Ben Carson: Religion is needed to interpret science because ‘maybe it’s just propaganda’

originally posted by: Barcs

Science doesn't oppose metaphysics.

That's why I was careful to use the phrase scientific community not science. Are you conflating them?

It just has no comment, because you can't verify any of it with direct observations and experiments.

Science can't comment, it's just a method. But scientific communities can and do comment, because they are people.

And yes, scientists can and do observe psychic functioning via experiments. And yes, the metaphysical implications of that are not welcome in some scientific communities. Hence, debunkers.

If you would like to see an example of experiments and observation of psychic functioning, you can watch this vid.



👣

originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

No. Gravity is a law and a constant and is directly proportionate to the mass of the object in question. The EFFECT of gravity could change if the mass of the earth changed, but the laws of physics are called laws for a reason. They don't change and gravity won't suddenly change the way it works. If you wish to suggest this, then explain how this could happen and use science to demonstrate it.

You're missing my point. I guess that's OK.

I have already answered this. You claimed science was faith based, therefor you are arguing against its validity. I'm still waiting for a valid reason why.

I don't think something's invalid just because it is based on faith.
I've provided a valid reason why science is based on faith: it relies on inductive reasoning and subjective observations.

By science, I am referring to the scientific method as it currently stands.

So most of our scientific advancements don't count as science. Right.

Right now, peer review is a big part of the process.

It's also incredibly flawed, but that's OK.

It's not JUST about experiments, it's about the ability of others to scrutinize them by duplicating them and double checking their work. I'm talking about modern science, not archaic science where somebody could just arbitrarily make a statement and claim it is scientific because he has that background.

Archaic science like what Newton and Darwin did. Good to know.

Obviously this kind of thing can lead to corruption, payoffs and agendas being pushed. This is why peer review is extremely important.

Because peer review doesn't suffer from these problems...

So 99% of biologists are disciples of Darwin. Gotcha. I think you should keep the religious terms away from science. They don't go together.

Disciple isn't necessarily a religious term.

I asked for scientific theories. Heliocentricism is accurate.

Gah! I was thinking of geocentrism, my bad (although heliocentricism at first believed that the universe revolved around the sun.)

Geocentrism wasn't an official scientific theory

What is an "official scientific theory?" Is there a roster someplace?

"Newtonian physics" isn't a scientific theory either, and they didn't end up being false, they ended up being a smaller part of the picture.

Yes, but they ended up being false from the perspective that they did not fully explain the laws of the universe.

You still haven't told me what you want me to back up. You made a silly blanket statement about evolution. I didn't see you back that up. You are making my points for me. I appreciate that. You have demonstrated perfectly how science holds more weight than philosophy or random statements made on the internet.

I said that because you made a blanket statement about philosophy (I think it was.)

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not a scientific field of study.

Yes. Which is why saying "metaphysics has no proof for it" is like saying "dentistry has no proof for it" or "ethics has no proof for it."

It is entirely theoretical (and not in the scientific meaning of the word). It is pretty much making educated guesses. There are no experiments to test any of it.

Yes.

You didn't address me point for point. You addressed me line for line. Many of my points were broken up which changed the context.

My mistake.

Now this is getting kind of funny. Do you have a peer reviewed article on peer reviewed articles? But wait, if that's the case, who is going to write one for the peer review of the peer reviewed article on peer review? LOL. Science objectively proves things and the knowledge is used to make technology, improve modern medicine, provide food to people on a massive scale, allow instant global communications, etc etc. That is direct evidence that it works and is not based on faith. I don't understand how you fail to see this. You broke down all my other posts line for line, yet somehow mysteriously didn't even address that main point. Objective evidence means that it can be verified via experiment and scientific observation. It is the basis of the scientific method.

You keep telling me this without addressing my point, which is that science is based on *assumptions.* You say that science is not based on faith because it is objectively provable. It's only objectively provable if you take a few things on faith...such as the idea that inductive reasoning is valid.

How you perceive the world does not change the objective scientific experiments that show how things work. You keep equating philosophy to science. They are not the same thing. Something that is not objectively verified is considered unknown in science. Science draws conclusions from what can be verified. Philosophy attempts to make conclusions based on what we do not know. It is night and day. Science is NOT based on subjectivity. It doesn't matter that it evolved from philosophy originally or that educated guesses based on facts are made to create hypotheses to test. Science, as it stands today, is a great method of fact discovery. It is much more reliable today than it was a couple centuries ago, for sure.

Listen to yourself. You are saying that "science draws conclusions from what can be verified." Verified by what? Science? Can science verify its own standards? Does science verify that the scientific method is sound? Nope. It's philosophy.

We don't "rely" on philosophy to determine anything tangible.

Then we don't know anything tangible. Without philosophy, there is no reason to believe that the scientific method is a good means of determining truth. If you can prove otherwise using the scientific method, feel free. If, on the other hand, you try to use reasoning to convince me otherwise you are engaging in philosophy and prove my point.

It is just interesting to think about the possibilities and what we can learn from them. The problem with philosophy is that it is based on assumptions.

Science also is based on assumptions. (Some philosophers actually do away with most assumptions, actually.) It assumes the scientific method is a valid means of discovering truth. It assumes that reality is real. It assumes our collective subjective experiences are accurate means of measuring the universe.

I do personally believe that "pain" from drowning occurs because we often instinctively hold our breaths in real life when we become submerged in a dream. Obviously that's a subjective guess.

I think you're right about that
But there's no scientific reason to believe that I am anything other than a brain in a jar hooked up to impulses, now, is there?

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
You're missing my point. I guess that's OK.

Communication isn't your specialty is it? Why not explain the point that you claim I am missing instead of making false claims about gravity? If I correct you on a false claim, it's not missing the point. Don't make false claims if you don't like that. This whole conversation is becoming a joke because you ignore practically every single point I make and each time I prove you wrong, you change the subject or make some one liner that has nothing to do with the conversation.

