Science and religion (culled from "Earth not center" thread)

[Ken G]

Ken G wants to separate existential claims from meaning claims. As a fat man in a red suit with flying reindeer, Santa Claus does not exist. However, as a concept, Santa Claus does exist.

Santa Claus is something of a straw man in the context of this thread. The reason is that it is quite easy to set up tests for whether or not a fat man in a red suit really comes down chimneys, but we can still go with it as a loose metaphor for the issue. The key point in whether one is considering an existential claim versus a meaning claim is the nature of the question being asked. "Do you believe in Santa Claus?" Do you see how the interpretation of that question controls the "right" answer? I agree with what you said:

Furthermore, some people draw meaning from the concept of Santa Claus by using it as a metaphor for the holiday spirit, the spirit of thinking of family and friends, giving over receiving, charity and kindness, etc. So what does the statement, "I believe in Santa Claus," mean?

Exactly. But then you go on to say:

To most of us, that's the existential claim, whether or not the person stating it is using Santa Claus metaphorically.

"To most of us"? What does that mean? What I'm saying is that the answer can become subjective if the question is intepreted in that way. How a particular individual interprets it is also subjective, it's not "majority rules". The reason this is so important is that with some questions, unlike "do you believe in Santa Claus", the very words in the question are so profound and hard to define that each person must insert their own meaning. Often when they do that, they substitute a drastic oversimplification, but they don't care, because the question needs an answer and it is too profound not to oversimplify. Science is one way to make such an oversimplification, it is the oversimplification of that which can be measured. When the questions are too profound to measure, even in principle, the line between "existential" and "metaphorical meaning" are drastically blurred.

Ken G thinks that "believing in" Santa Claus as metaphor is fine because it's not existential. I find that a load of gibberish.

This is a straw man because it is only a profound issue for children, so only children require the oversimplification. Then they mature and can understand charity and caring without personifying Santa. No one really needs the concept of Santa Claus as they mature. But there are many issues that continue to be out of reach of simian brains, and the oversimplifications survive. This does not make them wrong, it just makes them oversimplifications. As I said before, science also traffics in simplifications-- the "over" part is another one of those subjective issues that depends on the individual's purpose.

Similarly, one can find meaning in the wisdom of Yoda, but saying "Yoda is real" is going to get you a funny look (at best, a funny jacket possibly).

That's an even clearer straw man. Yoda is clearly an invention of dramatic purpose, and is not intended to be real. To find the "reality" of Yoda, you'd have to dig much deeper-- you'd have to look at why the character exists, and what were the real reasons why this character captured our imagination. That's where you find the reality of Yoda, which is still very difficult to associate with "objective reality". The point is, the green midget came from somewhere, and for some reason, and that is it's connection to reality. Can science answer those questions without losing something in translation?

That is the position being taken by Lonewulf and Doodler and myself. I don't "believe in" Santa Claus, I don't "believe in" Yoda - they are not real, existential beings.

What you mean by this is that if you set up an objective test for the existence of Yoda, like leaving cookies for Santa's reindeer, you are confident in a null result. I agree with you. But note this is all you can say about the reality or lack of reality of Yoda-- when you intersect him with objective tests, you get a null result. And what you also get, is something lost in translation.

To see what I mean, imagine the following conversation:
Moviegoer: "Hey, are you going to check out the new movie at the Playhouse? I hear it's really good."
Rationalist: "Why would I want to see a bunch of people pretending to be someone else? You know, everything that happens is decided in advance. It's all a hoax."
Moviegoer:"I don't care about that, I get caught up in the drama and it's real enough for me. It informs my life."
Rationalist:"I don't even know why they call it "movie", nothing is actually moving! It's just a series of still shots that appear to move."
Moviegoer:"That's really interesting. Well anyway, I'll check you out after the show."

All human creations are created to give us benefit. Science, and movies, are just among those, and they have different benefits. To say that one is "real" and the other isn't is to simply adopt a rather cut-and-dried definition of reality, that is easy to apply but leaves out a lot of human existence.

[Ken G]

I would be willing to stand by our thoughts being driven almost entirely by biochemistry (fusing biology and chemistry).

And someone else might "stand by" their belief that our thoughts are controlled by space aliens. What does it prove? We have no idea what controls our thoughts, we only know that electrical currents in the brain play a role. But it might play a role in the space aliens' plans too. Science is better at how it works than why it works.

To answer one of the examples given in this thread: "What is the experience of being in love?" It is the brain's response to our intepretation and analysis of external stimuli viewed from a subjective point of view.

There you have it folks, the "definition" of love. Well, the scientific definition anyway-- does anyone feel like something got lost in that translation?

The process can be broken down and described scientifically, even subject to hypotheses based on what we believe might trigger the response, while still being a completely subjective experience.

Correction-- the objective and repeatable elements of the process can be broken down that way. The subjective experience is not at all guaranteed to be the same thing, yet it still has existential elements. Indeed, I would say they are of a more primary existential nature than the particles we conceptualize to explain our objective observations-- they certainly matter a heck of a lot more to most people.

