying that you did not intend to say this. But you unintentionally did and I cannot, unfortunately, read your mind to know what you intended, but can only react to what you actually write.

 

<slaps forehead> Oops, you're right, I stupidly missed one word out, yet I was still reading the statement as how I intentionally meant to write it, i.e 'by that definition the universe is everything'...oh dear.

 

I didn't really think my other responses through properly, so I apologize for that.

[galaxyblur]

are we talking about proving hypotheses or just talking? I'm confused... there seem to be two different vibes happening here.

[lucaspa]

are we talking about proving hypotheses or just talking? I'm confused... there seem to be two different vibes happening here.

 

We were not originally talking about theory evaluation. We were discussing assumptions that are necessary in order to do science. To recap:

 

In any search for truth, whether scientific, philosophical, religious, etc, you must assume 2 things that you cannot "prove":

1. I exist.

2. I am sane.

 

Some people have suggested a third assumption:

3. My senses are not being deliberately deceived by an outside agent.

 

In addition, science has 5 assumptions about the nature of the universe. (Judeo-Christianity has these same 5 items, but they are conclusions based on the assumption of the existence of God and His nature):

 

1. The universe is rational.

2. The univeres is accessible.

3. The universe is objective.

4. The universe is contingent.

5. The universe is unified.

 

In addition, someguy has been arguing that there is no such thing as "reality". He claims that reality is a construct of human senses and does not exist outside the human brain.

 

You and I, OTOH, have a separate "vibe" going in discussing the existence of deity and what is, and isn't, evidence. We got on that because I (mistakenly) interpreted JHAQ's post as questioning deity. Looking back on it, I think JHAQ was refuting Someguy's position that our senses did not reflect reality. As JHAQ pointed out, natural selection would not have done that. Only by accurately sensing reality could an individual survive. Thus, natural selection made our senses be accurate detectors of what is "really" out there.

[galaxyblur]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Only by accurately sensing reality could an individual survive. Thus, natural selection made our senses be accurate detectors of what is "really" out there.

 

This is a good point, however, it is not true in all cases:

1. Someone or something has created Reality for us, a la the Matrix.

2. What is "really" out there is detrimental/harmful/traumatic when observed, thus we get a watered-down experience, or perhaps a distorted one in which we can function, rationally.

 

What someguy is stating is merely Existentialism, which by its very nature will never be proven right or wrong, which is why it will forever stay firmly planted in Philosophy. i.e. tree falling in forest, Plato's Cave, etc. It may, however, help us to cope with our perception of reality, realizing that we may not be capable of observing "reality" for its true self (if you can even state it as such w/o involving a human), which leads us to #2 above.

 

Perhaps in our continued evolution, those individuals who can grasp counter-intuitive concepts such as time-dilation and many things quantum, will find success and advance our species. So there is still room for natural selection, but maybe it is not finished yet.