Maybe you don't understand how inductive reasoning works or the fact that it's not even the primary type of reasoning used in science, especially not conclusions. I've told you this numerous times and you pretend it wasn't said.

www.livescience.com...

Read about it. Inductive reasoning isn't the be all end all. Most conclusions are actually derived from deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is only used to think of hypotheses to test. The tests themselves are deductive, so that the hypothesis can be accepted or rejected based on the experiments.

Archaic science like what Newton and Darwin did. Good to know.

Unbelievable. Newton's laws have been peer reviewed and verified as has evolution.

Because peer review doesn't suffer from these problems...

Your irrelevant one liners do not go against that. Peer review is a error correcting system of verification, so yes, obviously it makes the science more legitimate and less susceptible to corruption. Perfect? Of course not, but light years better than it used to be. Anything with a human element is susceptible to corruption. More peer review = better science. Bottom line.

Yes, but they ended up being false from the perspective that they did not fully explain the laws of the universe.

LMAO! No laws or theories FULLY explain everything about the laws of the universe. Laws are measurements and calculations. What an asinine statement. Something in science isn't magically false because it doesn't explain everything about everything. I'm sorry but you are grasping for straws at this point trying to support a faulty conclusion. Newton's laws are still true. They weren't wrong. Nice try.

I said that because you made a blanket statement about philosophy (I think it was.)

Each post gets more and more dishonest. I didn't make a blanket statement about philosophy. I said that it doesn't prove things objectively and this is true. You ask me to back up a post and called me "unscientific" and now you are backtracking out of that. I can back up ANYTHING that I claim. I don't make false claims to support religious viewpoints and attack science as you are doing. It's hilarious how badly you seem to hate science and want your view to be right.

Yes. Which is why saying "metaphysics has no proof for it" is like saying "dentistry has no proof for it" or "ethics has no proof for it."

Just no. Dentistry DOES have proof. People improve their teeth. You are being ridiculous. Metaphysics is not based on the objective, so it does not have proof. Comparing it to dentistry isn't even close to reality. We know that teeth and cavities are real and cause health problems. We DO NOT know metaphysics to be true. Fail point.

You keep telling me this without addressing my point, which is that science is based on *assumptions.* You say that science is not based on faith because it is objectively provable. It's only objectively provable if you take a few things on faith...such as the idea that inductive reasoning is valid.

The proof is in the fact that IT WORKS and is used to function 99% of our technology. Hilarious that you would accuse me of ignoring your point after you quoted an entire paragraph that clearly explained it.

Listen to yourself. You are saying that "science draws conclusions from what can be verified." Verified by what? Science? Can science verify its own standards? Does science verify that the scientific method is sound? Nope. It's philosophy.

You have no clue whatsoever. You would get laughed out of a debate bringing red herrings such as this into it. Science is a method. Science doesn't verify science, it doesn't need to. Science verifies facts, deductively and objectively. Sorry that you don't get it. I'm not wasting any more time on this.

Science also is based on assumptions.Without philosophy, there is no reason to believe that the scientific method is a good means of determining truth.

Absolute lie. I've already explained it. Repeating your original statement over and over again to every point I make doesn't make you right.

But there's no scientific reason to believe that I am anything other than a brain in a jar hooked up to impulses, now, is there?

There is no scientific reason to believe that you ARE a brain in a jar. Start with that. There is no scientific reason to think the easter bunny exists. There's no scientific reason to think humans can fly and turn invisible. That doesn't mean these things are true or possible. You simply don't understand science and how it proves things. Use google. Learn things. Calling science faith based while using a piece of technology that performs a function and came from scientific knowledge is hypocritical and is insulting to the folks that work in the field every week trying to learn things that benefit us all as a society.

originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Communication isn't your specialty is it? Why not explain the point that you claim I am missing instead of making false claims about gravity?

I was claiming that, if we live in an artificial reality, the way gravity operates may change next week. That's a true claim.

Maybe you don't understand how inductive reasoning works or the fact that it's not even the primary type of reasoning used in science, especially not conclusions. I've told you this numerous times and you pretend it wasn't said.

Sure, deductive reasoning is used in science. I've never denied that. But inductive reasoning is used to arrive that the conclusion that science works and is a valid process. That's what I've been saying, and you've been pretending it wasn't said

Read about it. Inductive reasoning isn't the be all end all. Most conclusions are actually derived from deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is only used to think of hypotheses to test. The tests themselves are deductive, so that the hypothesis can be accepted or rejected based on the experiments.

The tests are deductive. The *premises* are not (necessarily.)

Unbelievable. Newton's laws have been peer reviewed and verified as has evolution.

Sure, now they have been. Not at the time, though. Were they only good science after they were peer-reviewed?

Your irrelevant one liners do not go against that. Peer review is a error correcting system of verification, so yes, obviously it makes the science more legitimate and less susceptible to corruption. Perfect? Of course not, but light years better than it used to be. Anything with a human element is susceptible to corruption. More peer review = better science. Bottom line.

More peer review = better odds for better science.

LMAO! No laws or theories FULLY explain everything about the laws of the universe. Laws are measurements and calculations.

Sure, no law has fully explained everything about the laws of the universe. I understand some scientists are actually trying to find a theory of everything. And laws are not measurements and calculations, but rather conclusions based on measurements and calculations. You know this.

What an asinine statement. Something in science isn't magically false because it doesn't explain everything about everything. I'm sorry but you are grasping for straws at this point trying to support a faulty conclusion. Newton's laws are still true. They weren't wrong. Nice try.

Newtons Laws aren't always true. Some laws, huh?

Each post gets more and more dishonest. I didn't make a blanket statement about philosophy. I said that it doesn't prove things objectively and this is true.

How is that not a blanket statement?