[Doodler]

There you have it folks, the "definition" of love. Well, the scientific definition anyway-- does anyone feel like something got lost in that translation?

As if the science of fingerprinting is pointless because no two people possess sufficiently identical pattern of dermal ridges for a one to one comparison.

Your individual experience of an emotion is unique to you, but that does not imply that the core element that drives the emotion, and the triggers that activate the emotion, are unique. Even the sensory experience of emotion can be compared and analyzed with sufficiently honest explanations provided.

Correction-- the objective and repeatable elements of the process can be broken down that way. The subjective experience is not at all guaranteed to be the same thing, yet it still has existential elements. Indeed, I would say they are of a more primary existential nature than the particles we conceptualize to explain our objective observations-- they certainly matter a heck of a lot more to most people.

Of course not. The experience is unique within the same person falling in love with two completely different people, but the elements that compose the experience are common, simply assembled in a different pattern responding to a different set of stimuli.

The different patterns are interesting, but the components of the experience are far from unique. The subjective experience is extremely non-deterministic, but not completely immune to common patterns. Be realistic, we're not all of us a species of one, having nothing in common in our thoughts with others. Common frames of reference establish the links between how two different people experience the same emotion with a unique experiental fingerprint. Different vocabulary, different upbringing, different belief systems, and different value systems can result in the exact same experience being defined in a plethora of different ways, but the core expression is essentially identical. The process is the same, the window dressing is all that changes, and even then, the window dressing amounts to nothing more than datapoints on a different graph.

[Ken G]

Your individual experience of an emotion is unique to you, but that does not imply that the core element that drives the emotion, and the triggers that activate the emotion, are unique. Even the sensory experience of emotion can be compared and analyzed with sufficiently honest explanations provided.

All you are saying is that science can be used to compare and analyze things. We know that. The real question is, is that all that's happening? I can use my eyes to watch a piano concerto (I think I prefer that metaphor to different wavelengths of light). I can compare and analyze, and even learn to play it myself if I try hard enough. Is that all that's happening?

Of course not. The experience is unique within the same person falling in love with two completely different people, but the elements that compose the experience are common, simply assembled in a different pattern responding to a different set of stimuli.

And playing the piano has common elements whether it's I or Chopin, it's just a "different pattern".

The subjective experience is extremely non-deterministic, but not completely immune to common patterns.

My point does not rely on being completely immune to commonalities.

Different vocabulary, different upbringing, different belief systems, and different value systems can result in the exact same experience being defined in a plethora of different ways, but the core expression is essentially identical.

And there is scientific research to support this claim? I was with you up until the "essentially identical" part. I agree that there is much that is common, like the concept of objective reality, which is indeed a fruitful one. But this discussion is about whether or not that can be viewed as the whole story, depending on the mode of inquiry. Empathy, for example, is an inherently different approach than what is used in science, yet humans also find it to be fruitful in many situations.

[Irishman]

BioSci said:
I agree, science (or evidence-based reasoning) can only be used to evaluate that which can be "seen" or that actually interacts with us and produces some evidence thereby.

Your point (my bold) is one of my main arguments regarding the logically correct point that science (and evidence-based reasoning) does not have much to say about things that do not interact with our reality or have any evidence to test.
I am merely adding that basically if there is no evidence to evaluate, there is little reason to value such a claim for belief - you could just as well believe in Bigfoot or the FSM.

I agree with you, and I was not trying to justify any belief. I was strictly trying to demonstrate the limits of where science leaves off, and that the existence of anything beyond that line cannot be examined by science.

However, I note your word choice (in bold). I suspect that Ken G would substitute "physical reality" to distinguish the objective world from any potential "reality" out there that is not scrutinizable by objective means.

I would also point out that "value" is a loaded word. It is subjective. So while there may not be objective justification for a belief, a person can still find "value" in it.

Thanks for the article.

George said:
I would agree with this metaphor as long as it is assumed science has no way to measure what the eye can not see beyond the visible spectrum.

Right, inherently in the metaphor science cannot tell how much or if there is any spectrum beyond the visible spectrum. Science in the metaphor is by definition the visible.

Of course, science can “see” a vast distance today since Herschell discovered IR, though science has not achieved “seeing” across all of the EM spectrum.

In the metaphor, science cannot see IR. Science sees the intersection of IR as projected into visible light. Translate, modulate, "false-color", and see what is there. But it is called false-color for a reason.

Ken G said:
Santa Claus is something of a straw man in the context of this thread. The reason is that it is quite easy to set up tests for whether or not a fat man in a red suit really comes down chimneys, but we can still go with it as a loose metaphor for the issue.

Santa Claus was explicitly chosen because we can scrutinize it, and because it's not a religious claim.

Ken G said:

To most of us, that's the existential claim, whether or not the person stating it is using Santa Claus metaphorically.

