Science and "Truth"
Nitcentral's Bulletin Brash Reflections:
The Kitchen Sink:
Science Related:
Vermes (Misc Stuff):
Science and "Truth"
By TomM on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:59 pm:[This is a continuation of an ongoing disagreement, mostly between Luigi and me (though usually triggered by statements made by third parties), which has flared up again last week in two different RM topics.]
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
-- Sherlock Holmes, (The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)
In Victorian days (in fact, ever since the Renaissance and Reformation, but especially since the Enlightenment), this was an accurate description of the philosophy of Science. Science was the discipline in which we discovered the Laws governing Nature by eliminating theories that failed. Scientific method (Hypothesis -> Experimentation -> Conclusion) mirrored the methods used in formal logic (Thesis -> Antithesis -> Synthesis).
As Science explained more and more of the world, without recourse to the supernatural, Religion had to adapt or react. Since so many of the pre-20th Century experiments were easily reproduced, Religion could not long deny their conclusions and usually adapted. More and more functions of Nature were removed from God's direct intervention and entrusted to Natural Laws.
Religion tried to believe that that was a good thing. That it meant that God had more time to concern himself with men's souls, but many in the congregation started to ask "If God is not necessary for Nature, why should we believe that He is necessary for salvation?" Some branches of religion looked to the gaps in the scientific record to insist that God was still involved with Nature, still "tweaking" it. The modern descendant of this "God of the Gaps" approach is the so-called "Intellegent Design" alternative to scientific theories of evolution.
Little by little, during the 20th Century, scientists' understanding of the nature of science has had to change. Because of Heisenberg uncertainty and Schrödinger undecidability, we have learned that no matter how much we refine our theories, they can never be more than models, approximations. Because of Gödel's theorem, even as models, they can never be complete. Because of Chaos theory and intractable problems (problems that, assuming they can be solved by computer would require more steps than can be completed in the life of the universe), we know that there are even some traditional gaps that we can never solve.
This does not invalidate science. Science itself is just as valid and useful as it has always been. The more we learn from our experiments the more we understand about Nature and Nature's Laws. The same methods [hypothesis -> experiment -> conclusion] still advance that knowlege. But we can no longer speak of a model as being "true," but only of it being "useful."
In one way, this is a good thing. When the difference between a more advanced model and an older one are of the same magnitude (or less) as the margin of error in our measuring devices, the older (and usually mathematically simpler) model is just as good. We don't have to entirely scrap classic Newtonian physics just because under some conditions Relativity produces better predictions. We just have to be aware of when we are approching its limitaions.
The sticking point is in the "God of the Gap" theories. Although they can be refuted, it is a tiresome and thankless chore. It is no longer enough to challenge them to repeat the experiments, which often take expensive equipment and government grants. And even if they were to repeat the experiments, they are often not knowledgeable enough to interpret the results.
During the first half of the 20th Century (before Heisenberg, Schrödinger, et al. were widely known even in the scientific community), scientists got into the habit of saying (and thinking) "Science has proven..." "Here are the (scientific) facts..." and things like that. It did not convince the "Gappers," but it was easier than the equally futile effort to educate them.
The problem is that continued use of those phrases makes claims for Science that it can no longer support. Science is many things, but it is no longer simply a search for the ultimate truth behind Nature.
The reason that this continued use of an outdated philosophy of Science is of concern is that it appears to continue mainly for the purpose of keeping the "Gappers" focussed on the traditional gaps where there is still progress being made instead of on the "meta-gaps," for the express purpose of continuing to further the Science vs Religion feud.
When Science was more up-front about all of its aims and conclusions, a particular Gapper theory rarely lasted longer than a generation (although to be honest there was always a new one to replace it). Evolution vs Creationism should have died out twenty years or less after Scopes, but nearly 100 years later, it is still with us and still going strong.
If the "Gappers" are allowed to put their God in the meta-gaps, where Science admits there are no naturalistic answers, maybe they won't need to insist on Intellegent Design or use other traditional gaps to "prove" their God, and the feud can finally be laid to rest.
By ScottN on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:05 pm: My sig over on slashdot:
People who need the government to enforce their religion must not have much faith in it. Or else they wouldn't need the government to do so.
By constanze on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:37 pm:If the "Gappers" are allowed to put their God in the meta-gaps, where Science admits there are no naturalistic answers, maybe they won't need to insist on Intellegent Design or use other traditional gaps to "prove" their God, and the feud can finally be laid to rest.