You ask me to back up a post and called me "unscientific" and now you are backtracking out of that. I can back up ANYTHING that I claim. I don't make false claims to support religious viewpoints and attack science as you are doing. It's hilarious how badly you seem to hate science and want your view to be right.

I don't hate science. I like it.

Just no. Dentistry DOES have proof. People improve their teeth. You are being ridiculous. Metaphysics is not based on the objective, so it does not have proof. Comparing it to dentistry isn't even close to reality. We know that teeth and cavities are real and cause health problems. We DO NOT know metaphysics to be true. Fail point.

You are missing what I am saying. Metaphysics is a category of study like dentistry, or ethics, or civic engineering. You shouldn't say "we have no proof that a category of study is not true." You should instead say "we have no proof that the conclusions of this field of study are true." A field of study is a not something with a true/false value attached to it, it is a field of study, something that exists.

The proof is in the fact that IT WORKS and is used to function 99% of our technology.

According to your subjective perspective, yes, it does work. You trust your subjective perspective because you have *faith* in your senses, as do most people.

You have no clue whatsoever. You would get laughed out of a debate bringing red herrings such as this into it. Science is a method. Science doesn't verify science, it doesn't need to. Science verifies facts, deductively and objectively. Sorry that you don't get it. I'm not wasting any more time on this.

Trying to back out, eh?
Science does verify facts, but *how are the facts themselves determined?* Through the scientific method. How do we know the scientific method works? Because we observe it. How do we know we observe it? Because we have faith in our senses. That faith can be blind, as I sense it is in your case, or it can be reasoned through with reflection and thought. That's called philosophy.

Absolute lie. I've already explained it. Repeating your original statement over and over again to every point I make doesn't make you right.

If you explained it, you did a poor job. I'm going to repeat the question above. How do we know the scientific method works? If your answer is "because technology" then what you are saying is "because we perceive it to work," then are you assuming that your senses work. This is an assumption that is based on faith. And that is my point.

There is no scientific reason to believe that you ARE a brain in a jar.

So we're at 50/50 odds, eh?

You simply don't understand science and how it proves things. Use google. Learn things. Calling science faith based while using a piece of technology that performs a function and came from scientific knowledge is hypocritical and is insulting to the folks that work in the field every week trying to learn things that benefit us all as a society.

Nope. You simply don't understand philosophy and how it underpins everything we do.

I fail to see how calling science faith-based is insulting. It's true, and if you gave me 15 or 20 minutes with people in a scientific field, they'd agree with me. Sure, they'd say it wasn't as faith-based as religious belief (and they'd be right) but they wouldn't be so foolish as to insist that nothing in life is based on faith. Science is based on the faith that our observations are accurate and meaningful. There are two ways to come to the conclusion that we can trust our senses: through abstract reasoning, (philosophy) or through simply trusting our senses (blind faith.) Either way, there is an element of faith involved, and for the thoughtful man, philosophy underpins it.

You clearly don't believe me. Perhaps that's because I've been doing a poor job explaining myself, or perhaps it's because you've been doing a poor job reading what I've been saying. Either way, let's give this another try. Explain to me, if you can, why you trust your senses. Then you can explain to me why you trust science, which you perceive through your senses.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I was claiming that, if we live in an artificial reality, the way gravity operates may change next week. That's a true claim.

And if we live on a giant cheesecake, the way lava works may change next week. That's a true claim. LOL.

Sure, deductive reasoning is used in science. I've never denied that. But inductive reasoning is used to arrive that the conclusion that science works and is a valid process. That's what I've been saying, and you've been pretending it wasn't said

False. Inductive reasoning is only used to formulate the original hypotheses. It is tested using deductive reasoning, so inductive reasoning is not what determines facts. I guess you didn't read the article I posted.

The tests are deductive. The *premises* are not (necessarily.)

The tests are what determine facts, not the premises, so once again, you are wrong.

Sure, now they have been. Not at the time, though. Were they only good science after they were peer-reviewed?

Yes.

Newtons Laws aren't always true. Some laws, huh?

What are you trying to say? Newton's laws are always true. All scientific laws are true. They wouldn't be called laws if they weren't absolutely verified and the calculations proven to work.

How is that not a blanket statement?

What I said was accurate. Your statements were not. Blanket statements are big generalizations that are intended to hide the truth (hence under the blanket) by being as general as possible, rather than giving details and actual information.

Philosophy does not prove things objectively
Science proves things objectively

Both are true statements, and certainly not blanket statements. You said that science was faith based and haven't yet backed that claim up.

A blanket statement is a vague and noncommittal statement asserting a premise without providing evidence

For example, if I said, "Most people like cake", it would be a blanket statement. A better statement would be "Survey's have shown that 86% people aged 3-15 rated cake among their top 3 favorite foods".

Saying, "Science requires faith" is a blanket statement. You should have said, "One part of the scientific method uses inductive reasoning". That would have been an accurate statement. Since faith is not involved in the actual testing phase, you can't claim the conclusions are based on faith, because they are based on experiment. The premise is an educated guess, based on existing facts and data. It isn't just dreamed up, and it is either rejected or accepted based on the results of the test.

You are missing what I am saying. Metaphysics is a category of study like dentistry, or ethics, or civic engineering. You shouldn't say "we have no proof that a category of study is not true." You should instead say "we have no proof that the conclusions of this field of study are true." A field of study is a not something with a true/false value attached to it, it is a field of study, something that exists.

Wrong. You made up the phrase "field up study". Just because a group of people may try to study something does not make it valid or legitimate. You can't study something that you do not know exists. Field of study is used to reference science, not paranormal investigation or guesses about the nature of reality. Philosophy has no proof of the premises or the conclusions. It is all inductive reasoning, no deductive at all, unlike science. This is why scientific conclusions hold weight and lead us to new advances while philosophy is food for thought.

According to your subjective perspective, yes, it does work. You trust your subjective perspective because you have *faith* in your senses, as do most people.