"To most of us"? What does that mean? What I'm saying is that the answer can become subjective if the question is intepreted in that way. How a particular individual interprets it is also subjective, it's not "majority rules".

What I'm saying is that in this thread, numerous people keep using words certain ways. Doodler, Biosci, Lonewulf and I have all made similar statements with respect to how we define and understand the words "reality" and "real". I am saying that to us, the ones who use the words this way, the words "believe in" inherently define the existential claim when used in the sentence form of, "Do you believe in Santa Claus?"

The key point in whether one is considering an existential claim versus a meaning claim is the nature of the question being asked. "Do you believe in Santa Claus?" Do you see how the interpretation of that question controls the "right" answer?

Yes, but do you see how some of us interpret that question naturally in a particular way, and that interpretation is based on how we understand the words? Do you see that for us, if the questioner means something else, they should use different words?

Ken G said:

Ken G thinks that "believing in" Santa Claus as metaphor is fine because it's not existential. I find that a load of gibberish.

This is a straw man because it is only a profound issue for children, so only children require the oversimplification. Then they mature and can understand charity and caring without personifying Santa. No one really needs the concept of Santa Claus as they mature. But there are many issues that continue to be out of reach of simian brains, and the oversimplifications survive.

You miss the point. What belief is used is irrelevant to the point. The issue for me was metaphor vs. existential.

However, here's a cite:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/santaclaus.html

Over one hundred years ago, on September 21, 1897, a little girl with great doubts asked the editor of the New York Sun for the answer to a question that had been bothering her. There was no Straight Dope then, so she had to settle. The Sun came up with an answer, a good answer, the correct answer. But folks have forgotten it, or no longer believe it.

[snip]

Besides, to believe in Santa Claus is to believe in magic. The belief in magic in many respects is a pernicious thing. Because of it you've got countless multitudes thinking that aliens abduct people, that Elvis is alive, that you can earn big money stuffing envelopes in your home, and that the TV preacher can cure you if you send him 50 bucks. A certain class of persons, of whom your columnist is one, will go through their lives attempting to extinguish these foolish hopes. No doubt in the main it is good that we do so. But even the sternest among us remembers the wonder we felt as children to think there was a force having a kindly interest in us that wasn't bound by the rules of this drab world. Wherefore if there's someone who's going to say flat out that Santa Claus doesn't exist, it's not going to be me.

Ken G said:
That's an even clearer straw man. Yoda is clearly an invention of dramatic purpose, and is not intended to be real.

Precisely! I picked an obvious case explicitly to avoid controversial topics that are off limits on this board, and you're holding that against me. Yes, Yoda is clearly a fictional creation. Now, the same process that allows someone to treat Yoda as "real" is the process that adapts ancient texts from meaning stories to be treated as historical documents, when they were not intended by their authors to comply with the modern concept of a historical record. Think of The Illiad and the mythology wrapped around the actual city of Troy and war between the Greeks and Trojans. Just because there was a real war and a real city of Troy does not mean that Achilles was magically protected.

What you mean by this is that if you set up an objective test for the existence of Yoda, like leaving cookies for Santa's reindeer, you are confident in a null result. I agree with you. But note this is all you can say about the reality or lack of reality of Yoda-- when you intersect him with objective tests, you get a null result. And what you also get, is something lost in translation.

The existence of Yoda is an objective claim. The meaning of Yoda is not. I'm not eliminating the ideas and emotions out of human experience, as you seem to think I am.

Ken G said:
I can use my eyes to watch a piano concerto (I think I prefer that metaphor to different wavelengths of light).

You may be right. (Your preference is a subjective claim - you're right if you think you're right.)

[George]

Yes, Yoda is clearly a fictional creation. Now, the same process that allows someone to treat Yoda as "real" is the process that adapts ancient texts from meaning stories to be treated as historical documents, when they were not intended by their authors to comply with the modern concept of a historical record.

[my grn, duh] Yes, and this process idea is where I keep trying to go. Your example is nice and clean as we know both the true beginning and the erroneous end. But, since it is rarely so obvious, how does one make the most of this "process"?

As Ken has defined in more cool ways than the number of jelly bean colors (and without violet ), science can not make direct claims upon the subjective due to its self-imposed boundaries. But, using "The Overlap" metaphor (is it a cliche yet?), though the river (science) may officially end on the map at the entrance to the estuary (overlap), its effect, albeit diminished, does not. There may be objective elements within the subjective claim that will feel the force of science, even if science will not certify these effects. The Face of Mars is a recent example of science that has brought the Cydonian Construction Company to its virtual knees and demonstrates its real face value. [sorry, must be the weather.] People can still choose to believe in its construction, and they could still be right, but they are choosing to ignore good reason and their faith is now much more blind.

Perhaps the ability of science to offer circumstantial evidence is a better approach. I feel y'all are likely sharper on these subtle distinctions.

