I keep having to remind myself that science is self-correcting …

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 20, 2009

Ethics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have often been wearied by legends in their own lunchroom huffing that science differs from other endeavours because it is “self-correcting.”

To which I reply: Aw come off it, fellas. Any system that does not go extinct is self-correcting – after it collapses on its hind end. This is true of governments, businesses, churches, and not-for-profit organizations. I’ve seen enough of life to know.

Here’s a classic: At The Scientist’s NewsBlog, Bob Grant reveals (May 7, 2009) that

Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted.

Elsevier is conducting an “internal review” of its publishing practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the “journal” was corporate sponsored

[ … ]

The allegations involve the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, a publication paid for by pharmaceutical company Merck that amounted to a compendium of reprinted scientific articles and one-source reviews, most of which presented data favorable to Merck’s products. The Scientist obtained two 2003 issues of the journal — which bore the imprint of Elsevier’s Excerpta Medica — neither of which carried a statement obviating Merck’s sponsorship of the publication.

The linked related stories and comments are most illuminating, and bear out my critique of “peer review” here. Let’s just say that peer review started out as a good idea, but …

(Note: There is no paywall, but you may need to register to view the story, .)

Also, today at Colliding Universes

Neutrinos: Sudbury Neutrino Observatory does the sun’s bookkeeping

Origin of life: The live cat vs. the dead cat

Cosmology: Wow. It takes guts to wage war with Stephen Hawking … he appeared in Star Trek

Universe: Arguments against flatness (plus exposing sloppy science writing)

Origin of life: Latest scenario gives RNA world a boost

Colliding Universes is my blog on competing theories about our universe.

Comments

nor among those who are religiously trained or theologically inclined” about the existence of the Christian God.” And what does Scripture predict with regard to the consensus as to the acceptance of Christ? It's becoming more and more clear that the rejection of God is going be based on will guided by emotion rather than reason.tribune7_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, My questions still stand. -----"My invitation remains open. If you have an actual argument regarding memes, then present it." I cannot argue against phantoms. Once you answer my questions, we can begin to discuss, for we will have something to discuss. If you won't answer my questions, there is nothing to be discussed. I can only argue against something once it is a "thing."Clive Hayden_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

---Hazel: "It a fact, as bz says, that “they [Christian apologists] haven’t even come close to reaching a consensus among intelligent people across the globe, nor among those who are religiously trained or theologically inclined” about the existence of the Christian God." But beelzebub is wrong as you are wrong. That neither of you understand or can replicate the argument for Christianity is evidence of that fact. My quess is that neither of you are even remotely familiar with it. ---"It is also true that “Christian apologists have attempted to justify their answer to this question,” as Stephen has done, and is willing to do again, but his sense of the certainty of the arguments is a different matter than whether those answers are in fact compelling. What sense of certainly are you talking about. Have I presented the arguments for Christianity in your presence. I think you are confusing the arguments for the existence of God in general with the arguments for Christianity in particular. ----"The fact that there is not a consensus, and no agreed upon method among mankind for working towards a consensus, is evidence that Stephen’s sense of certainty, while interesting as a psychological phenomena, does not translate to truly having convincing arguments. If they were convincing, more people would be convinced." The fact that you are simply repeating beelzebub's comments [and your earlier paragraph] without adding any thoughts of your own, suggests that you have nothing to say on the matter. Why, then, are you trying to say it. Attacking someone's psychological orientation, as you are trying to attack mine, is not a counter argument. That is doubly true when an argument has not yet even been presented. The question persists: Do you know the rational argument for Christianity, or do you, like beelzebub, argue against that which you know nothing about? Your proclivity, indeed your obssession, over others' "psychological certainly" is based either on an attempt to argue on the basis of an ad-hominem attacks or on a prior committment to relativism which rules out absolute truth in principle, or both. On the one hand, you regard my conviction that truth exists as a kind of pathology, even though that view harmonizes with what almost all people at all times have believed. On the other hand, you interpret your equally firm conviction that truth doesn't exist, a minority position, as a normal human reaction. That should tell you something about your own capacity to be fair and weight the relative merits of competing world view.StephenB_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