That's what I learned in 8th or 9th grade religion class, when our teacher asked us whether genesis or evolution was correct. The answer he gave us (and we all accepted) was that genesis (like religion or a good myth should) answers the question of "Why?", while evolution (like all science) answers the question of "How?"; so both are correct on different levels/fields etc. It's unfair to demand/expect of religion to explain practical workings of nature, because that's not what religion is about; it's unfair to expect/demand of science to explain philosophical questions that trouble people.
Even if scientists explain why we can see the color yellow, they can't explain why a sunflower looks so beautiful. Even if we know how we hear words, they can't explain why a poem moves people's hearts. Even with psychatry and psychology and philosophy, there are areas that can't be measured or tested with the scientific model, or where knowledge can't be gotten because of the inherent limitations.
That's why builiding a computer to find the answer to Life, the Universe and everything is the wrong approach.... 
By Deep Thought on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:32 am: 42?
By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 9:32 pm:Good post, Tom. I don't find myself disagreeing with anything your said; I think you simply took umbrage with my use of the word "true" on the Christ board. (I'm not sure what your problem is with the word "fact," though.)
constanze: The answer he gave us (and we all accepted) was that genesis (like religion or a good myth should) answers the question of "Why?", while evolution (like all science) answers the question of "How?"; so both are correct on different levels/fields etc.
Luigi Novi: That is, for those who subscribe to the particulr religion from which that story is derived. Someone of a different one may not even regard it as an answer to "Why?", because they have a differnet one from their own religion.
By TomM on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:20 pm: Yes, it is more your use of the words Facts and Truth than any "substantive" disagreement. I guess my problem is that Science has changed, and because of that change it can divorce itself from the entanglement with the "God of the Gap" religionists by letting them play in the meta-gaps. But only by letting go of those two words that have lost their meaning in Science.
Right now, the "Gappers" only really know of the traditional gaps*, and when scientists refuting their efforts there, and claim that "truth" and "facts" back them up, it only perpetuates the feud.
If, instead, we say "The more we refine our models of the universe, the more obvious it becomes that your interventionist God-of-the-Gaps is not in the half-an-eye gap (in evolution, as an example) but there are gaps that our models cannot touch. If you want to say 'We can never know both the position and the velocity of an electron, but God knows them,' we cannot deny it. If you want to say 'We don't know if Schrödinger's cat is alive or dead, but God does, we don't have a problem with it," maybe we can end the feud instead of continuing it.
But that takes letting the "Gappers" know that we acknowledge that Science does not hold the "ulimate truth," or all the facts we once thought it would.
*There are a handful who have heard of Heisenberg and use quotes about uncertainty -- out of context -- to "prove" that Science is a conspiracy, or "just another religion, or whatever is their pet paranoia, but almost none who understand the real significance of it, or the opportunity it presents for a reconciliation.
By LUIGI NOVI on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 1:05 am: But what does your Gapper thing have to do with why you took exception to my use of the phrase "true history"?
By TomM on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 2:55 am:Nothing.
In that case, you seemed to be using the phrase to argue with Mike's statement of his personal beliefs, even though he'd already agreed that there was not sufficient evidence to objectively prove it.
Also, later in the same post in which you used the phrase "true history," you also made a different statement concerning insufficient evidence also utilizing the word true: "it just means that we don't know if it's true." This raised concerns that you, or someone reading your post, would fall into the Equivocation fallacy. I felt it necessary to clarify the distinction between the two senses of the word "true" you used in that post. Since either of the words "established" or "proven" could make your first point as well as or better than the word "true" without leading to any confusion with the other sense in which you used "true," I suggested them as alternatives.
One odd effect of substituting "established" or "proven," at least to me, was that it was harder to interpret Mike's statement as a claim of "objective" evidence, and therefore made your post seemed like a straw man. I don't believe that it originally was a straw man, though, because under questioning from you Mike did move from the clearly defensible "That's not historical evidence, no.... In any event, it eventually becomes a pointless exercise: Even if archaeological and historical evidence backed up Jesus' existence, it still doesn't confirm his divinity or resurrection. In that case, it is still a matter of faith. As it should be," to the less defensible "But not having direct evidence (and there is certainly secondary evidence and some supporting evidence) does not mean that the Bible is wrong. I put my faith in that it is true."
By Jeff Winters (Jeff1980) on Thursday, June 22, 2023 - 11:48 am:This article says Science will Never make Philosophy or Religion Obsolete, https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/science-philosophy-religion-obsolete/