Think of The Illiad and the mythology wrapped around the actual city of Troy and war between the Greeks and Trojans. Just because there was a real war and a real city of Troy does not mean that Achilles was magically protected.

Why not? If archeological science has evidence for both the war and for the existence of Troy, doesn't it offer greater credibility that the rest of the story is true? [please forgive my facetous tactic.] I believe that even though it does actually offer greater credibility, there is not enough objective evidence (even circumstantially), nor loads of additional subjective evidence, that would warrant most people to have hope that Achilles did have magic. In this case, unreasonableness outweighs reason...for me. [So, I do agree with you, of course.]

You may be right. (Your preference is a subjective claim - you're right if you think you're right.)

Hey, when do I get fiat powers?

[Ken G]

However, I note your word choice (in bold). I suspect that Ken G would substitute "physical reality" to distinguish the objective world from any potential "reality" out there that is not scrutinizable by objective means.

Indeed I would. To give you a clear example of what I'm talking about, consider the recent post by Argos on the thread on Q&A about different methods of discovering things. This quote will sound innocent enough on a science forum, but consider its deeper implications in regard to this thread:

Actually, there´s only one method to discover the wonders of the universe: the scientific method.

Need I say more?

What I'm saying is that in this thread, numerous people keep using words certain ways. Doodler, Biosci, Lonewulf and I have all made similar statements with respect to how we define and understand the words "reality" and "real".

Well that's fine, for you. I never objected to your definitions of reality, I objected to the way you are exporting them onto others who may not define it the same way. That is my point in a nutshell-- reality itself is a subjective concept.

I am saying that to us, the ones who use the words this way, the words "believe in" inherently define the existential claim when used in the sentence form of, "Do you believe in Santa Claus?"

So how then do you use that statement to tell other people that their beliefs are "invalid"? Do I need to cull quotes of that nature from this thread? You are saying, "according to the way I define the words you are using, your belief is nonsense". Is it any wonder that scientific arguments that adopt that stance get so little traction with nonscientists?

Do you see that for us, if the questioner means something else, they should use different words?

No, do you see? Maybe they are using words that are meaningful for them, and do not care how you would have put it. That is the kind of scientific arrogance that does science so much harm.

You miss the point. What belief is used is irrelevant to the point. The issue for me was metaphor vs. existential.

That's like saying that it doesn't matter what physical theory is being used, all that matters is the difference between an approximation and an exact result. No-- all of science is an approximation, good and bad science are decided in the gray zone, so it's not so cut and dried as "metaphor vs. existential". More later.

[stevenspray]

''By Having faith, one let's go of reason and logic'' - Fox Mulder. I concur with the above statement, religion is subjective and science is objective as you might know.
But to me, your statement...

I can believe, if it is my religion to do so, that all of science is an illusion created by a supreme being to test my faith.

...is totally plausible and I appreciate your reasoning. I don't however agree with you when you say that religion isn't in conflict with science.

To me, debating religion creates a lot of contention and such arguments can literally last forever. No party can claim to be right or wrong, unless of course God himself comes down to earth and vindicates one of the parties.

Science on the other hand deals with facts and not faith. I would like to add that I am religious but I'm pragmatic as well. Therefore I choose science instead of faith.

[George]

Maybe they are using words that are meaningful for them, and do not care how you would have put it. That is the kind of scientific arrogance that does science so much harm.

This is important for all to understand. Yet, once this is understood, science can, at times, offer helpful "insight", as you mentioned, when evaluating a specific belief. The Cydonian Face builders (or whatever its called) belief is one example where objective evidence strongly suggests this belief is very unreasonable. They could still choose to hold to their subjective view, but if this subjective view was predicated on satellite imaging, then it should be even more unreasonable when much more reliable imaging is offered that reveals no evidence for a facial construction. Subjective beliefs can either be bolstered or hurt by their objective elements.

No-- all of science is an approximation, good and bad science are decided in the gray zone, so it's not so cut and dried as "metaphor vs. existential". More later.

Nuts, what happened to your colors and QCD? I do agree with your statement but not when, on the other side of the fence, others claim science is impotent regarding the believer's subjective views whenever objective elements exist that are in direct conflict with mainstream science.

[George]

To me, debating religion creates a lot of contention and such arguments can literally last forever.

Yes, that is why we are not and the main reason it is against the rules here. We are discussing the two realms: subjective and objective. The subjective could just as easily be philosophy in lieu of religion. It is a slippery slope to try and qualify what happens when these regions overlap, yet I am hopeful we will see more serious slime time.

No party can claim to be right or wrong, unless of course God himself comes down to earth and vindicates one of the parties.

Many claim it most the time, one might be right. Which are the more reasonable is a more reasonable question.

Therefore I choose science instead of faith.

Science is far too limited as a total life answer, or are these names of the newer Charlie's Angels??

[Ken G]

Precisely! I picked an obvious case explicitly to avoid controversial topics that are off limits on this board, and you're holding that against me.