It's not subjective because numerous people have scrutinized and verified the results of science. LMAO at claiming faith in my senses. Again, unless you can objectively prove that what I see isn't really what I see, then you have no argument. I go with what we can verify. If you claim senses are just faith based, then by all means put them to the test. Reach out and pet a lion in the wild and see what happens. If they are not real, you'll survive, no biggy.

Science does verify facts, but *how are the facts themselves determined?* Through the scientific method. How do we know the scientific method works? Because we observe it. How do we know we observe it? Because we have faith in our senses. That faith can be blind, as I sense it is in your case, or it can be reasoned through with reflection and thought. That's called philosophy.

Again, if senses are faith based then everything in the history of the universe is faith based. You are being silly and offering no substance to your claims. IF senses are not real, then you can objectively prove it by doing the experiment I mentioned above. Unfortunately, reality disagrees with your premise. You can't just make up guesses and use them as arguments against science. Can you prove senses are not real? If you can, THEN you can bring up the implications with science. But there is zero evidence of such a thing.

How do we know the scientific method works? If your answer is "because technology" then what you are saying is "because we perceive it to work," then are you assuming that your senses work. This is an assumption that is based on faith. And that is my point.

We don't "perceive" it to work. It DOES work. It got us to the moon, it helped create the device you use to post on this message board. If you have objective evidence that senses are not real, you can make this argument, but since you don't, you are flat out wrong trying to crap on science using pure guesswork. Guesses and what ifs do not go against science, sorry.

So we're at 50/50 odds, eh?

You make a lot of wild guesses about things. To go against science, you need science itself. You can't just make things up and claim it COULD go against it IF it's true.

Nope. You simply don't understand philosophy and how it underpins everything we do.

Wrong. Philosophy tries to explain what cannot be verified by science. It does not objectively underpin ANYTHING.

I fail to see how calling science faith-based is insulting. It's true, and if you gave me 15 or 20 minutes with people in a scientific field, they'd agree with me.

LMAO! They'd laugh at you.

You clearly don't believe me. Perhaps that's because I've been doing a poor job explaining myself, or perhaps it's because you've been doing a poor job reading what I've been saying. Either way, let's give this another try. Explain to me, if you can, why you trust your senses. Then you can explain to me why you trust science, which you perceive through your senses.

I don't believe you because you haven't backed up anything you have said or given any valid reasons why we shouldn't trust our own senses. You are making up "what ifs" that require faith but without evidence statements like that are useless to science. Anybody can claim anything. It doesn't hold weight until you prove it. Sorry, but that's how it works. You don't like this, clearly, but it doesn't matter. You are attempting to hijack a conversation about science and turn it into philosophy. That is intellectually dishonest.

originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

And if we live on a giant cheesecake, the way lava works may change next week. That's a true claim. LOL.

Yup!

False. Inductive reasoning is only used to formulate the original hypotheses. It is tested using deductive reasoning, so inductive reasoning is not what determines facts. I guess you didn't read the article I posted.

I guess you didn't read what I said, because I didn't disagree with your point that deductive reasoning is used to test a hypothesis and determine facts. What I said before is that inductive reasoning is used to determine that the scientific method is a good way to find facts.

The tests are what determine facts, not the premises, so once again, you are wrong.

Er...so the premises are not based on facts?

Yes.

So a person stranded alone on an island cannot do science. Good to know.

What are you trying to say? Newton's laws are always true.

They aren't true at excessive speeds or in high gravity wells...

Both are true statements, and certainly not blanket statements. You said that science was faith based and haven't yet backed that claim up.

I have demonstrated it already more than once.

Saying, "Science requires faith" is a blanket statement. You should have said, "One part of the scientific method uses inductive reasoning". That would have been an accurate statement. Since faith is not involved in the actual testing phase, you can't claim the conclusions are based on faith, because they are based on experiment. The premise is an educated guess, based on existing facts and data. It isn't just dreamed up, and it is either rejected or accepted based on the results of the test.

You know what else is based on educated guesses based on existing data? Philosophy.
One part of the scientific method does use inductive reasoning, which means it is built on faith in inductive reasoning.

Wrong. You made up the phrase "field up study".

I...did not do that.

Just because a group of people may try to study something does not make it valid or legitimate. You can't study something that you do not know exists.

Then I guess we can't do science.

Field of study is used to reference science, not paranormal investigation or guesses about the nature of reality. Philosophy has no proof of the premises or the conclusions.

False.

It is all inductive reasoning, no deductive at all, unlike science.

False. If you were familiar with philosophy, you'd know this was untrue.

It's not subjective because numerous people have scrutinized and verified the results of science. LMAO at claiming faith in my senses.

Let me get this straight. People you perceive with your senses tell you your sensory perception works, so it must be true?

Again, unless you can objectively prove that what I see isn't really what I see, then you have no argument. I go with what we can verify.

Why should the burden of proof be on me? I'm not claiming either way. YOU are claiming that reality is real, so unless you can objectively prove that what I see is really what I see, then you have no argument. I go with what I can verify.

Again, if senses are faith based then everything in the history of the universe is faith based.

Mostly, yes. Glad we're getting someplace

You are being silly and offering no substance to your claims. IF senses are not real, then you can objectively prove it by doing the experiment I mentioned above.

How does getting eaten prove reality is real?

Can you prove senses are not real?

No, and I wouldn't want to. But you can't prove that they are real, why is why I am saying you are acting based on faith.

We don't "perceive" it to work. It DOES work. It got us to the moon, it helped create the device you use to post on this message board. If you have objective evidence that senses are not real, you can make this argument, but since you don't, you are flat out wrong trying to crap on science using pure guesswork. Guesses and what ifs do not go against science, sorry.

*sigh*
You have no proof that any of these things you are using as evidence are anything other than the figment of your imagination

You make a lot of wild guesses about things. To go against science, you need science itself.