StephenB writes:
Excuse me, but it doesn’t really make much sense to say that the Church “cannot” correct itself on matters of dogma. If it declares something as truth that can be corrected at a later date, then either the early statement is false or the latter statement is false.
Exactly! That's why the Church would be wise to follow science's lead and regard all of its "truths" as provisional.
In either case, there would be no way of knowing which statement was truthful.
If the Church can't decide what is true and what isn't, then what business does it have declaring any dogma whatsoever? You've just admitted that the Church has no basis for its claims.
The whole point about defining a dogma is to speak for God—to provide an clear, reliable, and unchanging truth...
How can you "speak for God" if, as you've admitted, you have no way of knowing which statements are truthful? The problem with dogma is that if you get it wrong, it's wrong forever. Lots of religions and churches presume to speak for God. In doing so, they contradict each other. Therefore, at least some of them are mistaken. If they foolishly enshrine their mistakes as dogma, then they are locked into error. And according to you, we have no way of knowing which (if any) are right. Dogma would make sense only if we could be absolutely, 100.0% certain of our tenets. That kind of certainty is not possible for humans. Science recognizes this and leaves the door open for future corrections. Dogmatic religions slam the door shut, lock it, and throw away the key. They are stuck forever with their beliefs, even if they turn out to be false.
A changing truth, even if it was not a contradiction in terms, would be of no value to anyone.
Who said anything about "changing truth"? It's our conception of the truth that changes, not the truth itself.
Oops, sorry I changed my mind about God's nature. For all those who have yet to become martryed, please tell your persecutors that headquarters has finally decided on a more generic definition for God. Meanwhile, we sincerely apologize to the families of those who gave their lives for our prematurely announced doctrine.
In other words, we owe it to past martyrs to stick to our beliefs even if they are wrong. That way future martyrs can die for the same mistaken beliefs. Makes sense to me.
A man either shapes his behavior according to a philosophy of life, or else he will find a philosophy of life to rationalize his behavior.
The smart ones shape their behavior according to a philosophy of life, but they revise their philosophy as they become older and wiser. Why perpetuate the mistakes of youth?
If, as it turns out, there are no dependable, unchanging truths...then all inquiries, scientific, philosophical, and theological are a total waste of time. Why search for something that isn’t there?
Again, who claimed that there are no unchanging truths? Our conceptions of the truth may change, but that doesn't mean that the truth itself is changing beneath our feet.
On the other hand, a mind that is perpetually open on all matters is like a manhole or a toxic waste dump.
That's why it is so important to question everything, including our religious beliefs.
Indeed, it is the mind that is responsible for choosing from among all the world’s belief systems which one, if any, is true.
I agree wholeheartedly. And since the mind is imperfect, it is crucial that we recognize this and provide ourselves a way of detecting and reversing our mistakes. Dogma closes off this possibility.
Only a closed mind rejects as implausible that which has not yet been understood even in the most basic sense.
That's an apt description of Clive's performance on the Tragic Tale of Memes thread.
Still others come here denouncing free will, even as they attempt to turn adversaries and onlookers away from positions “willfully” held.
I see you're still laboring under the misconception that determinism precludes the possibility of persuasion.
In a broader sense, reason cannot logically claim there is no such thing as truth.
Nor do I. My claim is that it is foolish for an imperfect human mind or an imperfect human institution to think that it has arrived, without any possibility of error, at the final, absolute truth. Look at some of the claims the Church makes, apparently with a straight (institutional) face:
Mary was a virgin who gave birth to the literal Son of God, and we cannot possibly be wrong about that. We are 100 percent sure of it, and if you disagree, then be gone. You are not one of us.

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. They are truly transformed, even though they continue to appear, in every respect, as if they were ordinary bread and wine. We are absolutely sure that they are transformed, despite the fact that there is no way, even in principle, of demonstrating this. There can be no doubt on this issue. If you disagree, then there's the door (or the stake), heretic.
Why would the Church even suspect that these beliefs were true, much less declare them to be absolute certainties? It's ludicrous and embarrassing.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

If you have an actual argument regarding memes, then present it.. . Beelzebub, the point you are missing is that you haven't established that you know what memes are.tribune7_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Religion should be dogmatic. Science should not. If an institution should adopt a dogma it would become an institution of religion, not science :-)tribune7_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Clive, My invitation remains open. If you have an actual argument regarding memes, then present it. I will respond, just as I responded to (and refuted) your arguments regarding the supposed consciousness (!) and self-referential incoherence of memes. What I won't do is to teach you, step by painful step, what memes actually are. That is your responsibility, and one that you would have been wise to undertake before you started the Tragic Tale of Memes thread. Had you done so, the thread might not have played out so embarrassingly for you.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, I've already discussed with you my position on macro-evolution, but if you'd like to go into it again, we can! However, it isn't necessary to answer Mr DATCG's question about whether "materialistic evolution" is a bad idea. But if you will allow me a question, I did not know you were deeply learned about ancient Greece. Why did the Pythagoreans throw Hippasus overboard when he revealed his discovery of irrational numbers?Nakashima_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

