| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael Gray" |
| Date: |
14 Dec 2007 09:04:50 PM |
| Object: |
AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-science-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way", but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws is, he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
The brevity of the piece does not allow Davies - who won the Templeton
prize for progress towards spiritual discoveries - to offer his now
familiar suggestion that the universe is "self-conscious" or contains
a "life principle" which obliges the laws of physics to take a form
necessary for the existence of intelligent life. There are half a
dozen competing suggestions, most of them better than this one, as to
why the universe's (or this universe's) parameters are as they are.
Even the one that says "it is just a bald fact that they are so" does
not deserve Davies's tendentious description of them as a commitment
to "reasonless absurdity". It is a perfectly consistent possible truth
that seems unsatisfactory only to the pattern-seeking,
reason-requiring impulse with which evolution has endowed the human
mind.
Davies could also not be more wrong in describing science's assumption
that the universe is orderly and intelligible as an "act of faith".
Patterns and regularities are a salient feature of nature, even to
casual observation, and well motivate the assumption that they hold
generally, or that when they fail to hold they do so for likewise
orderly reasons. Once thus made, the assumption is then powerfully
justified by the success of making testable predictions that are based
on it.
Making well-motivated, evidence-based assumptions that are in turn
supported by their efficacy in testing predictions is the very
opposite of faith. Faith is commitment to belief in something either
in the absence of evidence or in the face of countervailing evidence.
It is seen as a theological virtue precisely for this reason, as the
story of Doubting Thomas is designed to illustrate. In everyday speech
we use the phrase "he took it on faith" to mean "without question,
without examining the grounds"; this captures its essence.
If the assumption of nature's orderliness frequently or haphazardly
failed to be borne out we would register the fact, supposing we
survived the mistake in the first place. True, this amounts to
offering inductive support for induction; but this does not mean that
the circle cannot be explanatory, as shown by the fact that it is a
mark of irrationality not to rely on the success of past inductions in
a present one. To see why, imagine saying: "Every time I have been out
in the rain without an umbrella in the past I have got wet; but
inductive reasoning is fallible, so perhaps this time I will stay
dry."
The public and repeatable testing of hypotheses distinguishes science
as the most successful form of inquiry ever. Among other things it
shows that it is officially not in the business of accepting anything
"without question, without examining the grounds". Davies and others
who describe science as "ultimately resting on faith" are thus not
only wrong but do much irresponsible harm to it thereby."
Related Articles
Does God have a place in a rational world?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19626294.200
11 November 2007
Review: An Angelic Riposte to the God Delusion by John Cornwell
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19526221.800
22 September 2007
What good is God?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19526190.400
1 September 2007
Review: The physics of Christianity by Frank Tipler
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19426032.000
12 May 2007
Unique perspectives: A C Grayling and Lawrence Krauss
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn13010
06 December 2007
Weblinks
Paul Davies' New York Times article
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?ref=opinion
From issue 2633 of New Scientist magazine, 08 December 2007, page 55
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
14 Dec 2007 11:13:32 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com...
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-science-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way",
That's nonsense. Davies is an idiot. Science does not require that at all.
All science requires, at its core, is a consistent observation. Once you
have a consistent observation, you can start making predictions and testing
them against further observations.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 12:17:16 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:13:32 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com...
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-science-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way",
That's nonsense. Davies is an idiot.
I beg to differ.
Davies is not an idiot by any measure.
Exceedingly deluded? Yes.
On a mission to "prove a deity"? Almost certainly!
His quantum physics and math are as nearly good as they get.
"Idiot"? No way.
But I know what you meant, and probably chose an unfortunate adjective
in error.
Science does not require that at all.
All science requires, at its core, is a consistent observation. Once you
have a consistent observation, you can start making predictions and testing
them against further observations.
Quite.
PS. When is your next Pod cast?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 12:23:59 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f3s6m3dvmjocn827euj0e3j60lb425l2f8@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:13:32 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com...
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-science-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way",
That's nonsense. Davies is an idiot.
I beg to differ.
Davies is not an idiot by any measure.
Exceedingly deluded? Yes.
On a mission to "prove a deity"? Almost certainly!
His quantum physics and math are as nearly good as they get.
"Idiot"? No way.
But I know what you meant, and probably chose an unfortunate adjective
in error.
Science does not require that at all.
All science requires, at its core, is a consistent observation. Once you
have a consistent observation, you can start making predictions and
testing
them against further observations.
