Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of which matters to the point being made concerning the natural sciences.

It's like talking to a wall..............

Then just do the rest of us a favor and stop talking about sicence, when you are talking about natural science, because natural science is not the only kind of science and not all versions of science depend objectivity in the same sense as natural science. That is all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Natural science equating to common objective standards and the others equate to how humans relate to our common denominators per social construct and as people (cultures)? I'm trying to understand the differences and the application of the types of sciences being referred to.

Example. How to descibe being a human with words who have subjective referents can be consider science, thought it doesn't use common objective standards.

So a very everyday example. You consider a good life... The word good have no objective standard, yet we can talk about it if we allow that there are different subjective standards for it. That is a form of science in that it accepts subjectivity.

 

[Balthazzar]

Example. How to descibe being a human with words who have subjective referents can be consider science, thought it doesn't use common objective standards.

So a very everyday example. You consider a good life... The word good have no objective standard, yet we can talk about it if we allow that there are different subjective standards for it. That is a form of science in that it accepts subjectivity.

Subjective terms refer to relationship dynamics between individuals and environment. The commons would be, imo, the natural observable and tangible aspects that are commonly accepted as objective truth or reality, although conditions differ from place to place. Social and cultural sciences is where my inquiry originates, requiring more definition or distinction between the two types. An attempt to better understand your way of applied science.

 

[Magic Man]

No, it's actually not. Scientific method is simply a hands on way of applying logic to our subjective reasoning to help us recognize and accept "better" alternative conceptualizations. Scientists understand this. Which is why they never declare a theory 'the truth'. The scientism crowd, however, imagines that all apparently functional theory is 'truth'. To the point that they have made science their godless God.

Yes, it actually is. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove bias to the extent that we can. They don't declare a theory "the truth" because "the truth" is not a scientific term. It's subjective and malleable.

Those who accept science accept things that have been essentially proven through the scientific method. They don't generally call it "truth", although at times that could be useful. They also have not made science their godless God. That's a misconception spread by believers who are anti-science. A god is believed in generally without evidence and worshipped. Science is not believed in without evidence or worshipped. The whole point of it is to not accept things without evidence.

 

[Magic Man]

No, it's actually not. Scientific method is simply a hands on way of applying logic to our subjective reasoning to help us recognize and accept "better" alternative conceptualizations. Scientists understand this. Which is why they never declare a theory 'the truth'. The scientism crowd, however, imagines that all apparently functional theory is 'truth'. To the point that they have made science their godle

Now this is not just Danish culture as this can also be found in other cultures, but what science is, is cultural.
You give evidence for what science is as humam behaviour be observing people and asking people what science is to them, i.e. how they understand it.
So the evidence for what science is, is not indepedent of humans and has an elemant of being internal.
Now here is some Danish text about what science is in this culture:
"Naturvidenskaben undersøger fænomener i naturen for at finde de bagved liggende love, også kaldet naturlovene. I samfundsvidenskab og humaniora er man ikke på samme måde interesseret i love. Her retter man i stedet blikket mod forståelse.

I humaniora er man for eksempel interesseret i at forstå menneskets tanker ‘indefra’. Det vil sige, at man forsøger at forstå menneskers motiver, meninger og intentioner. Her handler det blandt andet om at forstå sproget, litteraturen, kunsten og historien."

Hvad er videnskab?

Vi hører ordet ’videnskab’ alle vegne, men hvad betyder det egentlig, og hvornår kan man kalde sig videnskabsmand? Få svaret her.

videnskab.dk

If you google translate you get this:
"Natural science examines phenomena in nature to find the laws behind them, also called the laws of nature. In the social sciences and humanities, people are not interested in laws in the same way. Here, the focus is instead on understanding.

In the humanities, for example, one is interested in understanding human thoughts 'from the inside'. This means that you try to understand people's motives, opinions and intentions. Here it is, among other things, about understanding the language, literature, art and history."

The key words for non-natural science being to understand from the inside.
And now I can ask this: For the claim that evidence matters, is that that evidence matters, with evidence from the method of natural science or is it a case of understanding it from the inside?

The same applies to what science is and what religion is, as in part both are about understanding from the inside using different norms for how to do so.
E.g. that there must be evidence as per natural science if I claim something, is not with evidence, but a norm for how I ought to behave.

So here is a very simple internal rule I use for the universe. Is it external or internal? If external, use natural science. If internal use more than natural science.
And now as a reductio ad absurdum. Since only the external is true and real, the parts in this text about internal understanding is not real at all. In fact, there are not even here as text and you are right now delusional as only the external is true and real.

So here is a simple test for internal. If it is internal, check if other humans can understand it differently. It is that simple.
And then please don't do the following becuase it works in both direction: If I can't understand what matters to you, then it doesn't matter to you. But it is different when it matters to me, because I am special and you are not.

And yes, how external and internal relates to each other, is so far as for all claims I have ever read internal. Regardless of science, religion or philosophy claimed as internal method. Not that there is no external part to the universe, but that there is no evidence, that it is the only part.