—-beelzebub: “Contrast that with a religious question as basic as this: does the Christian God exist? Christian apologists have attempted to justify their answer to this question, but they haven’t even come close to reaching a consensus among intelligent people across the globe, nor among those who are religiously trained or theologically inclined.” Yes, they have, because all of the intelligent people across the globe are the ones doing Christian apologetics :)Clive Hayden_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

It a fact, as bz says, that "they [Christian apologists] haven’t even come close to reaching a consensus among intelligent people across the globe, nor among those who are religiously trained or theologically inclined" about the existence of the Christian God. It is also true that "Christian apologists have attempted to justify their answer to this question," as Stephen has done, and is willing to do again, but his sense of the certainty of the arguments is a different matter than whether those answers are in fact compelling. The fact that there is not a consensus, and no agreed upon method among mankind for working towards a consensus, is evidence that Stephen's sense of certainty, while interesting as a psychological phenomena, does not translate to truly having convincing arguments. If they were convincing, more people would be convinced.hazel_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

DATCG, -----"Beelzebub never answered my questions… " Nor mine...Clive Hayden_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

khan, Couple things: The process you explain is only speculation but may be how it happened. In the end it will have to be explained by changes in the genome which by way ID would not dispute if it happened. But until then it makes a nice story. And it may be still micro evolution under our understanding. Again all the necessary systems would have to be identified at the genome level and the information changes evaluated. Glad to see you still lurking and ready to pounce even if it is premature.jerry_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

----beelzebub: "Contrast that with a religious question as basic as this: does the Christian God exist? Christian apologists have attempted to justify their answer to this question, but they haven’t even come close to reaching a consensus among intelligent people across the globe, nor among those who are religiously trained or theologically inclined." Where did you ever get an idea like that? Do you understand the argument in favor or Christianity? If so, state it briefly. I will not penalize you for brevity. Let's see if you do, indeed, understand that which you are criticizing. I can do it in about five paragraphs, and my version will be consistent with what all knowledgeable Christian apologists argue, regardless of sectarian affilition.StephenB_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

jerry, nice attempt at a gotcha on Nakashima. too bad his definition includes both micro- and macro-evolution. for example, think of the evolution of a novel, complex trait: feathers. the first feathers were simple hollow tubes of keratin. These tubes then branched off once to resemble modern down feathers. the tips of these down feathers then branched off again to allow the previous branches to connect, allowing them to function as simple airfoils. all of the stages of the evolution of feathers occurred through the process described by Nakashima: variation, heritability and selection. microevolution adds up to macroevolution.Khan_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

The Great Nakashima has become a pro ID advocate. By agreeing to micro evolution the Great Nakashima has taken the ID position that the only evolution that is explainable is micro evolution. When given the chance to proceed further he didn't and effectively denied anything else existed and in essence denied macro evolution. And it also seems that Nakashima the Great is a Red Sox fan and a true believer in the supernatural. How else could that ground ball have ever evaded Buckner. And how else could the Red Sox be down three games to none and behind in the 9th inning in the 2004 AL Championship series and facing the best closer in baseball and expect to win except with the interference of the supernatural. The odds were vanishingly small but prayers to the Great Designer in the beyond changed a quantum event in our universe and the curse was gone. Welcome oh Great Nakashima to the ID fold.jerry_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Correction: Such a [formulation] is always the fruit of a mind that doesn't know when to open and when to close.StephenB_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