What I'm saying is, there are situations that are not profound or important, and those situations trivialize the real issue of the gray zones between belief and existence. Most of human experience lives in that gray zone, it is both profound and important. (Do wave functions "exist"? Do electric fields? What if a deeper notion one day completely replaces these conceptualizations, and they end up being viewed as naive as the aether? Science also traffics in simplifications, and is not so unlike the existence of fictional characters, but far less trivial.)

Now, the same process that allows someone to treat Yoda as "real" is the process that adapts ancient texts from meaning stories to be treated as historical documents, when they were not intended by their authors to comply with the modern concept of a historical record.

And it is also not necessary to treat them as a historical record, for such fall within the purvey of the discipline of history. Most of what people believe about history, religious or otherwise, is not consistent with that mode of inquiry-- ever heard "the winner writes the history"?

Think of The Illiad and the mythology wrapped around the actual city of Troy and war between the Greeks and Trojans. Just because there was a real war and a real city of Troy does not mean that Achilles was magically protected.

What you are missing is the subtext. Why does it matter if Achilles was magically protected? If the answer to that is "because it adds drama to the tale", then you have just that-- dramatic license. If the answer is "because this has inspired a mode of inquiry into the following profound questions", then you have something quite different. The purpose is everything, and the value to humanity, just as it is in science. That's why your Santa Claus related quote is so important, all you have to do is extend it to areas that do not just involve children, areas that are difficult and challenging even for adult simian brains.

The existence of Yoda is an objective claim. The meaning of Yoda is not. I'm not eliminating the ideas and emotions out of human experience, as you seem to think I am.

No claim is objective, unless defined to be so by the claimant. We all share the same language, but not necessarily the same meanings. Again, you cannot impose your definitions on someone else, you can only ask them to clarify theirs. If they enter a realm testable by science, then you have something to talk about. If they do not define their terms in that manner, then there is no "conflict", this is my point. It's just that Yoda is a trivial example, because the purpose of Yoda is pure dramatic license, nothing more. To the extent that we are to take Yoda seriously, then he may become something more, and his existence takes on a very different light. Yoda is fictional, but something exists that inspired him, and if the purpose is to take the something seriously, then yes, it exists for those who do so.

It's just like the moviegoer analogy I mentioned. That's also a trivial example, but note the physiological responses in a move theater are very similar to those in a real situation. And lives can be changed, ideas generated, beliefs challenged. Oh yes, movies are real, when it is their purpose to illicit a real response.

[Ken G]

The Cydonian Face builders (or whatever its called) belief is one example where objective evidence strongly suggests this belief is very unreasonable.

The difference has to do with the nature of the question. The existence or lack of existence of a Face on Mars is a very easily testable thing, so if you phrase the question that way, it is objective and reproducible, and hence in the realm of science. Once you identify it's science, then the only question that remains is, is it good science or horrendous science? But that's not the kind of belief I'm talking about. I am referring to beliefs that are not objectively testable, because they can't be measured or reproduced, and are not designed to make predictions, like what we'll see when we get a closer look at the "Face". In short, they are not science. The Face on Mars is not subjective belief, it is bad science.


They could still choose to hold to their subjective view, but if this subjective view was predicated on satellite imaging, then it should be even more unreasonable when much more reliable imaging is offered that reveals no evidence for a facial construction. Subjective beliefs can either be bolstered or hurt by their objective elements. But it becomes a subjective belief when someone says "I realize that the Face is more plausibly explained as a random rock formation, and that scientific investigation of the face will only strengthen that conclusion. Nevertheless, I choose to believe it was made by Martians, no matter how unlikely that may be, simply because I believe that something very unlikely occured that will not give up its secrets to scientific investigation". Now what is a scientist going to say to that? There's just no conflict there, all are in agreement on all the facts.

I do agree with your statement but not when, on the other side of the fence, others claim science is impotent regarding the believer's subjective views whenever objective elements exist that are in direct conflict with mainstream science.

That is because science has its purpose, its goals, and its value. That value should not be compromised by bad science, or by applying the principles of science in an unintelligent or dishonest way. But all that has to do with science, not that which is outside science. Some on this thread have claimed, in effect, there is nothing that is outside science. I say, science doesn't tell you that.

[George]

The difference has to do with the nature of the question. The existence or lack of existence of a Face on Mars is a very easily testable thing, so if you phrase the question that way, it is objective and reproducible, and hence in the realm of science.

Yes, and I like your impetus on the phrasing of questions. The asking of measurable questions is easier to understand than the term, "objective elements".

In this Face example, we are assuming the subjective belief was born from this very question of it being a constructed face or not. If no face had been seen, no belief would have been established.

Once you identify it's science, then the only question that remains is, is it good science or horrendous science?

Yes, and either scientific result will affect the subjective belief, in this case in a huge way because of the objective foundation the belief is established upon.

But that's not the kind of belief I'm talking about. I am referring to beliefs that are not objectively testable, because they can't be measured or reproduced, and are not designed to make predictions, like what we'll see when we get a closer look at the "Face". In short, they are not science. The Face on Mars is not subjective belief, it is bad science.

Yes, because we are only addressing the objective element of the face itself.

But it becomes a subjective belief when someone says "I realize that the Face is more plausibly explained as a random rock formation, and that scientific investigation of the face will only strengthen that conclusion. Nevertheless, I choose to believe it was made by Martians, no matter how unlikely that may be, simply because I believe that something very unlikely occured that will not give up its secrets to scientific investigation". Now what is a scientist going to say to that? There's just no conflict there, all are in agreement on all the facts.

Yes, and there is a chance they could still be right. The important aspect to consider out of all of this is just how much science has influence upon this particular subjective belief. Thanks to science, they can compare their original facial images with many more revealing images. The face is no longer there, thus their reason to believe has all be vanished. Admittedly, science can't kill a subjective belief but, in some cases, - may I say those with an exposed face(s) to science - it can greatly affect how reasonable, or unreasonable, they can become. Indeed, many beliefs are gone due to science. Of course, once again, science is still very limited, as you have nicely clarified.

That is because science has its purpose, its goals, and its value. That value should not be compromised by bad science, or by applying the principles of science in an unintelligent or dishonest way. But all that has to do with science, not that which is outside science. Some on this thread have claimed, in effect, there is nothing that is outside science. I say, science doesn't tell you that.

Yes, you know I agree, though you're in the river Science and I'm in the Subjective Sea. I am trying to drag whomever into the estuary where we can understand better how reason is helped by the influence of science, at least where objective questions can be asked. If those in the sea simply denounce science as just a collection of vague theories made up of admittable incomplete claims, then all assitance from science to advance reason is highly diminished at best. This greatly obfuscates those who do not understand what science is saying all to the advantage of those that prefer it that way.

[Ken G]

In this Face example, we are assuming the subjective belief was born from this very question of it being a constructed face or not. If no face had been seen, no belief would have been established.

True enough, but that still doesn't mean that this is the main reason for the belief, only a contributing factor. If you already believe there were Martians capable of such a feat, you then look at it in a different light than someone using the rock formation as support for the existence of such Martians.

Thanks to science, they can compare their original facial images with many more revealing images. The face is no longer there, thus their reason to believe has all be vanished.

It would have to not be their main reason for believing, that's true. But for many human pursuits, the presence of objective evidence is not the primary impetus for a belief.

Yes, you know I agree, though you're in the river Science and I'm in the Subjective Sea.

Yes, I think you are basically saying that one can choose to use science to bolster those elements of a belief system that overlap with objective testing, and I'm saying that one can also choose to erect a firewall between all conclusions you draw when you apply objective reasoning, and all those you draw when you don't. You just have to remember which conclusions came from where, so you don't get mixed up, and your approach avoids that problem automatically. it's kind of like a movie critic, let's say. You can go to school and construct a scientific description of what constitutes a well-made film, or you can just watch it and say whether or not you felt entertained by it. You can choose to unite those, so that you let your scientific understanding color your enjoyment, or you can choose to keep those entirely separate-- or some combination. (Imagine a critic saying, "this film seemed to intentionally avoid all the elements a good movie should have, but did so in such an ingenious way that I really liked it.")

If those in the sea simply denounce science as just a collection of vague theories made up of admittable incomplete claims, then all assitance from science to advance reason is highly diminished at best.

Education about what science is and what conclusions it reaches and why is quite important, that is probably the one thing that we all agree on.

[SolusLupus]

This talk of subjective and objective reality reminds me a bit about Big Brother in 1984.

"One plus one equals what?" 'Two.' "Big Brother says that one plus one equals three. What does one plus one equal?" 'Two!' "Time for the torture!"

I.E., that they wanted people to see things only in a "subjective, if-we-say-so" context, where physical reality could be changed from time to time as they saw fit, as opposed to actually conforming their minds to what was present in reality.

[Ken G]

I.E., that they wanted people to see things only in a "subjective, if-we-say-so" context, where physical reality could be changed from time to time as they saw fit, as opposed to actually conforming their minds to what was present in reality.

I fear you have completely missed the point of that book. That book is not about how to know what's true, it's about how not to know-- reliance on pure authority and the status quo of the existing power structure. It is a book about how power can attempt to alter truth (happens all the time, I already mentioned the history example above). It is all about exporting truth forcibly, and so is much closer to the point I'm arguing-- when you recognize the power and authority that comes with science, you appreciate the need to not abuse it.

[Ken G]

I.E., that they wanted people to see things only in a "subjective, if-we-say-so" context, where physical reality could be changed from time to time as they saw fit, as opposed to actually conforming their minds to what was present in reality.

I fear you have missed part of the point of that book. That book is not about how to know what's true, it's about what is not an appropriate way to know-- reliance on pure authority and the status quo of the existing power structure. It is a book about how power can attempt to control truth (happens all the time, I already mentioned the history example above). It is all about exporting truth forcibly, and so is much closer to the point I'm arguing-- when you recognize the power and authority that comes with science, you appreciate the need to not abuse it.

[BioSci]

...
Subjective beliefs can either be bolstered or hurt by their objective elements. But it becomes a subjective belief when someone says "I realize that the Face is more plausibly explained as a random rock formation, and that scientific investigation of the face will only strengthen that conclusion. Nevertheless, I choose to believe it was made by Martians, no matter how unlikely that may be, simply because I believe that something very unlikely occured that will not give up its secrets to scientific investigation". Now what is a scientist going to say to that? There's just no conflict there, all are in agreement on all the facts...

Science and logic would both agree that such a belief is irrational...

[Disinfo Agent]

If the Cydonia-Face-believers said that, we could at least say that they were being honest with others and with themselves.

[Ken G]

Science and logic would both agree that such a belief is irrational...

I agree. This leaves it up to the individual to decide when it is appropriate to be rational, and when they would prefer to apply different modes of mental activity.

[Ken G]

If the Cydonia-Face-believers said that, we could at least say that they were being honest with others and with themselves.

Yes, that's the point-- it's hard to "shake" a belief, and not automatically clear when it is even ethically appropriate to try, but one can seek better education of "truth in advertising", as it were. I think honesty may be the most key notion in all this-- honesty on the part of those who might otherwise try to claim they are using science when in fact it is just lip service to science to justify a pre-determined result, and honesty on the part of science to recognize its own self-limiting elements.

[SolusLupus]

I fear you have completely missed the point of that book.

Uh, no I didn't. I understood it just fine. I just brought that specific portion up and how it made me think on the subject...

At what point did I tell you any frikkin' synopsis of the entire book?!

I'd also like to note that a passage in that particular example stated, rather succintly, that Winston had to believe that there was an objective reality, something that existed outside of what the authorities stated as truth. I.E., something that couldn't just be molded and changed.

I'd quote it to you, but I don't think that it's honestly worth the effort, as it doesn't really accomplish much...

That book is not about how to know what's true, it's about how not to know-- reliance on pure authority and the status quo of the existing power structure.

Actually, the book was more than just that, but I'll try to hold back on claiming that you missed the point of it.

It is a book about how power can attempt to alter truth (happens all the time, I already mentioned the history example above). It is all about exporting truth forcibly, and so is much closer to the point I'm arguing-- when you recognize the power and authority that comes with science, you appreciate the need to not abuse it.

Science is not authority. Authority figures can use science, however.

[Ken G]

Uh, no I didn't. I understood it just fine. I just brought that specific portion up and how it made me think on the subject...

I edited that right away to "missed part of the point of the book", but you saw my post too quickly! Saying you completely missed the point is hyperbole and is certainly untrue, my apologies.

I'd also like to note that a passage in that particular example stated, rather succintly, that Winston had to believe that there was an objective reality, something that existed outside of what the authorities stated as truth. I.E., something that couldn't just be molded and changed.

I don't want to argue Orwell's point for him, I'm just saying that the evil in 1984 is the authority structure, not the means of determining what 2+2 is. The power structure had no means of getting 2+2=5, they just asserted it, and the evil is in forcing people to believe it without connecting it to the process that established it. In other words, the process of finding truth should never be based purely on power. So in that sense, I am arguing the same thing-- the key to proper use of the concept of "truth" is to always keep it tightly coupled to the process used to determine it. Efforts to separate the two are totalitarian.

I'd quote it to you, but I don't think that it's honestly worth the effort, as it doesn't really accomplish much...

I believe you, that the concept of subjectivity was being co-opted by the authorities, and this was trampling the concept of objectivity. But what I'm saying is, it also isn't "subjective" to say that you must believe 2+2=5, that's the opposite of subjectivity.

Science is not authority. Authority figures can use science, however.

Correction, science is not properly used like authority. My objections in this thread are all about the improper use of science. To clarify, I'm not saying science has no business asserting that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, because it goes without saying, in a scientific context, that this answer is using the scientific method to be established, and the answer is intended to gibe with a sum of objectively measurable data. I am saying that science has no business crossing out of the realm of science to tell other people that the aspects of their subjective beliefs that do not claim any scientific validity are "nonsense", simply because the scientific approach to truth has nothing to say about those beliefs, because it uses a different operational definition of reality. This separation is not so cut-and-dried, and there is a lot of overlap that has been discussed, but there is still value in seeing a separation. Some have pointed out that we all use that same operational definition quite often in our daily lives, so it seems like "cherry picking" to not use it uniformly for everything, but I've pointed out that there are many aspects of reality that are quite profound, and science traffics in simplifications whenever it needs to, just like other pursuits. I think the really interesting question in all this is, is science ideally tailored to "work" on all that is real, or does it simply define reality to be that which it "works" on? You know my answer, but above all, I claim that science cannot answer this question.