The point of science is to determine things about the universe through means that remove as much human bias as possible. That's why scientists do experiments and document them and then have other scientists check their work by doing their own experiments and documenting them. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well.

That's why scientists can work with each other across countries and cultures. Different cultures can have different views on things, including science. But the scientific method itself is always the same. A scientist from America and a scientist from Kenya will perform it the same way. A scientist from Denmark and a scientist from China can work together on a scientific project because, despite cultural differences, the work is the same.

As for the debate, do you know of any model of the universe that is only external and don't require internal understanding in part?

It depends on what you mean. What is "only external", and what is "internal understanding"?

 

[Balthazzar]

Yes, it actually is. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove bias to the extent that we can. They don't declare a theory "the truth" because "the truth" is not a scientific term. It's subjective and malleable.

Those who accept science accept things that have been essentially proven through the scientific method. They don't generally call it "truth", although at times that could be useful. They also have not made science their godless God. That's a misconception spread by believers who are anti-science. A god is believed in generally without evidence and worshipped. Science is not believed in without evidence or worshipped. The whole point of it is to not accept things without evidence.

Evidence relies on and is subject to subjective and malleable truth's, correct? If this is "true", why is this not "true" to god concepts also ... if evidence relies on and is subject to subjective and malleable truth's? The stance seems hypocritical where you apply a double standard based on your lack of subjective evidence. Subjective truth is evidenced subjectively, but it isn't beyond the nature of people to "make things up", either.

I understand the nature of belief and it being truth oriented. I also understand ignorance.

 

[Magic Man]

Evidence relies on and is subject to subjective and malleable truth's, correct? If this is "true", why is this not "true" to god concepts also ... if evidence relies on and is subject to subjective and malleable truth's? The stance seems hypocritical where you apply a double standard based on your lack of subjective evidence. Subjective truth is evidenced subjectively, but it isn't beyond the nature of people to "make things up", either.

I understand the nature of belief and it being truth oriented. I also understand ignorance.

Evidence does not rely on and is not subject to subjective and malleable "truths". That's the whole point of the scientific method, to not rely on those.

 

[Balthazzar]

Evidence does not rely on and is not subject to subjective and malleable "truths". That's the whole point of the scientific method, to not rely on those.

I thought that point was made about theories, and how they are developed. Evidenced how, through what, by what type of experience or understanding? Why is it that definition of terms are so taboo in some circles that so many fail to acknowledge the simplicity of experience being counted as something real?

Edit: The believe in and worship comment followed by the rejection of experience being real compelled me to inquire. I honor (worship) many things I understand to be true based on experience. In some situations, based on experience, things I wouldn't ordinarily do I have found beneficial to do with adequate conditions. Is this not an application of the scientific method? Things like fidelity and standing as an ally, for example. Subjective per individual and according to conditions and experiences, this method has been the long standing way of life long before determining scientific method to be the definition for the practice. Religion is no different in application for most people who truly understand the religion they belong to.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

An computer system will respond differently according to it's internal programming. You cannot understand how it will react or respond to any given input without knowledge of its internal programming.

An AI system even though it may start out with the same initial program will develop differently depending on different information received externally, stored in its memory and used in its decision making process.

If one were to examine one of these AI systems to understand its programming, all of the environmental information gathered and stored and from that predict how it would react/respond to any given situation, would that be external or internal understanding?

If you took two of these AI systems and gave them the same input or put them in the same situation, because of their different historical inputs, stored memory, the decision/responses they made would be different.

Because of this, would you consider one or both AI systems delusional?

Two identical Turing Machines hooked up to different Oracles will also behave differently.

Because the Oracles have different answers to the prayers of the Turing Machine.

This is used to define Turing Degrees (ie: Degrees of Unsolvability) in Recursion Theory.

Nanobot (Havana Parody) | A Capella Science ft. Dorothy Andrusiak

 

[Magic Man]

I thought that point was made about theories, and how they are developed. Evidenced how, through what, by what type of experience or understanding? Why is it that definition of terms are so taboo in some circles that so many fail to acknowledge the simplicity of experience being counted as something real?

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you can clarify, I'd be happy to respond.

 

[gnostic]

No, it's actually not. Scientific method is simply a hands on way of applying logic to our subjective reasoning to help us recognize and accept "better" alternative conceptualizations. Scientists understand this. Which is why they never declare a theory 'the truth'. The scientism crowd, however, imagines that all apparently functional theory is 'truth'. To the point that they have made science their godless God.

Ah…I never use the word “truth”, when I talk about any science in Natural Sciences. I always referred to as models or theories that are tested and supported by TESTS and OBSERVATIONS…observations that include EXPERIMENTS & EVIDENCE, and the all-important DATA that are acquired from observations in the above experiments & evidence.

Without these tests and observations, the models are not science. That how the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method are essential requirements for Natural Sciences and for Physical Sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology, Earth sciences & astronomy.

Of course , there are limitations to Natural Sciences, they are studies of nature. Scientific theories in Natural Sciences don’t have anything to do with human cultures and human behaviours.