----beelzebub: "Therein lies the problem. Any mistakes the Church makes in deciding what God has and has not “deigned to make known to us” get locked in forever. The Church is thus hopelessly unable to correct itself on matters of dogma." Excuse me, but it doesn't really make much sense to say that the Church "cannot" correct itself on matters of dogma. If it declares something as truth that can be corrected at a later date, then either the early statement is false or the latter statement is false. In either case, there would be no way of knowing which statement was truthful. That is why defined teachings never change. The whole point about defining a dogma is to speak for God---to provide an clear, reliable, and unchanging truth so that God's creatures need not run around forever reinventing the wheel, either theologically or morally. In keeping with that point, it makes little sense to complain about a Pope who would present in dogmatic form, any such thing as an unchanging truth about man’s purpose or role in the cosmic plan. A changing truth, even if it was not a contradiction in terms, would be of no value to anyone. What good is a “changing truth” concerning mankind’s purpose and destiny? How is this for a scenario: ["Go ahead and allow the Romans to feed you to the lions if it means denouncing the Trinitarian God."] [Oops, sorry I changed my mind about God's nature. For all those who have yet to become martryed, please tell your persecutors that headquarters has finally decided on a more generic definition for God. Meanwhile, we sincerely apologize to the families of those who gave their lives for our prematurely announced doctrine.] A man either shapes his behavior according to a philosophy of life, or else he will find a philosophy of life to rationalize his behavior. Life’s big question is, “how should we live?” If, as it turns out, there are no dependable, unchanging truths on which one can rely, or in which we can become “locked in,” then all inquiries, scientific, philosophical, and theological are a total waste of time. Why search for something that isn't there? The purpose of the mind is to pursue truth, which can consist of reasoning toward natural truths or assenting to supernatural truths. Therefore, any declaration by anyone that there is no such thing as truth is, by definition, an act of war against human intelligence. On the other hand, a mind that is perpetually open on all matters is like a manhole or a toxic waste dump. It isn't easy to sift through all the worlds truth claims without becoming cynical, but that is precisely the kind of burden that each of us has been entrusted with. Indeed, it is the mind that is responsible for choosing from among all the world’s belief systems which one, if any, is true. As Chesterton once remarked, the purpose of opening the mind is the same as the purpose for opening the mouth, namely to close it on something solid---truth! The task of wisdom, an attribute more important than knowledge, is to know when to keep the mind open and when to close it. For most things, our mind should remain open indefinitely, but there are a few principles of right reason around which we should close our minds once and for all. We should, among other things, agree that we have rational minds, that we lived in a rational universe, and that there is a correspondence between the two. We should, by extension, close our minds to the proposition that effects can occur without causes, or that a thing can be both truth and false. Even if such things were possible, which they obviously aren’t, then all our searches for truth would be futile and time wasting. Indeed, many on this blog open their minds when they should be closed, and close their minds when they should be open. On the one hand, for example, several bloggers have closed their minds to the self-evident truths that define rational discourse, attempting to use quantum physics as a means of escaping the law of non-contradiction and advancing the proposition that “effects” can occur without causes. They are completely closed to the idea that the Creator’s handiwork could be manifest in nature’s patterns. So closed are their minds on this matter that they come here trying to contest the principles of intelligent design without even bothering to learn the relevant terms and definitions. They dismiss it rhetorically without confronting it scientifically, as is clear from the fact that they cannot, even after being challenged, provide a formal definition of a design inference. Only a closed mind rejects as implausible that which has not yet been understood even in the most basic sense. On the other hand, their minds are “open” to some of the most irrational propositions ever conceived by the mind of man. Many, for example, accept of the ridiculous proposition that art, music, poetry, and love are products of random variation and natural selection. Make no mistake about it, that proposition is, indeed, ridiculous. Others have “opened” up their minds to the idea that an unfathomable universe, measured at thirteen-13.7 billion-light years, needed no cause. Still others posit infinite multiple universes as a means of avoiding the evidence for a fine-tuned universe. Still others come here denouncing free will, even as they attempt to turn adversaries and onlookers away from positions “willfully” held. Because they refuse to close their minds on something solid, they cannot even detect their own contradictions. In a broader sense, reason cannot logically claim there is no such thing as truth. No only does is it a cheap way of debating, it is a self contradictory proposition, since it is also a claim about truth. Such a formulations is always the fruit of a mind that doesn’t know when to open and when to close.StephenB_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, You force me to confirm I am a denier by making me deny I am great! :) PM Erasmus ASAP!! But really, it is simple. Any situation where A population with varying traits that are heritable, in an environment with limited resources, with reproductive success coupled to the environment by some of the traits, over time the change in traits of the population is called "evolution". Extra! Bonus denial in every post: I deny the universe is deterministic. No amount of information available 1 second after the Big Bang could have predicted Bill Buckner letting Mookie Wilson's ground ball roll between his legs. And if you can't predict that, what is left worth predicting? Double extra bonus fortune cookie wisdom: You cannot replace a random variable by its expected value.Nakashima_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