Quite.
PS. When is your next Pod cast?
Today! But, alas, I won't be on it. Too much work at my real job this week.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 07:47:25 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:koidnRHvm8xchvnanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@io.com:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f3s6m3dvmjocn827euj0e3j60lb425l2f8@4ax.com...
PS. When is your next Pod cast?
Today! But, alas, I won't be on it. Too much work at my real job this
week.
What podcast would this be, then? *squinty*
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 10:16:12 PM |
|
|
"Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A07C955D574Baskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:koidnRHvm8xchvnanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@io.com:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f3s6m3dvmjocn827euj0e3j60lb425l2f8@4ax.com...
PS. When is your next Pod cast?
Today! But, alas, I won't be on it. Too much work at my real job this
week.
What podcast would this be, then? *squinty*
The Non-Prophets! www.nonprophetsradio.com
Enjoy!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
19 Dec 2007 09:46:10 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:OZedncunG5sTO_nanZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@io.com:
"Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A07C955D574Baskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:koidnRHvm8xchvnanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@io.com:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f3s6m3dvmjocn827euj0e3j60lb425l2f8@4ax.com...
PS. When is your next Pod cast?
Today! But, alas, I won't be on it. Too much work at my real job this
week.
What podcast would this be, then? *squinty*
The Non-Prophets! www.nonprophetsradio.com
Enjoy!
Coolness; thanks!
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 11:16:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:47:25 GMT, Doc Smartass
<gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:koidnRHvm8xchvnanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@io.com:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f3s6m3dvmjocn827euj0e3j60lb425l2f8@4ax.com...
PS. When is your next Pod cast?
Today! But, alas, I won't be on it. Too much work at my real job this
week.
What podcast would this be, then? *squinty*
http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 05:29:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:23:59 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f3s6m3dvmjocn827euj0e3j60lb425l2f8@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:13:32 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com...
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-science-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way",
That's nonsense. Davies is an idiot.
I beg to differ.
Davies is not an idiot by any measure.
Exceedingly deluded? Yes.
On a mission to "prove a deity"? Almost certainly!
His quantum physics and math are as nearly good as they get.
"Idiot"? No way.
But I know what you meant, and probably chose an unfortunate adjective
in error.
Science does not require that at all.
All science requires, at its core, is a consistent observation. Once you
have a consistent observation, you can start making predictions and
testing
them against further observations.
Quite.
PS. When is your next Pod cast?
Today! But, alas, I won't be on it. Too much work at my real job this week.
:(
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 01:39:59 AM |
|
|
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-scie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based were
wrong.
As far as intelligible, there are some things that we know, and some
things that we don't know, but that is simply because we have studied
them yet.
, but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws is, he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
It's not nature that's rooted in reasonless absurdity. If there is
something outside the universe, can he explain how it acts inside our
universe? I sounds like he is trying to define some sort of god to me.
The universe is what it is because that's how it developed.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 01:52:10 AM |
|
|
In article <jhachmann-F934C8.23395914122007@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-sc
ie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based were
wrong.
Science also makes the assumption that, to a large degree, the way
things have behaved in the past will continue to be the way those things
will behave in the future.
That is a matter of faith, as we have no direct way of testing that it
will always be this way.
Apparent consistency over time in the past is not an absolute assurance
that it will continue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
16 Dec 2007 01:44:10 AM |
|
|
In article <Virgil-160284.00521015122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote:
In article <jhachmann-F934C8.23395914122007@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-
sc
ie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based were
wrong.
Science also makes the assumption that, to a large degree, the way
things have behaved in the past will continue to be the way those things
will behave in the future.
That is a matter of faith, as we have no direct way of testing that it
will always be this way.
Apparent consistency over time in the past is not an absolute assurance
that it will continue.
Sadly we don't have a time machine yet so we can't go to the future or
the past to do direct observation. But if we observe the same phenomenon
many times over and over again. We may predict with a high degree of
probability that it will occur again.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
17 Dec 2007 01:01:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:44:10 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <Virgil-160284.00521015122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote:
In article <jhachmann-F934C8.23395914122007@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-
sc
ie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based were
wrong.
Science also makes the assumption that, to a large degree, the way
things have behaved in the past will continue to be the way those things
will behave in the future.
That is a matter of faith, as we have no direct way of testing that it
will always be this way.