If science proved that science didn't work, why should we trust the conclusion?

Wrong. Philosophy tries to explain what cannot be verified by science. It does not objectively underpin ANYTHING.

^ That is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one.

LMAO! They'd laugh at you.

Naww.

I don't believe you because you haven't backed up anything you have said or given any valid reasons why we shouldn't trust our own senses.

And you haven't given any valid reasons why we should trust our own senses. I didn't bother to use the standard arguments against the senses because I thought they would occur to you, but 1) your senses seem to work when you are in a dream (meaning we might be dreaming all the time) 2) there's no tangible evidence that exists that does not rely on the senses that our senses work (one cannot prove the senses work by using the senses because that's a fallacy) and 3) science (since you're into that) has found that we can deceive the senses through stimulation of the brain. There's no reason to believe that one or more of these things aren't happening to you unless you do some abstract reasoning (philosophy.) Haven't you seen The Matrix.

You are attempting to hijack a conversation about science and turn it into philosophy. That is intellectually dishonest.

I thought it was intellectually stimulating. My apologies.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Without philosophy, there is no reason to believe that the scientific method is a good means of determining truth.

i beg to disagree. there is a very critical difference between the scientific method and philosophy, the difference between excavating a fossil and writing a post about how fake it is. if you follow the steps of the scientific method exactly, then it doesnt matter what you believe, you will eventually arrive at the truth. if you follow the steps of philosophy, then it doesnt matter what the truth is, you will eventually arrive at what you believe.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

i beg to disagree. there is a very critical difference between the scientific method and philosophy, the difference between excavating a fossil and writing a post about how fake it is.

That's a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. Philosophy is about the love of truth. It's what we do when we decide that truth is a worthwhile thing to pursue. Science is a good way of discovering truth, but it's founded on philosophical presuppositions, as I discuss in my posts with Barcs

if you follow the steps of the scientific method exactly, then it doesnt matter what you believe, you will eventually arrive at the truth. if you follow the steps of philosophy, then it doesnt matter what the truth is, you will eventually arrive at what you believe.

Great line!
Also, a philosophical one. Your philosophical beliefs tell you that philosophy cannot be trusted, but science can. So why do you trust your philosophical views?

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I guess you didn't read what I said, because I didn't disagree with your point that deductive reasoning is used to test a hypothesis and determine facts. What I said before is that inductive reasoning is used to determine that the scientific method is a good way to find facts.

Deductive reasoning is required to determine facts in science. Inductive reasoning is NOT a requirement. You specifically said that inductive reasoning was required for scientific conclusions. You were wrong. Inductive reasoning is only used at the very beginning before facts are determined to be facts. The scientific method is a good way to determine facts, because it proves them. Your questioning of the method doesn't change that fact. I don't see why you can't understand this.

Er...so the premises are not based on facts?

They are educated guesses based on known facts and observations. They are then tested to determine if true or not. Science is not reliant on inductive reasoning because it uses DEDUCTIVE to prove things, not inductive.

They aren't true at excessive speeds or in high gravity wells...

The laws state that they hold true in the vacuum of space. Plus you failed once again to back your statement up. Please prove what you just claimed and show me where it contradicts the laws.

I have demonstrated it already more than once.

No, you haven't. You have demonstrated guesswork.

You know what else is based on educated guesses based on existing data? Philosophy.
One part of the scientific method does use inductive reasoning, which means it is built on faith in inductive reasoning.

Once again you are flat out wrong. It is not built on inductive reasoning because they use it occasionally to come up with hypotheses to test. Facts are determined with deductive objective reasoning, but you can't seem to grasp this very basic point.

False. If you were familiar with philosophy, you'd know this was untrue.

Show me something that can be objectively proven with philosophy then.

Let me get this straight. People you perceive with your senses tell you your sensory perception works, so it must be true?

That isn't how circular reasoning works.

Why should the burden of proof be on me? I'm not claiming either way. YOU are claiming that reality is real, so unless you can objectively prove that what I see is really what I see, then you have no argument. I go with what I can verify.

You can't prove this either way, so it's pointless to even discuss. Again, you are making what if statements. You can ask what if a million times, it doesn't matter nor does it affect the validity of science. I don't need to prove reality is real to show that science works. Science stands on its own merit and the huge database of proven working knowledge attained through this method that is actively applied in society.

How does getting eaten prove reality is real?

If it is fake, there will be no real consequences to your action, so you won't really die or get eaten.

No, and I wouldn't want to. But you can't prove that they are real, why is why I am saying you are acting based on faith.

Too bad science doesn't work that way. If you cannot prove something objectively, it doesn't hold merit in science, so if you want your statement to apply to science, that is the only way. That is why you must prove it, if you wish to use it as an argument.

And you haven't given any valid reasons why we should trust our own senses. I didn't bother to use the standard arguments against the senses because I thought they would occur to you, but 1) your senses seem to work when you are in a dream (meaning we might be dreaming all the time) 2) there's no tangible evidence that exists that does not rely on the senses that our senses work (one cannot prove the senses work by using the senses because that's a fallacy) and 3) science (since you're into that) has found that we can deceive the senses through stimulation of the brain. There's no reason to believe that one or more of these things aren't happening to you unless you do some abstract reasoning (philosophy.) Haven't you seen The Matrix.

Again, you can't prove any of that, so it is irrelevant to science. Give me something you can prove instead of guesses and what if statements. Anybody can guess about anything. Their position holds no merit until objective verification can happen. This is why you must provide the evidence.I don't care about what ifs and neither does science. Proof or it didn't happen.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
if you follow the steps of the scientific method exactly, then it doesnt matter what you believe, you will eventually arrive at the truth.

But sir that's a mighty big if. If you want to be that exact, you need to do science in a vacuum - far removed from the cultural baggage you might not be aware that you carry with you. Far removed from the need for a paycheck, far removed from politics, from the social norms of your peer group, from your own beliefs, prejudices, philosophical biases, desires, ambitions, etc.