"Is materialist evolution a bad idea? No, just a description of reality. It isn’t dependent on anything special about biology, it is what happens in any situation that meets a few basic criteria. That is why evolutionary algorithms work." Nakashima must be smoking some powerful stuff today. Maybe the Great Nakashima, the Great Denier, should hold forth on the the description of reality he is privy to. No one has been able to explain this reality to us yet but Nakashima the Great, might deign to lower himself to enlighten the masses both here and elsewhere. We impeach that you do not deny us this small favor and tell us which evolutionary algorithms work and why.jerry_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Mr DATCG, Let me assist with some of your questions to Mr Beelzebub. On the list of degrees, he was not referring to himself, but indirectly to another UD/ID personality. Is materialist evolution a bad idea? No, just a description of reality. It isn't dependent on anything special about biology, it is what happens in any situation that meets a few basic criteria. That is why evolutionary algorithms work. Can a consensus on materialist OOL be wrong? Sure, but we haven't reached such a consensus yet! Why can they be wrong about origins? Because all knowledge is provisional. Why do some atheist believe in Panspermia? The mind control laser was malfunctioning that day. Seriously, why not? Atheism and panspermia are orthogonal concepts. Why did Crick appeal to seeding as a possibility? (Not sure "appeal" is the right word here.) Again, why not? If someone is going to ask the narrow question - how did life _on Earth_ begin, then an appeal to seeding by comets, space aliens, etc. is on the table. Generaally, it does create a problem of regression if it is taken to mean space aliens. SETI university course? I could only find one, globally, taught by a SETI researcher. It sounds like SETI is being used as a framework for a general course in exobiology. The SETI community is clear that the only signals they will detect are from entities similar to ourselves. ID should be as modest - it will only detect a Designer who thinks like we do.Nakashima_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

As a service to readers of this thread, KF's lengthy post boils down to the following points:
1. Fixed beliefs don't necessarily indicate error or closed-mindedness. Beliefs may be fixed because they are true and in no further need of modification. 2. Truth and consensus don't necessarily coincide. 3. We shouldn't apply standards of evidence and reason selectively. 4. Talk Origins is bad. Bad, bad, bad.
I agree with all of these except, of course, #4, but they don't have the implications that KF wants them to have. I'll explain later when I have time.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

DATCG, As a simple matter of time, I can't possibly respond to every comment or question that is directed my way, so I choose the ones that seem most relevant to the discussion at hand. Your comments contain a scatttershot fusillade of questions (20 questions in your first comment and 8 in the second) issued more for rhetorical effect than as a matter of honest inquiry. You stand a much better chance of getting a response from me if you pick one or two things I've said, quote them, and explain clearly why you think they are wrong.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Beelzebub never answered my questions... I asked these very kindly. Why did you ignore my questions to you? Again... Are you saying you have two PhD’s, four Masters and a BA? If you are and your point about having a bad idea is correct, then anyone can be wrong, including you. Based upon your point, that should lead us to ask questions. Is materialist evolution a bad idea? Can scientist in the world forming consensus opinions about materialist origins be wrong? Why can they be wrong about origins? Why do some atheist believe in Panspmermia? Why did Francis Crick; a DNA Double-Helix, Nobel Prize winning discoverer appeal to Seeding on planet earth as a possibility? Why is it OK to teach SETI courses on university campuses? Ps. Denyse specified “churches” not multiple religions including atheism. You expanded the argument to shoot down your own strawman. With exception of #4, all items you listed are eliminated as strawmen. I'd appreciate a response.DATCG_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, I just want to say keep up the good work. Your term hyper-skepticism will invariably find its way into the popular lexicon and for good reason. We see way to much of it as it is. It's good we have folks like you here defending against such irrational discourse.Oramus_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