Apparent consistency over time in the past is not an absolute assurance
that it will continue.
Sadly we don't have a time machine yet so we can't go to the future or
the past to do direct observation. But if we observe the same phenomenon
many times over and over again. We may predict with a high degree of
probability that it will occur again.
The human race could hardly have led a profitable existence if they
assumed, EVERY SINGLE NIGHT, that the sun would not "rise" the next
day.
It is a case of theoretical wanking that has been shown to be utterly
wrong since the dawn of time, versus practical induction that has been
proven correct ALWAYS.
Of course, one is quite free to assume that the sun will not "rise"
tomorrow, and drone on and on in newsgroups about how nothing is
provable, but that will only make one a rather pathetic loner, such as
Virgil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
18 Dec 2007 12:28:20 AM |
|
|
In article <le7cm31gnlnjo0jjuq4ogofjjfseh8avk5@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:44:10 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <Virgil-160284.00521015122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote:
In article <jhachmann-F934C8.23395914122007@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-
no-
sc
ie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based were
wrong.
Science also makes the assumption that, to a large degree, the way
things have behaved in the past will continue to be the way those things
will behave in the future.
That is a matter of faith, as we have no direct way of testing that it
will always be this way.
Apparent consistency over time in the past is not an absolute assurance
that it will continue.
Sadly we don't have a time machine yet so we can't go to the future or
the past to do direct observation. But if we observe the same phenomenon
many times over and over again. We may predict with a high degree of
probability that it will occur again.
The human race could hardly have led a profitable existence if they
assumed, EVERY SINGLE NIGHT, that the sun would not "rise" the next
day.
Yep. I've made plans for tomorrow and I'm not even worried about the sun.
It is a case of theoretical wanking that has been shown to be utterly
wrong since the dawn of time, versus practical induction that has been
proven correct ALWAYS.
Well, statistics has been reduced to a science these days too. If the
same thing happens thousands of times in a row, the probability of it
happening again is quite high.
Of course, one is quite free to assume that the sun will not "rise"
tomorrow, and drone on and on in newsgroups about how nothing is
provable, but that will only make one a rather pathetic loner, such as
Virgil.
True. That's like these people who waste time arguing whether on not the
universe is an illusion and we are all deceived. I say: "So what?" The
universe I perceive works for me and that's all I need.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 03:17:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:52:10 -0700, Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote:
In article <jhachmann-F934C8.23395914122007@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-sc
ie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based were
wrong.
Science also makes the assumption that, to a large degree, the way
things have behaved in the past will continue to be the way those things
will behave in the future.
That is a matter of faith, as we have no direct way of testing that it
will always be this way.
It is NOT a matter of faith".
It is a matter of "trust".
Learn the difference, please.
It is both vital and profound.
Apparent consistency over time in the past is not an absolute assurance
that it will continue.
Who depends on an absolute assurance that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Do you?
I am quite happy with "statistical certainty", thank you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 01:45:48 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:39:59 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-scie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based were
wrong.
As far as intelligible, there are some things that we know, and some
things that we don't know, but that is simply because we have studied
them yet.
, but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws is, he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
It's not nature that's rooted in reasonless absurdity. If there is
something outside the universe, can he explain how it acts inside our
universe? I sounds like he is trying to define some sort of god to me.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head with tht observation!
The universe is what it is because that's how it developed.
Some physicist folk feel "uncomfortable" with that notion, and even
invent multiple universes to assuage their pathetic human feebleness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
16 Dec 2007 01:40:15 AM |
|
|
In article <sd17m3536r9tqvukj4a58jfoo325vhvgff@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:39:59 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-s
cie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based were
wrong.
As far as intelligible, there are some things that we know, and some
things that we don't know, but that is simply because we have studied
them yet.
, but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws is, he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
It's not nature that's rooted in reasonless absurdity. If there is
something outside the universe, can he explain how it acts inside our
universe? I sounds like he is trying to define some sort of god to me.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head with tht observation!
The universe is what it is because that's how it developed.
Some physicist folk feel "uncomfortable" with that notion, and even
invent multiple universes to assuage their pathetic human feebleness.
Again, that's something about which we can speculate, but we have no
real demonstrable evidence that such universes exist. And again my
question would be, if their are other universes, how could they interact
with ours.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
17 Dec 2007 12:57:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:40:15 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <sd17m3536r9tqvukj4a58jfoo325vhvgff@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:39:59 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-no-s
cie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based were
wrong.