If you want to talk about people’s (humans, of course) behaviours, emotions, thoughts, social interactions in community or society, their cultures, etc, then Natural Sciences would be the wrong sciences to deal with these situations.

Anything that relate to human behaviour, human cultures, human social interactions, etc, then you would be and should be using Social Sciences, like anthropology, sociology, psychology, behavioural sciences, archaeology, political science, economics, and many more.

The question is why that you and @mikkel_the_dane have the tendencies to mix everything up.

If the subject is about Universe, galaxies, stars, planets, etc, then the sciences require to deal with these, would physics, astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology…hence Natural Sciences. You wouldn’t be talking about consciousness or culture or human behaviour in about astronomical objects.

You often accuse people of scientism, when it has nothing to do with scientism. I am not the one being scientism, when I separate Natural Sciences from Social Sciences.

Natural Sciences strictly have to adhere to Falsifiability and Scientific Method…Social Sciences don’t.

There are places for Social Sciences and there are places for Natural Sciences. Why would you (or mikkel) mixed these two together, and then blame everyone who disagreed with you as scientism?

Your confusion over which and which, and using this stupid strawman Scientism, are truly annoying. Whenever I read your posts and use this stupid scientism BS, I have less respect of you and your opinion, because you acting like a creationist.

 

[gnostic]

Two identical Turing Machines hooked up to different Oracles will also behave differently.

Because the Oracles have different answers to the prayers of the Turing Machine.

This is used to define Turing Degrees (ie: Degrees of Unsolvability) in Recursion Theory.

Nanobot (Havana Parody) | A Capella Science ft. Dorothy Andrusiak

what in the h@## are you talking about?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

what in the h@## are you talking about?

Mathematics and Logic.

 

[Balthazzar]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you can clarify, I'd be happy to respond.

Experience equates to how we subjectively relate to our environments, which is how we observe objectively and subjectively.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The point of science is to determine things about the universe through means that remove as much human bias as possible. That's why scientists do experiments and document them and then have other scientists check their work by doing their own experiments and documenting them. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well.

...

Well, that is one understanding of science. In Denmark we have cultural science, which accepts human subjectivity in another sense that your version.
In effect "The point of science..." have no objective referent for the point of science and no evidence for it. The point of science is cultural, social and so on. And for human behaviour it is one way to understand aspects of the universe.
BTW as I were taught it science in not natural science or even science as such for some understandings of it.

 

[gnostic]

Mathematics.

I know what a Turing machine is, but what does it have to do with oracle and prayers?

is the oracle what I think it means? Or is it something else?

Your post provide little in term of contexts, hence my my confusion.

 

[gnostic]

Evidence relies on and is subject to subjective and malleable truth's, correct? If this is "true", why is this not "true" to god concepts also ... if evidence relies on and is subject to subjective and malleable truth's? The stance seems hypocritical where you apply a double standard based on your lack of subjective evidence. Subjective truth is evidenced subjectively, but it isn't beyond the nature of people to "make things up", either.

I understand the nature of belief and it being truth oriented. I also understand ignorance.

what I find hypocritical and ignorant, is this post of yours.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I know what a Turing machine is, but what does it have to do with oracle and prayers?

is the oracle what I think it means? Or is it something else?

Your post provide little in term of contexts, hence my my confusion.

An Oracle is just a countable infinite sequence of answers to a countable infinite sequence of questions (all expressed in a language with a finite alphabet) that the Turing Machine is allowed to ask.

Different Oracles will provide different answers, so the same Turing Machine will behave differently, depending on the answers to life, the universe, and everything that it receives from the Oracle.

All of the Turing Machine’s questions have answers, but the answers depend on the Oracle that the Turing Machine is in communication with, which in turn effects the behavior of the Turing Machine, should the Turing Machine choose to make use of the answers to its prayers in determining its behavior.

It’s just Logic.

Some people don’t like Logic, just like some people don’t like Dance.

I can live with that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The point of science is to determine things about the universe through means that remove as much human bias as possible. That's why scientists do experiments and document them and then have other scientists check their work by doing their own experiments and documenting them. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well.

That's why scientists can work with each other across countries and cultures. Different cultures can have different views on things, including science. But the scientific method itself is always the same. A scientist from America and a scientist from Kenya will perform it the same way. A scientist from Denmark and a scientist from China can work together on a scientific project because, despite cultural differences, the work is the same.


It depends on what you mean. What is "only external", and what is "internal understanding"?

There is no objective point of science as with evidence. Your understanding is not objective, it is cultural, social and internal in your subjective cognition.
You can't point to the point. The point is not something you see as through external observation with your eyes. The point is in your mind as your understand you can intersubjectively share with other humans, who agree with you subjectively.

Learn the history, culture and philosophy of science before you start claim that you are authorative about what science is. Nobody is that in the end, because there is no strong external, objective standard for it.

 

[Magic Man]

Experience equates to how we subjectively relate to our environments, which is how we observe objectively and subjectively.

Still not understanding your meaning. This is about the scientific method, which is how we determine things about the universe as objectively as possible.