Folks: Let us first of all remind ourselves of the context of this discussion, e.g. by light of that Lewontinian evolutionary materialism that -- thanks to imposition of so-called methodological naturalism -- is now being pushed on us by institutional power on science, education, policymakers and the public:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
In that context of the distortion of science by worldviews level institutional agendas being imposed and enforced by power politics and propagandistic rhetoric at the level of responsible institutions such as the US NAS -- of which Mr Lewontin is a member -- (and given that VJT has aptly pointed out that theologians are perfectly free in our time to teach what they want, just that if they go beyond a certain limit, they may not properly do so as REPRESENTATIVES of the historic, C1, creedally summarised Christian faith), I find BZ's attempted turnaround accusation just above to be not just a mere revealing strawman caricature but outright offensively slanderous demonisation:
When a Church refuses to even consider dissenting opinions on matters of dogma, and discourages dissenters with threats of excommunication, torture or death, we can conclude that it is not truly interested in fostering an environment where self-correction is possible.
Now, let us next turn to a few notes on points: 1 --> Above, at 32, I remarked on the point of self-CORRECTION and progress towards truth (in science and in other domains of knowledge), and on the implications of having arrived at length at the well-warranted truth on a matter:
. . . empirical sciences (should) seek the truth and hopefully progress thereto. But this brings with it the point that the reason why one “progresses” is because there is an end-point: the truth, and we are not there yet, so on discovering how, we may make progress towards the truth. Therefore, just because a particular point or claim has not “progressed” in recent years does not entail that it is in error or is a manifestation of closed-mindedness. For, as the example I gave [i.e the "non-progress" on the non commensurateness of the sides and diagonals of a square on the scope of 2,500 years or so . . . ] shows, it just may be well-warranted, credibly believable truth.
2 --> This of course establishes a basic point by undeniably clear instance: non-progress is not as reliable criterion of the credibility of a field of learning or inquiry. So, the argument by appeal to "progress" (or lack thereof) is a fallacy. For, one may have things that do not progress on certain matters because they have arrived at the object of progress in learning -- the credible, well-warranted truth. 3 --> That much is basic, and sets the context for further serious discussion. (At least, with those sufficiently open to reason to be willing to acknowledge its point and relevance.) 4 --> In its light as well, the relevant epistemological issue is not (i) whether or not a subject has a body of claims that are stable across time, but instead: (ii) whether the relevant claims are well-warranted. So also, the appeal to the notion of progress in a "prestigious" discipline -- in our day, Science -- to try to dismiss bodies of well established knowledge in other disciplines because they do not "progress" in the way scientific explanations sometimes do is utterly wrong headed; though it may succeed as rhetoric. (Rhetoric being here seen as that art that seeks to persuade, rather than to warrant; far too often by deceptive manipulation.) 5 --> Moreover, science itself rests on a cluster of other disciplines that in many key respects do not "progress," i.e. they have more or less definitive findings: mathematics and logic being two key cases in point. 6 --> It also rests on many issues in philosophy and associated worldviews options where one may only select one's position in light of comparative difficulties across alternative major views, and so there are underlying issues of schools of thought that are subject to serious objection and commitment in the face of unresolved difficulties. (Indeed, Mr Lewontin exhibits a -- poorly instructed -- case in point, in his a priori commitment to materialism.) 7 --> Thus, once we move from Lakatos' protective belt of models and findings to the worldviews-tinged core of scientific research programmes and associated paradigms, Science takes on many of the characteristics of worldviews, including theistic ones. (In short, above apples and oranges were being compared.) 8 --> With these points in hand, let us now examine a cluster of claims by BZ, in 34:
Mathematics has not merely stumbled upon the correct answer, nor has it been revealed from on high. It has been discovered and justified in a way that convinces people of all nationalities, cultures, and creeds . . . . Contrast that with a religious question as basic as this: does the Christian God exist? Christian apologists have attempted to justify their answer to this question, but they haven’t even come close to reaching a consensus among intelligent people across the globe, nor among those who are religiously trained or theologically inclined. The Pythagorean insight is not in need of progress, but Christianity surely is, and desperately so . . .
9 --> Here, we see a comparison of apples and oranges working to try to rhetorically undermine a key, well-warranted point -- and notice, this IS a warranted point -- that BZ actually has to grudgingly acknowledge even as he resists the force of it. For, warranted correctness of a claim is utterly distinct from the question of agreement or disagreement or consensus about it. That is: (i) consensus may exist on error (or worse on Plato's Cave style power games that manipulate and frankly deceive a relevant community), and (ii) evident and well-warranted truth may be rejected because one accepts worldview level commitments or opinions that make the actual truth seem absurd. 10 --> Worse, false beliefs (and associated habits of thought and investigation or argument) may distort one's ability or willingness to objectively assess evidence and reason. That is why, for instance, we sometimes speak of what we know or SHOULD know. (And also, that is why I strongly recommend that we examine our worldviews based on comparative difficulties based on comparative factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. [Cf a "primer" here. Onlookers, please notice the specific context: the linked is part of a course reader for Christians studying at College level, and is part of a compulsory course presented at the invitation of the school's leadership. So much for the blanket stereotype of closed-minded dogmatism. And, may I beg to inform us that serious Christians in our day are far more likely to suffer harassment, persecution or even violence than to be the inflicters thereof? (And, that the underlying attitude is based on the EXPLICIT teaching of the NT . . . ? E.g. the well known: "if slapped, turn the other cheek . . ." Indeed, the real challenge in Christian ethics is to find a way to warrant governmental policing and defensive powers in defence of justice and civil peace, the face of determined evildoers. Which balance of difficulties of course reflects the real underlying issue: to keep our sinful, deceptively self-justifying, vengeful impulses in check.)]) 11 --> That is also why I have often brought our attention to the key point raised by Harvard Law Professor and founding father of the theory of evidence, Simon Greenleaf: The error of the skeptic consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth (I have generalised a bit and then described this error as "selective hyperskepticism," to underscore that it is the double standard in demanded degree of warrant that reveals its presence and its self-referentially inconsistent character. We may know, but only in the context that we may be wrong at points and so must be open to correction. But in so seeking warrant that makes us confident that we know, we must not inconsistently demand a degree of evidence for claims we are disinclined to accept that we routinely accept on other similar and important matters that we do not find so threatening.) 12 --> So, in that context, the issue is not (i) whether Christian apologists may or may not seek to find answers to objections to the (in fact, manifestly obvious! . . . ) existence of God; much less (ii) whether they have done so to the satisfaction of critics indulging in selective hyperskepticism, but (iii) whether there is adequate warrant for the key claims of the faith, say as summed up in the 55 AD 1 Cor 15:1 - 11. (And, as I noted to that, here are millions over 2,000 years who have thereby come to know God personally in life-transforming, miracle-working ways in the face of the risen Christ.) GEM of TKI PS: BZ, there is an obvious distinction between Mrs O'Leary being weary of anonymous hecklers spouting selectively hyperskeptical party line rhetoric, and my pointing out that Talk Origins is -- on significant linked evidence -- an unreliable site that is demonstratively prone to strawman misrepresentation tactics. That you seem to want to insist on using such a site in the teeth of such evidence of its unreliability speaks volumes about the want of strength of your case on the merits.kairosfocus_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