I don't think any scientist can do that. Science is much to much of a collective effort. Where there are collections of people, there are social mechanisms.

👣

originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Deductive reasoning is required to determine facts in science. Inductive reasoning is NOT a requirement. You specifically said that inductive reasoning was required for scientific conclusions. You were wrong. Inductive reasoning is only used at the very beginning before facts are determined to be facts.

I think that's the inductive reasoning that I'm talking about.
I'm also referring to the inductive reasoning we use to believe that laws will remain constant.

They are educated guesses based on known facts and observations. They are then tested to determine if true or not. Science is not reliant on inductive reasoning because it uses DEDUCTIVE to prove things, not inductive.

But inductive reasoning is required. It's why we believe that laws are constants. Without inductive reasoning, we'd have no reason to believe that gravity is always a constant.

The laws state that they hold true in the vacuum of space. Plus you failed once again to back your statement up. Please prove what you just claimed and show me where it contradicts the laws.

I wasn't referring to the vacuum of space.

No, you haven't. You have demonstrated guesswork.

As you like to call philosophical reasoning

Once again you are flat out wrong. It is not built on inductive reasoning because they use it occasionally to come up with hypotheses to test. Facts are determined with deductive objective reasoning, but you can't seem to grasp this very basic point.

And you cannot seem to grasp the very basic point that all of this deductive reasoning is based on the inductive reasoning that things will remain the same. That the laws of nature will not change randomly: that's inductive reasoning. It's inductive reasoning to say "we've measured the strength of gravity 45 times, so we can plug it into this equation and send a man to the moon because we know that gravity won't randomly change while we're out there." That's inductive reasoning.

Show me something that can be objectively proven with philosophy then.

I was referring to your assertion that philosophy doesn't use deductive reasoning.

You can't prove this either way, so it's pointless to even discuss.

Seriously?

Again, you are making what if statements. You can ask what if a million times, it doesn't matter nor does it affect the validity of science. I don't need to prove reality is real to show that science works. Science stands on its own merit and the huge database of proven working knowledge attained through this method that is actively applied in society.

In other words, science is real because you perceive it to be real.

If it is fake, there will be no real consequences to your action, so you won't really die or get eaten.

But I might perceive that I am dying or being eaten, which sounds unpleasant. You first

Too bad science doesn't work that way. If you cannot prove something objectively, it doesn't hold merit in science, so if you want your statement to apply to science, that is the only way. That is why you must prove it, if you wish to use it as an argument.

So you agree with me that science is based on faith...or don't you? I'm confused.

Again, you can't prove any of that, so it is irrelevant to science. Give me something you can prove instead of guesses and what if statements. Anybody can guess about anything. Their position holds no merit until objective verification can happen. This is why you must provide the evidence.I don't care about what ifs and neither does science. Proof or it didn't happen.

How do you know objective proof exists?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

That's a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. Philosophy is about the love of truth. It's what we do when we decide that truth is a worthwhile thing to pursue. Science is a good way of discovering truth, but it's founded on philosophical presuppositions, as I discuss in my posts with Barcs

i thought the subject was religion, not philosophy. i realize philosophy gives you a larger spectrum to work with in your argument, but...yeah, its in the title.

Great line!
Also, a philosophical one. Your philosophical beliefs tell you that philosophy cannot be trusted, but science can. So why do you trust your philosophical views?

science makes a deliberate effort to check itself in every way. religion leans on historical folklore. its not a matter of philosophy, its a matter of having the right information and the right equipment. if you witnessed a car accident and were the first to arrive, would you call your priest or an ambulance?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Evidence that reality is real:

1. Each sense verifies the others. Anything I can see, I can also touch, taste, smell or hear to verify. If it's not real, you'd expect discrepancies. Dreaming is not seeing, sorry to burst your bubble on that one.

2. Brain controls the senses. All of the senses are directly controlled by the brain, something that is directly connected to reality and proven to do such things. If you wish to suggest senses and consciousness are external, you must provide evidence of such. If it's all fake or simulated, it wouldn't be controlled by your brain, it would be controlled externally and there would be no need for a brain to physically control everything. This is a big one.

3. Every action has a reaction, no matter how small or insignificant. Something that happened billions of years ago can directly affect what happens today, regardless of your perception. In programming there is no need for things to slowly emerge over billions of years, when you can directly program it all in its current form.

4. Logic and the scientific method works. In a simulated reality based on programming rather than a tangible world, you'd expect discrepancies and limits that do not make sense. When something is verified to work, it continues to work. It doesn't suddenly stop applying. In a simulated reality you expect everything to just work, without validity or methods to test it, and you'd expect the way things work to randomly change.

5. The universe is huge. If programmed or simulated, the programmer was extremely inefficient and wasted tons of code programming irrelevant planets and stars that aren't capable of supporting life. Life is so rare in the universe that programming makes no sense at all. Nobody intentionally makes bulky programming that would slow down the efficiency just for fun.

6. Evolution. If life was programmed, then why would everything have evolved from single celled organisms? That literally makes no sense in a simulated environment where you can program things in their current form instead.

7. The big bang. If life was programmed, why the need for everything to emerge in a big bang and then develop slowly over time? That is the exact opposite of programming. No programmer would waste so much time and code on irrelevant stuff. They would go in with a purpose and achieve exactly that. Why would earth be programmed to go through a bombardment period, and slow formation over time when it could just be popped into existence with a few lines of code?

Reality not being real defies logic. If you wish to believe it, I have no issue with that, but you cannot use subjectivity to logically argue against objectivity. It is a direct contradiction and completely illogical. To argue against science, you need to use science. That is how objectivity works. If we don't know the answer to something, it means we don't know the answer. What ifs do not over ride objective evidence.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

i thought the subject was religion, not philosophy. i realize philosophy gives you a larger spectrum to work with in your argument, but...yeah, its in the title.

Oh, sorry! I wasn't agreeing with everything Ben Carson said.

science makes a deliberate effort to check itself in every way. religion leans on historical folklore. its not a matter of philosophy, its a matter of having the right information and the right equipment. if you witnessed a car accident and were the first to arrive, would you call your priest or an ambulance?

Ambulance. But would you call an ambulance for an ailment of the soul?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Evidence that reality is real:

1. Each sense verifies the others. Anything I can see, I can also touch, taste, smell or hear to verify. If it's not real, you'd expect discrepancies. Dreaming is not seeing, sorry to burst your bubble on that one.

This proof could almost mean that we are hooked into a really good computer program. Sorry, not evidence. Besides...this isn't deductive reasoning, is it?

2. Brain controls the senses. All of the senses are directly controlled by the brain, something that is directly connected to reality and proven to do such things. If you wish to suggest senses and consciousness are external, you must provide evidence of such. If it's all fake or simulated, it wouldn't be controlled by your brain, it would be controlled externally and there would be no need for a brain to physically control everything. This is a big one.

Not really. If it was a "brain in a jar" type of situation, your nerves would be plugged into computers that would sense what the brain was telling them to do and send false stimuli back to the brain to deceive it.

3. Every action has a reaction, no matter how small or insignificant. Something that happened billions of years ago can directly affect what happens today, regardless of your perception. In programming there is no need for things to slowly emerge over billions of years, when you can directly program it all in its current form.

But you haven't been alive for billions of years. For all you know, you're a brain in a jar set inside a retro-futuristic world created by an eight-legged space monkey.

4. Logic and the scientific method works. In a simulated reality based on programming rather than a tangible world, you'd expect discrepancies and limits that do not make sense. When something is verified to work, it continues to work. It doesn't suddenly stop applying. In a simulated reality you expect everything to just work, without validity or methods to test it, and you'd expect the way things work to randomly change.

Logic works as far as we can tell. The scientific method does, but it relies on logic (which, by the by, philosophy also relies on.) Now, personally, I wouldn't expect a simulated reality to just stop working. I'd expect it to be like my computer games. But more importantly, if it did stop working, how would you even perceive that to be the case?

5. The universe is huge. If programmed or simulated, the programmer was extremely inefficient and wasted tons of code programming irrelevant planets and stars that aren't capable of supporting life. Life is so rare in the universe that programming makes no sense at all. Nobody intentionally makes bulky programming that would slow down the efficiency just for fun.

Erm...it's just as likely that the clever person who set this up merely simulated that as a background and then gave us an artificial barrier to exploring it–namely, light speed. It's really hard for us to travel outside of the planet, let alone the solar system, so it's possible that only the solar system and surrounding space is "rendered," if you will, and the background is based on false signals programmed in deceptively.

6. Evolution. If life was programmed, then why would everything have evolved from single celled organisms? That literally makes no sense in a simulated environment where you can program things in their current form instead.

Or, you could just program in fossils to make things look like there was a evolutionary history. Or, there might not actually be an evolutionary history and scientists are just plain wrong on that one

7. The big bang. If life was programmed, why the need for everything to emerge in a big bang and then develop slowly over time? That is the exact opposite of programming. No programmer would waste so much time and code on irrelevant stuff. They would go in with a purpose and achieve exactly that. Why would earth be programmed to go through a bombardment period, and slow formation over time when it could just be popped into existence with a few lines of code?

Well, a smart programer would create an "aged" earth, with fossils, bombardment marks, the remnants of a Big Bang etc without actually having to burn RAM simulating the stuff. Humanity's only been around for a few thousand years. You've only been around for a few decades. This evidence you're spouting off at me might be what the AIs you interact with are programmed to tell you when you're curious, while all the while your brain is sitting in a jar someplace.

Reality not being real defies logic.

Then let me rephrase it: reality may not be how we perceive it. Nothing illogical there.

If you wish to believe it, I have no issue with that, but you cannot use subjectivity to logically argue against objectivity. It is a direct contradiction and completely illogical. To argue against science, you need to use science. That is how objectivity works. If we don't know the answer to something, it means we don't know the answer. What ifs do not over ride objective evidence.

To use science to argue against science, as you would have me do, would be illogical. (If I used science to prove that science didn't work, why should I believe that science didn't work? It's like the sentence "this sentence is false.) I haven't talked about "overriding" anything, and I don't want to argue against science. I like science. But if you wish to prove to me that I am not being "logical" than please use formal syllogisms (they're easy to use) and deductive reasoning. It's easier to follow your train of thought that way

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I'm also referring to the inductive reasoning we use to believe that laws will remain constant.

Name a law that has changed.

But inductive reasoning is required. It's why we believe that laws are constants. Without inductive reasoning, we'd have no reason to believe that gravity is always a constant.

False. Gravity is a law and rigorous testing has shown that it is a constant. Laws are based on deductive reasoning, not inductive. Conclusions are NOT inductive. No matter how much you twist my words around, that won't change.

I wasn't referring to the vacuum of space.

Well that's too bad, because that's what the laws refer to. Why didn't you back up the claim I requested?

And you cannot seem to grasp the very basic point that all of this deductive reasoning is based on the inductive reasoning that things will remain the same.

No, no no and NO. Deductive reasoning is not based on inductive. You are getting further and further from reality with every post.

That the laws of nature will not change randomly: that's inductive reasoning.

You would need an example of a law changing to suggest this is possible.

It's inductive reasoning to say "we've measured the strength of gravity 45 times, so we can plug it into this equation and send a man to the moon because we know that gravity won't randomly change while we're out there." That's inductive reasoning.

No it's not. It is deductive because it holds true every time and can be confirmed. Things don't randomly change in the universe. Everything that has been studied has been shown to happen based on cause and effect. Unless you can prove that.

I was referring to your assertion that philosophy doesn't use deductive reasoning.

Keep dodging my questions. Deductive reasoning proves things objectively, so if philosophy doesn't use deductive reasoning then it is not objective. Thanks for playing.

But I might perceive that I am dying or being eaten, which sounds unpleasant. You first

If you can't test it, you can't prove it. If you can't prove it, you can't use it to argue against the validity of science.

So you agree with me that science is based on faith...or don't you? I'm confused.

You are definitely confused. Deductive reasoning proves things and you cannot get through the whole scientific method without it. You can get through it without inductive reasoning. 99% of scientific conclusions are based on deductive reasoning, so your ridiculous beef with inductive reasoning holds no weight.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Ambulance. But would you call an ambulance for an ailment of the soul?

i would call a therapist.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Not really. If it was a "brain in a jar" type of situation, your nerves would be plugged into computers that would sense what the brain was telling them to do and send false stimuli back to the brain to deceive it.

That makes no sense. Why would they need to program another brain in this reality with all the same functionality as your "brain in a jar"? Unrealistic for a programmer when you can just link it directly to the simulation without it.

But you haven't been alive for billions of years. For all you know, you're a brain in a jar set inside a retro-futuristic world created by an eight-legged space monkey.

But we can observe the past by digging up fossils, checking ice core data, using telescopes, etc. Why would a programmer insert all kinds of fake history and fossils and scientific evidence? That is a huge waste of time.

Logic works as far as we can tell. The scientific method does, but it relies on logic (which, by the by, philosophy also relies on.) Now, personally, I wouldn't expect a simulated reality to just stop working. I'd expect it to be like my computer games. But more importantly, if it did stop working, how would you even perceive that to be the case?

Simple. Things would unexpectedly change when the programming is updated. This doesn't happen.

Erm...it's just as likely that the clever person who set this up merely simulated that as a background and then gave us an artificial barrier to exploring it–namely, light speed. It's really hard for us to travel outside of the planet, let alone the solar system, so it's possible that only the solar system and surrounding space is "rendered," if you will, and the background is based on false signals programmed in deceptively.

No it's not. We can observe other solar systems being formed and supernovas happening. Backtracking and making unprovable what if claims is apparently your specialty. We have sent space probes out beyond our solar system. Too much space is wasted for any of that to be simulated. Plus there is ZERO evidence of simulation. You just cling to the illogical argument that has no evidence to try to argue against objectivity. You are greatly confused if you think that anything you have said in this thread supports your absurd view of science.

Or, you could just program in fossils to make things look like there was a evolutionary history. Or, there might not actually be an evolutionary history and scientists are just plain wrong on that one

Nope. Evolution has been verified at this point. It isn't wrong. Why would a programmer waste time programming fossils and having the entire universe evolve? It's flat out dumb. Nobody with the intellectual capability to program a universe would be that bad of a programmer. Efficiency is key in any program and the universe is the exact opposite of efficient. It would be crashing every 5 minutes.

Well, a smart programer would create an "aged" earth, with fossils, bombardment marks, the remnants of a Big Bang etc without actually having to burn RAM simulating the stuff. Humanity's only been around for a few thousand years. You've only been around for a few decades. This evidence you're spouting off at me might be what the AIs you interact with are programmed to tell you when you're curious, while all the while your brain is sitting in a jar someplace.

Humanity has been around 200,000 years, pal. Your assumptions are downright ridiculous.

To use science to argue against science, as you would have me do, would be illogical.

That is a flat out lie. Science disproves science all the time. What do you think happens when new evidence is discovered? It gets updated. We don't know the answers to everything. Science helps us get there. If it turns out this reality is fake, surely science will be what discovers this.

Are you going to back up the claims I requested in the previous response or not?

Anyways, I'm done going back and forth on this. I've wasted enough time and it is like talking to a brick wall. "But this could happen if this is true" isn't an argument. Science proves things objectively. If you don't believe in reality that is your problem and science still works and holds merit regardless. If you can't prove simulation is true, then you have no argument, just wishful thinking. You refuse to back up claims I requested, you refuse to even debate beyond hypothetical situations. Sorry, science wins.

originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Name a law that has changed.

Bingo! That, right there, is inductive reasoning: no laws have changed, therefore, no laws will change...

False. Gravity is a law and rigorous testing has shown that it is a constant.

Again, *you* are using inductive reasoning: because the law has worked, the law will work. If you wish to use deductive reasoning, than use a syllogism.

Well that's too bad, because that's what the laws refer to. Why didn't you back up the claim I requested?

The claim is easily backed up by Googling. You can find how Newton's laws don't work in at high speeds *in a vacuum, if you prefer* by researching relativity.

No, no no and NO. Deductive reasoning is not based on inductive. You are getting further and further from reality with every post.

You say that without any proof or evidence. Feel free to use a syllogism

You would need an example of a law changing to suggest this is possible.

Again! Inductive reasoning! Now why would I need such an example? Feel free to use a syllogism to show me!

No it's not. It is deductive because it holds true every time and can be confirmed.

That's inductive. Inductive reasoning holds that general principles can be derived from specific observations (in this case, measurements.)

Things don't randomly change in the universe.

You haven't seen it, so it hasn't happened? Yeah, right.

Keep dodging my questions. Deductive reasoning proves things objectively, so if philosophy doesn't use deductive reasoning then it is not objective. Thanks for playing.

Welp, philosophy does use deductive reasoning, so I guess according to you it is objective. Have fun!

If you can't test it, you can't prove it.

Prove it.

If you can't prove it, you can't use it to argue against the validity of science.

Why not?

You are definitely confused. Deductive reasoning proves things and you cannot get through the whole scientific method without it.

Offhand, I'd agree.

You can get through it without inductive reasoning.

You cannot get *to* the scientific method without inductive reasoning.