As far as intelligible, there are some things that we know, and some
things that we don't know, but that is simply because we have studied
them yet.
, but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws is, he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
It's not nature that's rooted in reasonless absurdity. If there is
something outside the universe, can he explain how it acts inside our
universe? I sounds like he is trying to define some sort of god to me.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head with tht observation!
The universe is what it is because that's how it developed.
Some physicist folk feel "uncomfortable" with that notion, and even
invent multiple universes to assuage their pathetic human feebleness.
Again, that's something about which we can speculate, but we have no
real demonstrable evidence that such universes exist. And again my
question would be, if their are other universes, how could they interact
with ours.
A good question, and one that is open to empirical tests.
I understand that some of these are being planned as we speak.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
18 Dec 2007 12:30:41 AM |
|
|
In article <rc7cm31m33vfv1d3c2kkap13tneru8b8pv@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:40:15 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <sd17m3536r9tqvukj4a58jfoo325vhvgff@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:39:59 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-n
o-s
cie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based were
wrong.
As far as intelligible, there are some things that we know, and some
things that we don't know, but that is simply because we have studied
them yet.
, but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws is, he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
It's not nature that's rooted in reasonless absurdity. If there is
something outside the universe, can he explain how it acts inside our
universe? I sounds like he is trying to define some sort of god to me.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head with tht observation!
The universe is what it is because that's how it developed.
Some physicist folk feel "uncomfortable" with that notion, and even
invent multiple universes to assuage their pathetic human feebleness.
Again, that's something about which we can speculate, but we have no
real demonstrable evidence that such universes exist. And again my
question would be, if their are other universes, how could they interact
with ours.
A good question, and one that is open to empirical tests.
I understand that some of these are being planned as we speak.
Yes the physicists are quite busy these days. The answer, if there is
one, will be found by science, and not by philosophy or religion.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
18 Dec 2007 01:56:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:30:41 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <rc7cm31m33vfv1d3c2kkap13tneru8b8pv@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:40:15 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <sd17m3536r9tqvukj4a58jfoo325vhvgff@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:39:59 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentary-n
o-s
cie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this. He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based were
wrong.
As far as intelligible, there are some things that we know, and some
things that we don't know, but that is simply because we have studied
them yet.
, but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws is, he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
It's not nature that's rooted in reasonless absurdity. If there is
something outside the universe, can he explain how it acts inside our
universe? I sounds like he is trying to define some sort of god to me.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head with tht observation!
The universe is what it is because that's how it developed.
Some physicist folk feel "uncomfortable" with that notion, and even
invent multiple universes to assuage their pathetic human feebleness.
Again, that's something about which we can speculate, but we have no
real demonstrable evidence that such universes exist. And again my
question would be, if their are other universes, how could they interact
with ours.
A good question, and one that is open to empirical tests.
I understand that some of these are being planned as we speak.
Yes the physicists are quite busy these days. The answer, if there is
one, will be found by science, and not by philosophy or religion.
Didn't you watch "The Holy Grail"?
God sits in the other universe, and opens a cloud-curtain between them
on odd occasions.
And don't grovel. I hate it when people grovel.
And don't apologise.
It's always "forgive me this", and "forgive me that".
Cut it out. It's sooo depressing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
18 Dec 2007 05:27:48 PM |
|
|
In article <v4vem31e6nk5o9gc6t34hbu90qb732q8j9@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:30:41 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <rc7cm31m33vfv1d3c2kkap13tneru8b8pv@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:40:15 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <sd17m3536r9tqvukj4a58jfoo325vhvgff@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:39:59 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentar
y-n
o-s
cie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based
belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this.
He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based
were
wrong.
As far as intelligible, there are some things that we know, and some
things that we don't know, but that is simply because we have studied
them yet.
, but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws is, he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
It's not nature that's rooted in reasonless absurdity. If there is
something outside the universe, can he explain how it acts inside our
universe? I sounds like he is trying to define some sort of god to me.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head with tht observation!
The universe is what it is because that's how it developed.
Some physicist folk feel "uncomfortable" with that notion, and even
invent multiple universes to assuage their pathetic human feebleness.
Again, that's something about which we can speculate, but we have no
real demonstrable evidence that such universes exist. And again my
question would be, if their are other universes, how could they interact
with ours.
A good question, and one that is open to empirical tests.
I understand that some of these are being planned as we speak.
Yes the physicists are quite busy these days. The answer, if there is
one, will be found by science, and not by philosophy or religion.
Didn't you watch "The Holy Grail"?
God sits in the other universe, and opens a cloud-curtain between them
on odd occasions.
And don't grovel. I hate it when people grovel.
And don't apologise.
It's always "forgive me this", and "forgive me that".
Cut it out. It's sooo depressing.
Yes I remember that. And those remarkable trumpeters too!
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
18 Dec 2007 10:46:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:27:48 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <v4vem31e6nk5o9gc6t34hbu90qb732q8j9@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:30:41 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <rc7cm31m33vfv1d3c2kkap13tneru8b8pv@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:40:15 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <sd17m3536r9tqvukj4a58jfoo325vhvgff@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:39:59 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commentar
y-n
o-s
cie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based
belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by this.
He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based
were
wrong.
As far as intelligible, there are some things that we know, and some
things that we don't know, but that is simply because we have studied
them yet.
, but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws is, he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
It's not nature that's rooted in reasonless absurdity. If there is
something outside the universe, can he explain how it acts inside our
universe? I sounds like he is trying to define some sort of god to me.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head with tht observation!
The universe is what it is because that's how it developed.
Some physicist folk feel "uncomfortable" with that notion, and even
invent multiple universes to assuage their pathetic human feebleness.
Again, that's something about which we can speculate, but we have no
real demonstrable evidence that such universes exist. And again my
question would be, if their are other universes, how could they interact
with ours.
A good question, and one that is open to empirical tests.
I understand that some of these are being planned as we speak.
Yes the physicists are quite busy these days. The answer, if there is
one, will be found by science, and not by philosophy or religion.
Didn't you watch "The Holy Grail"?
God sits in the other universe, and opens a cloud-curtain between them
on odd occasions.
And don't grovel. I hate it when people grovel.
And don't apologise.
It's always "forgive me this", and "forgive me that".
Cut it out. It's sooo depressing.
Yes I remember that. And those remarkable trumpeters too!
Hah! I had entirely forgotten about SoundOfTrumpet having a starring
role, using his only orifice for the forces of good, instead of
weevil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
19 Dec 2007 11:50:56 PM |
|
|
In article <ue8hm3d1p53k80bf0a6i9kbu994lqj1jlb@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:27:48 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <v4vem31e6nk5o9gc6t34hbu90qb732q8j9@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:30:41 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <rc7cm31m33vfv1d3c2kkap13tneru8b8pv@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:40:15 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <sd17m3536r9tqvukj4a58jfoo325vhvgff@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:39:59 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commen
tar
y-n
o-s
cie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based
belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by
this.
He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that
nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have
no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should
be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the
experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based
were
wrong.
As far as intelligible, there are some things that we know, and
some
things that we don't know, but that is simply because we have
studied
them yet.
, but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside
the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either
way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws is,
he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
It's not nature that's rooted in reasonless absurdity. If there is
something outside the universe, can he explain how it acts inside
our
universe? I sounds like he is trying to define some sort of god to
me.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head with tht observation!
The universe is what it is because that's how it developed.
Some physicist folk feel "uncomfortable" with that notion, and even
invent multiple universes to assuage their pathetic human
feebleness.
Again, that's something about which we can speculate, but we have no
real demonstrable evidence that such universes exist. And again my
question would be, if their are other universes, how could they
interact
with ours.
A good question, and one that is open to empirical tests.
I understand that some of these are being planned as we speak.
Yes the physicists are quite busy these days. The answer, if there is
one, will be found by science, and not by philosophy or religion.
Didn't you watch "The Holy Grail"?
God sits in the other universe, and opens a cloud-curtain between them
on odd occasions.
And don't grovel. I hate it when people grovel.
And don't apologise.
It's always "forgive me this", and "forgive me that".
Cut it out. It's sooo depressing.
Yes I remember that. And those remarkable trumpeters too!
Hah! I had entirely forgotten about SoundOfTrumpet having a starring
role, using his only orifice for the forces of good, instead of
weevil.
Aha! So that's how he got his name! I didn't know we had a movie star in
the group.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
20 Dec 2007 01:02:38 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:50:56 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <ue8hm3d1p53k80bf0a6i9kbu994lqj1jlb@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:27:48 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <v4vem31e6nk5o9gc6t34hbu90qb732q8j9@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:30:41 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <rc7cm31m33vfv1d3c2kkap13tneru8b8pv@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:40:15 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <sd17m3536r9tqvukj4a58jfoo325vhvgff@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:39:59 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-commen
tar
y-n
o-s
cie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science from
religion by describing the former as based on testable hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based
belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by
this.
He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that
nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would have
no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result should
be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the
experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was based
were
wrong.
As far as intelligible, there are some things that we know, and
some
things that we don't know, but that is simply because we have
studied
them yet.
, but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside
the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either
way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws is,
he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
It's not nature that's rooted in reasonless absurdity. If there is
something outside the universe, can he explain how it acts inside
our
universe? I sounds like he is trying to define some sort of god to
me.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head with tht observation!
The universe is what it is because that's how it developed.
Some physicist folk feel "uncomfortable" with that notion, and even
invent multiple universes to assuage their pathetic human
feebleness.
Again, that's something about which we can speculate, but we have no
real demonstrable evidence that such universes exist. And again my
question would be, if their are other universes, how could they
interact
with ours.
A good question, and one that is open to empirical tests.
I understand that some of these are being planned as we speak.
Yes the physicists are quite busy these days. The answer, if there is
one, will be found by science, and not by philosophy or religion.
Didn't you watch "The Holy Grail"?
God sits in the other universe, and opens a cloud-curtain between them
on odd occasions.
And don't grovel. I hate it when people grovel.
And don't apologise.
It's always "forgive me this", and "forgive me that".
Cut it out. It's sooo depressing.
Yes I remember that. And those remarkable trumpeters too!
Hah! I had entirely forgotten about SoundOfTrumpet having a starring
role, using his only orifice for the forces of good, instead of
weevil.
Aha! So that's how he got his name! I didn't know we had a movie star in
the group.
That was the seventies.
He probably quit the holy butt-trumpet choir, and is now touring seedy
dives in Malaga, (Sp), playing backup to Englebert Humperdinck
impersonators to support his $1000 a day Drano habit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
20 Dec 2007 11:26:30 PM |
|
|
In article <im4km391prkomk05b6teqm39p13o47o7bp@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:50:56 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <ue8hm3d1p53k80bf0a6i9kbu994lqj1jlb@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:27:48 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <v4vem31e6nk5o9gc6t34hbu90qb732q8j9@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:30:41 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <rc7cm31m33vfv1d3c2kkap13tneru8b8pv@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:40:15 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <sd17m3536r9tqvukj4a58jfoo325vhvgff@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:39:59 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <stg6m31h3pmt9egkpg4k23mp9vinko4t8e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626331.200-com
men
tar
y-n
o-s
cie
nce-does-not-rest-on-faith.html>
"IN A recent opinion piece in The New York Times, physicist
Paul
Davies asserts that it is a mistake to distinguish science
from
religion by describing the former as based on testable
hypotheses
while the latter is based on faith. "The problem with this
neat
separation," he says, "is that science has its own faith-based
belief
system."
Davies does not seem especially clear about what he means by
this.
He
begins by describing scientific faith as "the assumption that
nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way"
Say what? Nature is ordered and predictable otherwise we would
have
no
science. If someone carries out the same experiment 100 times
under
identical, carefully controlled conditions, the same result
should
be
obtained 100 times. If not something is wrong with the
experimenter's
technique or perhaps the premises on which the experiment was
based
were
wrong.
As far as intelligible, there are some things that we know, and
some
things that we don't know, but that is simply because we have
studied
them yet.
, but soon shifts to
describing it as "belief in the existence of something outside
the
universe, like... an unexplained set of physical laws". Either
way,
the failure or refusal to explain the source of physical laws
is,
he
says, to regard nature as "rooted in reasonless absurdity".
It's not nature that's rooted in reasonless absurdity. If there
is
something outside the universe, can he explain how it acts
inside
our
universe? I sounds like he is trying to define some sort of god
to
me.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head with tht observation!
The universe is what it is because that's how it developed.
Some physicist folk feel "uncomfortable" with that notion, and
even
invent multiple universes to assuage their pathetic human
feebleness.
Again, that's something about which we can speculate, but we have
no
real demonstrable evidence that such universes exist. And again my
question would be, if their are other universes, how could they
interact
with ours.
A good question, and one that is open to empirical tests.
I understand that some of these are being planned as we speak.
Yes the physicists are quite busy these days. The answer, if there is
one, will be found by science, and not by philosophy or religion.
Didn't you watch "The Holy Grail"?
God sits in the other universe, and opens a cloud-curtain between them
on odd occasions.
And don't grovel. I hate it when people grovel.
And don't apologise.
It's always "forgive me this", and "forgive me that".
Cut it out. It's sooo depressing.
Yes I remember that. And those remarkable trumpeters too!
Hah! I had entirely forgotten about SoundOfTrumpet having a starring
role, using his only orifice for the forces of good, instead of
weevil.
Aha! So that's how he got his name! I didn't know we had a movie star in
the group.
That was the seventies.
He probably quit the holy butt-trumpet choir, and is now touring seedy
dives in Malaga, (Sp), playing backup to Englebert Humperdinck
impersonators to support his $1000 a day Drano habit.
When he's not on the street hustling tourists for quarters.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
14 Dec 2007 09:33:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:34:50 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
Templeton Prize - says it all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 12:12:32 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:33:24 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:34:50 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
Templeton Prize - says it all.
Yes.
I met with and argued with Davies at one stage back when he was
teaching here in Adelaide, and he came across as a profoundly rampant
deist, if not a very strong theist.
He seems to have toned down his rhetoric a lot in the last decade, but
I still have a suspicion that it is only a front.
I read most of his physics papers, and detect a common thread in all
of them: a yearning to to show that there is "something more", and the
consequent flights of quantum fantasy that seem to me to be a measure
of deperation.
What a waste of a brilliant mind.
Yep, you summed it up neatly:
"Templeton Prize"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 02:14:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:42:32 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:33:24 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:34:50 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
Templeton Prize - says it all.
Yes.
I met with and argued with Davies at one stage back when he was
teaching here in Adelaide, and he came across as a profoundly rampant
deist, if not a very strong theist.
He seems to have toned down his rhetoric a lot in the last decade, but
I still have a suspicion that it is only a front.
I read most of his physics papers, and detect a common thread in all
of them: a yearning to to show that there is "something more", and the
consequent flights of quantum fantasy that seem to me to be a measure
of deperation.
What a waste of a brilliant mind.
The trouble with guys like him, and he's not alone eg Polkinghorne, is
that they get introduced to the congregation as physicists so their
ignorant audience thinks they're talking science when they actually
talk religion.
IMO this is dishonest.
Yep, you summed it up neatly:
"Templeton Prize"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 03:15:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:14:35 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:42:32 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:33:24 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:34:50 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
Templeton Prize - says it all.
Yes.
I met with and argued with Davies at one stage back when he was
teaching here in Adelaide, and he came across as a profoundly rampant
deist, if not a very strong theist.
He seems to have toned down his rhetoric a lot in the last decade, but
I still have a suspicion that it is only a front.
I read most of his physics papers, and detect a common thread in all
of them: a yearning to to show that there is "something more", and the
consequent flights of quantum fantasy that seem to me to be a measure
of deperation.
What a waste of a brilliant mind.
The trouble with guys like him, and he's not alone eg Polkinghorne, is
that they get introduced to the congregation as physicists so their
ignorant audience thinks they're talking science when they actually
talk religion.
IMO this is dishonest.
I partly agree, but Davies is a borderline case, in my opinion.
At least he *appears* to be heading away from superstition, not toward
it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: No, science does not 'rest on faith' |
15 Dec 2007 07:53:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:42:32 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:33:24 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:34:50 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith'
08 December 2007
A. C. Grayling
Templeton Prize - says it all.
Yes.
I met with and argued with Davies at one stage back when he was
teaching here in Adelaide, and he came across as a profoundly rampant
deist, if not a very strong theist.
He seems to have toned down his rhetoric a lot in the last decade, but
I still have a suspicion that it is only a front.
I read most of his physics papers, and detect a common thread in all
of them: a yearning to to show that there is "something more", and the
consequent flights of quantum fantasy that seem to me to be a measure
of deperation.
What a waste of a brilliant mind.
Brains by themselves are no guarantee of emotional stability.
Yep, you summed it up neatly:
"Templeton Prize"
And loud were the rejoicings in fundieland, "Another godless scientist comes
home to Jeeee-zuz!"
WOA (Wicked Old Atheist) #2278
If you can't be a dirty old man,
what is the point of being an old man?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