vjtorley wrote:
...I can certainly imagine Pope Benedict publicly announcing that because the Catholic Church does not profess to know the precise manner in which Our Lord, Jesus Christ, obtained his Y-chromosome, Catholic theologians are perfectly free to propose speculative hypotheses regarding this question, provided that they loyally adhere to those truths (including the virginal conception of Jesus) which God has deigned to make known to us.
Therein lies the problem. Any mistakes the Church makes in deciding what God has and has not "deigned to make known to us" get locked in forever. The Church is thus hopelessly unable to correct itself on matters of dogma.
Theologians who could not abide by those conditions would of course be free to leave the Catholic fold, and pursue their investigations elsewhere.
And in earlier times they would be encouraged to pursue their investigations in dungeons, on torture tables, or in the next world after having been burned at the stake -- the wood having been generously supplied, free of charge, by the Church. When a Church refuses to even consider dissenting opinions on matters of dogma, and discourages dissenters with threats of excommunication, torture or death, we can conclude that it is not truly interested in fostering an environment where self-correction is possible.beelzebub_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Beelzebub
Imagine the Pope saying "Well, the Bible tells us that Mary was a virgin who was impregnated by the Holy Ghost, but that's an extraordinary claim, and we could easily be wrong about it, so let's ask ourselves how realistic it is and take a hard look at alternative explanations. I encourage everyone in the Church to question this belief." The very thought of Pope Benedict saying something like that makes me laugh.
No, but I can certainly imagine Pope Benedict publicly announcing that because the Catholic Church does not profess to know the precise manner in which Our Lord, Jesus Christ, obtained his Y-chromosome, Catholic theologians are perfectly free to propose speculative hypotheses regarding this question, provided that they loyally adhere to those truths (including the virginal conception of Jesus) which God has deigned to make known to us. Theologians who could not abide by those conditions would of course be free to leave the Catholic fold, and pursue their investigations elsewhere. Oh, and by the way, to speak of the Virgin Mary as being "impregnated by the Holy Ghost" is potentially misleading, as it could suggest (to readers who know little of Christian doctrine) that God somehow inseminated Mary. This harks back to the idea (common in pagan myths) of gods having intercourse with virgins. As you are well aware, this is not what Christianity believes, which is that God is by nature incorporeal, and that Our Savior Jesus Christ took flesh from the Virgin Mary without any Divine seed. That is why the Nicene Creed simply states that "by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man." Exactly how this was effected remains a mystery. Finally, I would like to point out that the mechanics of the Virginal Conception of Jesus Christ need not trouble any Christian. If God can create a universe, then generating a Y-chromosome for His Son should be a piece of cake. Deists who are prepared to accept that God created the cosmos but who refuse to countenance miracles are guilty of the intellectual sin of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, to borrow a Biblical metaphor.vjtorley_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