[Irishman]

Ken G said:
What I'm saying is, there are situations that are not profound or important, and those situations trivialize the real issue of the gray zones between belief and existence. Most of human experience lives in that gray zone, it is both profound and important.

My intent is not to make light of or dismiss the conditions people face, but to illuminate the distinction between the two cases. Thus my analogies of Yoda and Santa Claus in place of any other particular examples. Your response appears to be that my examples inherently lose something from the real cases. I don't believe this is true. I believe my examples may be less significant because they are easier to examine the objective parts and are thus not emotionally committed to, but I think the missing "emotional commitment" does not detract from the value or applicability of the examples. So I guess we will just have to disagree.

(Do wave functions "exist"? Do electric fields? What if a deeper notion one day completely replaces these conceptualizations, and they end up being viewed as naive as the aether? Science also traffics in simplifications, and is not so unlike the existence of fictional characters, but far less trivial.)

Science admits it's simplifications, and seeks to correct them when something better comes along.

Now, the same process that allows someone to treat Yoda as "real" is the process that adapts ancient texts from meaning stories to be treated as historical documents, when they were not intended by their authors to comply with the modern concept of a historical record.

And it is also not necessary to treat them as a historical record, for such fall within the purvey of the discipline of history. Most of what people believe about history, religious or otherwise, is not consistent with that mode of inquiry-- ever heard "the winner writes the history"?

I got lost. I'm not advocating they be treated as history, I'm saying that believers improperly treat them as history.

[SolusLupus]

I edited that right away to "missed part of the point of the book", but you saw my post too quickly! Saying you completely missed the point is hyperbole and is certainly untrue, my apologies.

No problem.

I don't want to argue Orwell's point for him, I'm just saying that the evil in 1984 is the authority structure, not the means of determining what 2+2 is. The power structure had no means of getting 2+2=5, they just asserted it, and the evil is in forcing people to believe it without connecting it to the process that established it. In other words, the process of finding truth should never be based purely on power. So in that sense, I am arguing the same thing-- the key to proper use of the concept of "truth" is to always keep it tightly coupled to the process used to determine it. Efforts to separate the two are totalitarian.

Mmmh, I can see what you're saying here.

I believe you, that the concept of subjectivity was being co-opted by the authorities, and this was trampling the concept of objectivity. But what I'm saying is, it also isn't "subjective" to say that you must believe 2+2=5, that's the opposite of subjectivity.

From www.dictionary.com: "1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective)."

The only reason to claim that 2+2=5 comes from the mind, even though Winston was forced (by the authority figure) to think it; there was no object that proved it, it existed as "truth" only in his mind. So according to that definition, I'd say that it's subjective (but under other definitions, admittedly, it would not be).

Correction, science is not properly used like authority.

Perhaps I should reiterate:

Science is not an authority figure, nor is it an individual nor group of individuals. Science is a tool, as well as a philosophy (a group of philosophies, actually).

Though saying that it "has authority" for what it is used to quantify would still be correct, I just want to note that it sounded like you were saying something along the lines of a different kind of authority...


Nonetheless, I personally don't believe in "subective" reality, one way or the other. I believe that there is one answer, one reality, and though all of us (subjectively, admittedly) perceive it in our own way, there is still one truth. Science has unearthed many things that work even outside of mere personal perception; I.E., the ball doesn't just *seem* like it felt at a constant rate that could be shown through an equation, but it can be quantified and shown (to almost anyone who can perceive it) to accomplish the same thing. If you drop the ball, it falls; this exists within what we perceive as reality. But if reality isn't really reality, and that claim is actually *true*, then you still have only one objective reality: We just don't exist within it. I don't think that it's possible to have two contradictory realities...

I would agree that you cannot scientifically state, "Black is pretty!", and on this I agree with you. You cannot make a subjective opinion into a quantitive statement, though you CAN state that, statistically, a certain number of people believe this or that, and even (with the right resources) show *why* they believe such a thing (even if it's just a chemical reaction in the brain).

But nonetheless, opinions are often based upon facts; facts that *can* be quantified. If those facts that you base your opinion on are shown to be faulty, then one should be able to question your opinion.

(I.E.: "Blacks are lesser than whites, thanks to genetics." "God created the Earth 6000 years ago." Here's a real argument I saw one time: "Proof of an omnipotent force -- a woman was able to lift a car to save her child.")

[A.DIM]

Such as?

Why is there anything at all?

What is our purpose here?

[SolusLupus]

Why is there anything at all?

Because there is.

What is our purpose here?

Why do we need a purpose?

[A.DIM]

And so those "answers" are scientific?

[SolusLupus]

And so those "answers" are scientific?

Not really.

How do you plan on answering the questions?

[A.DIM]

Not really.

How do you plan on answering the questions?

I don't.

As others have pointed out, some questions simply can not be answered by Science.