hazel @43:
I hope that my thoughts on these matters didn’t insult anyone’s intelligence, or put me on the crackpot list.
It did but you are not important enough to be placed on the crackpot list. Unless your real name is Stephen Hawking, of course. LOL.Mapou_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Earlier (19) Mapou wrote (and reiterated in 37),
In the context of paradigm shifts, it has been known for over a century that the spacetime of relativity does not exist because nothing can move in spacetime by definition. This is the reason that Sir Karl Popper compared spacetime to Einstein’s block universe in which nothing happens (Conjectures and Refutations). Nobody has dared to contradict Popper. And yet, you still see physics textbooks by reputable physicists (e.g., Brian Greene and Kip Thorne)that explain gravity in terms of bodies following their geodesics in curved spacetime.
However, I note that in the Popper article Mapou cites, Popper wrote,
Einstein's gravitational theory had led to the result that light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun), precisely as material bodies were attracted. As a consequence it could be calculated that light from a distant fixed star whose apparent position was close to the sun would reach the earth from such a direction that the star would seem to be slightly shifted away from the sun; or, in other words, that stars close to the sun would look as if they had moved a little away from the sun, and from one another. This is a thing which cannot normally be observed since such stars are rendered invisible in daytime by the sun's overwhelming brightness; but during an eclipse it is possible to take photographs of them. If the same constellation is photographed at night one can measure the distance on the two photographs, and check the predicted effect. Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation—in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected.[1] This is quite different from the situation I have previously described, when it turned out that the theories in question were compatible with the most divergent human behavior, so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behavior that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories.
Obviously, Popper accepted that light was influenced by gravity, although he doesn’’t explicitly mention that space, or spacetime (more on that later) itself is curved. Note also that Popper’s example is exactly on target on two issues being discussed here recently. Einstein made a risky prediction: he stated things that would be true if his theory were true, and subsequent experiments confirmed his ideas. The fact that scientific statements lead to testable hypotheses is what makes science correctable, and thus provisional. However, I’d like to stay on this topic about motion in spacetime being impossible, because, as Popper wrote (but Mapou didn’t quote) “nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning.” (Although, and who knows whether Popper realized this, if motion through time is impossible, referencing a beginning is inappropriate.) Making a big but relevant jump, my understanding is that this is the position true theistic evoutionists (TE’s) take about God: since he is omniscient, omnipotent, and most importantly for this discussion, omnipresent, for God there is no flow of time. Everything has already happened - it’s all of a piece through time and space. God had one single act of creation which created all there is, has been and ever will be all at once. However, it looks like there is motion through space and time to us because we can only see locally in both space and time: we see motion because we can only look at a part of the world at a time. God can see globally, and to God there is no change because it all already is. From this point of view, I can accept what Mapou is saying, although I don’t think this is what he had in mind. However, from our point of view, it seems to me that what Mapou is offering is just a version of Zeno’s paradox that motion is impossible, which is an idea that has been dealt with in calculus. Zeno argued, in modern terms, that v = dx/dt had to equal 0 because in a moment dt was 0 and therefore dx had to be 0 also because you couldn’t move a finite distance in a moment of time, and therefore you could move, so v = 0 also. Of course we now know that 0/0 is indeterminate, not 0, and that dx/dt represents the instantaneous velocity. Also, if I start with, for instance x = e^(2t) as an exponential growth equation and differentiate in respect to time, I get dx/dt = 2 e^(2t) dt/dt. Here dt/dt =1, which is not nonsensical. And last, when Mapou writes dt/dt as a formula by itself in respect to spacetime, I think he is making the mistake of thinking that time is separate from space. In a classical Newtonian framework, time is thought of a separate from space, and motion is in time. From this point of view, I can see why Mapou might want to claim that time itself doesn’t move through time, which might be how he is interpreting dt/dt. However, the whole point of the spacetime concept is that space and time are intertangled. I think this is what R0b was referring to (R0b can correct me if I’m wrong) when he wrote, “If “velocity in time = dt/dt” were nonsensical, then how would divorcing the time axis from the spatial axes make it less nonsensical?” We already accept dt/dt as meaningful (or at least, not non-sensical) when we think of time as separate from space. Why is dt/dt all of a sudden non-sensical when time and space are intertwined? I hope that my thoughts on these matters didn’t insult anyone’s intelligence, or put me on the crackpot list.hazel_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

beelzebub @41:
To that extent, it is true that “motion through spacetime” is a sloppy locution. Where Mapou goes off the rails is that he somehow interprets this to mean that time actually does not exist,
If the existence of a time dimension forbids change, why should I hold on to a concept that is so blatantly at odds with observation? Of course, you are completely impervious to the intrinsic contradiction in your argument. But why doe this not surprise me? With a moniker like beelzebub, you proudfully wear your bias and your hate on your sleeve, don't you, beelzebub?Mapou_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply