Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

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?

 

[Nakosis]

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?

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?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

Remember this is all a reductio ad absurdum.
No, the uinverse is not binary and there are no internal parts. It is all external, objective, physical and not even programs or what not. It is all objective physical facts and it is delusional to talk about internal as real. It is not. It is external, hard, objective physical facts and notthing else.
Even yes and no are both nothing but external, hard, objective physical facts and notthing else and the same as being just external, hard, objective physical facts.

Now, as serious. I use delusional as a joke. I should have made that clear. But it is used in earnest by some people from both camps of science versus religion and in fect in most case it is not a fact. It is a smear. I should have made that clear, but I am not going to edit it away.

 

[HonestJoe]

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?

I think you're somewhat mixing up a range of different concepts and ideas here, with various elements of technical, metaphorical and rhetorical uses of terms to reach a particular conclusion.

I think you're making too much of the difference between natural sciences and social sciences, and it is significant that while those differences involve the direction of focus, they still both rely on observable evidence. Evidence in the social sciences may often (though not always) be more difficult to measure and classify, that is a problem with us, not the evidence. The core scientific principles that are applied are the same.

I think a fundamental issue with the question you end on is the anthropocentrism. When you talk about the importance of "the internal", you're essentially talking about the importance of humans (or at least intelligent life in general). For most reasonable models of the universe though, we're an irrelevance and it would be perfectly possible for the universe to exist without humans at all (after all, it did for a long time before we evolved and likely will for a long time after we're gone and forgotten). The internal element is really about our perceptions of the universe, and rather than being an important element, that is largely a mass of limitations and flaws. What we understand about the universe and how the universe actually is can be (and probably are) quite different.

Also, while you only mentioned it in passing, given that it is in your title and the nature of the forum, I will point out that religion is largely irrelevant to this topic, of no more note than any other human groupings or behaviours. The all too common effort to contrast science and religion as competing or contrasting opposites is just wrong. Science is a cohesive set of processes and tools used to understand the universe around us. Religion is a range of different (and often contradictory) groupings of beliefs and practices, generally conclusions about the nature of the universe around us. It isn't like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and elephants.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you're somewhat mixing up a range of different concepts and ideas here, with various elements of technical, metaphorical and rhetorical uses of terms to reach a particular conclusion.

I think you're making too much of the difference between natural sciences and social sciences, and it is significant that while those differences involve the direction of focus, they still both rely on observable evidence. Evidence in the social sciences may often (though not always) be more difficult to measure and classify, that is a problem with us, not the evidence. The core scientific principles that are applied are the same.

I think a fundamental issue with the question you end on is the anthropocentrism. When you talk about the importance of "the internal", you're essentially talking about the importance of humans (or at least intelligent life in general). For most reasonable models of the universe though, we're an irrelevance and it would be perfectly possible for the universe to exist without humans at all (after all, it did for a long time before we evolved and likely will for a long time after we're gone and forgotten). The internal element is really about our perceptions of the universe, and rather than being an important element, that is largely a mass of limitations and flaws. What we understand about the universe and how the universe actually is can be (and probably are) quite different.

Also, while you only mentioned it in passing, given that it is in your title and the nature of the forum, I will point out that religion is largely irrelevant to this topic, of no more note than any other human groupings or behaviours. The all too common effort to contrast science and religion as competing or contrasting opposites is just wrong. Science is a cohesive set of processes and tools used to understand the universe around us. Religion is a range of different (and often contradictory) groupings of beliefs and practices, generally conclusions about the nature of the universe around us. It isn't like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and elephants.

From your post: "... For most reasonable models of the universe though, we're an irrelevance ..."
Yeah, that is internal as for irrelevance and that is my point. The same with reasonable and even what the universe is.

As long as you functional do an in effect absurdity of the internal is internally irrelevant, I just do it differently.

As for the rest of your post, it ends the same way. As long as you take for granted that what matters to you in how you understand is somehow different for all other different ways of understanding, because your understand is fundamentally different because you say so.

BTW what is your evidence for what religion is? Because it can't be based on science, because religion is not around us and in the universe around us, so you are not using science according to your own understanding of science. So what are you using, when you claim you know what religion is?

 

[Nakosis]

Remember this is all a reductio ad absurdum.
No, the uinverse is not binary and there are no internal parts. It is all external, objective, physical and not even programs or what not. It is all objective physical facts and it is delusional to talk about internal as real. It is not. It is external, hard, objective physical facts and notthing else.
Even yes and no are both nothing but external, hard, objective physical facts and notthing else and the same as being just external, hard, objective physical facts.

Now, as serious. I use delusional as a joke. I should have made that clear. But it is used in earnest by some people from both camps of science versus religion and in fect in most case it is not a fact. It is a smear. I should have made that clear, but I am not going to edit it away.

Ok, yes sometimes I find that I've taken a comment too serious.
However then to answer your question then, while I'd suppose one might be able to create a model which didn't include an understanding of some "internal" system. We usually call that a "black box" model.

Such a system is generally useful enough when someone, usually the designer, has been able to predict the greatest number of inputs.

 

[PureX]

Perception is conception. There is no avoiding this for we humans. So the idea that there is some external objective truth 'out there' waiting to be determined via collected and observed "evidence" is absurd. The collecting and observing render the supposed objective evidence, subjective evidence, and there is no way of avoiding this.

Leaving us with the choice of either accepting this reality, and what it means for humanity, or denying it in some vain attempt at maintaining some delusional fantasy of our truth seeking. The truth is that for we humans, perception is conception. Meaning that the objective and the subjective are irrevocably intermingled. The truth is both.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, yes sometimes I find that I've taken a comment too serious.
However then to answer your question then, while I'd suppose one might be able to create a model which didn't include an understanding of some "internal" system. We usually call that a "black box" model.

Such a system is generally useful enough when someone, usually the designer, has been able to predict the greatest number of inputs.

Yeah, but the joke is that so far I have seen no evidence that useful is external.
And that is as far as I can tell the problem with the concept of the uinverse. It is in effect self referential in part and always rely on some internal understanding of what the universe really is.

So let me explain it as I learn that. For any version of knowledge and related claims as a skeptic, I learned to ask while understanding that I ask: How do we know that we know?
The moment yo in effect not take for granted that you know, but ask how do I know that I know, you could learn something new.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

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?

The text itself makes a distinction between "natural science" and "social science".

Therein can you find your answer. I'm starting to understand your confusion.
Biology, physics, chemistry, geology,... = natural science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perception is conception. There is no avoiding this for we humans. So the idea that there is some external objective truth 'out there' waiting to be determined via collected and observed "evidence" is absurd. The collecting and observing render the supposed objective evidence, subjective evidence, and there is no way of avoiding this.

The scientific method is literally designed to avoid human bias as much as possible.

This is why we use a thermometer to measure heat instead of our finger.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The text itself makes a distinction between "natural science" and "social science".

Therein can you find your answer. I'm starting to understand your confusion.
Biology, physics, chemistry, geology,... = natural science.

Well, it has in effect for my culture 4 kind of science and not just 2. And then even some who can be classified as semi-sceince.
So in general there is the sceince of science, natural science, cultural sicence and human science. The last one considers subjective true and real in some sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The scientific method is literally designed to avoid human bias as much as possible.

This is why we use a thermometer to measure heat instead of our finger.

Yeah, but the problem is that we can't aviod all forms of bias, as far as I can tell. So if you want a model of the universe including humans you have to include bias as true and real.
I get that natural science works, but only in a limeted sense and that you in effect appear not to like that, as far as I can tell. But that you don't like it, is not natrual science.

You might want to learn that all words are signs, have a defintion and a referent. And then learn to check if the referent is able to be done with natural science or not. It is that simple.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, it has in effect for my culture 4 kind of science and not just 2. And then even some who can be classified as semi-sceince.
So in general there is the sceince of science, natural science, cultural sicence and human science. The last one considers subjective true and real in some sense.

When we talk about science in this forum in context of understanding objective reality, we are talking about the natural sciences.

Biology, physics, chemistry, geology,...

Seems rather obvious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When we talk about science in this forum in context of understanding objective reality, we are talking about the natural sciences.

Biology, physics, chemistry, geology,...

Seems rather obvious.

Yeah, but that is not all of the universe. I know that some people think in effect that natural science is better or some other words to a similar effect, but to me that is a form of bias in favor of that as a postive bias.
At least that is how I learned that as part of the science that is not natural science.

So again, it is rather obvious that the universe is not just objective reality.

 

[PureX]

The scientific method is literally designed to avoid human bias as much as possible.

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.

This is why we use a thermometer to measure heat instead of our finger.

All the thermometer does is apply our subjectively determined value increments on our conceptual experience of heat. We could have labeled it with letters instead of numbers for all it actually does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, but the problem is that we can't aviod all forms of bias, as far as I can tell.

"...as much as possible".

Also, this is why processes like peer review and repeats of experiments exist. Because you don't trust other people's results. Heck you don't even trust your OWN results, which is why many experiments will also include control groups.

Science as a process, seems to be doing a very good job at eliminating human bias in the big picture.
Sure there is the occasional slip up, but it is in the very nature of science that these will be sniffed out sooner or later.
The reason is that science moves forward based on the work that's been done before it.

So if a certain conclusion is wrong, this will be found out sooner or later as the science will hit a wall.

For example, we can be confident that atomic theory is pretty accurate because nukes explode and nuclear power plants deliver electricity.
We can be confident that relativity is pretty accurate because GPS accurately pinpoints our position on the earth.

So if you want a model of the universe including humans you have to include bias as true and real.

Off course we acknowledge bias to be true and real. It's why we have the scientific method... Because we acknowledge this bias and realize we need to work around it to get to reliable and trustworthy answers to questions about the workings of the universe. This is why we have a method of inquiry that includes a bazillion safeguards to keep bias out as best as we can.

I get that natural science works, but only in a limeted sense and that you in effect appear not to like that, as far as I can tell.

Depends what you mean by "limited".
So far, I haven't seen you make a reasonable argument concerning this limit - and it's not by lack of me asking.

Everytime you seem to go on a tangent about objective vs subjective mumbo jumbo. And in light of your OP, it finally starts to make sense to me.... It sounds like you confuse natural science with social science.

I'm talking about natural science. Not about social science. In fact, I have very little interest in social science. Not to be confused with me thinking it doesn't have its place or use. It's just that it doesn't interest me much.

But that you don't like it, is not natrual science.

Or true.

You might want to learn that all words are signs, have a defintion and a referent. And then learn to check if the referent is able to be done with natural science or not. It is that simple.

That sentence makes little sense to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, but that is not all of the universe.

Nobody said it is.
Please stop with arguing these strawmen.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, but the joke is that so far I have seen no evidence that useful is external.
And that is as far as I can tell the problem with the concept of the uinverse. It is in effect self referential in part and always rely on some internal understanding of what the universe really is.

So let me explain it as I learn that. For any version of knowledge and related claims as a skeptic, I learned to ask while understanding that I ask: How do we know that we know?
The moment yo in effect not take for granted that you know, but ask how do I know that I know, you could learn something new.

I've no problem with folks learning something new. I think science can help with that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"...as much as possible".

Also, this is why processes like peer review and repeats of experiments exist. Because you don't trust other people's results. Heck you don't even trust your OWN results, which is why many experiments will also include control groups.

Science as a process, seems to be doing a very good job at eliminating human bias in the big picture.
Sure there is the occasional slip up, but it is in the very nature of science that these will be sniffed out sooner or later.
The reason is that science moves forward based on the work that's been done before it.

So if a certain conclusion is wrong, this will be found out sooner or later as the science will hit a wall.

For example, we can be confident that atomic theory is pretty accurate because nukes explode and nuclear power plants deliver electricity.
We can be confident that relativity is pretty accurate because GPS accurately pinpoints our position on the earth.




Off course we acknowledge bias to be true and real. It's why we have the scientific method... Because we acknowledge this bias and realize we need to work around it to get to reliable and trustworthy answers to questions about the workings of the universe. This is why we have a method of inquiry that includes a bazillion safeguards to keep bias out as best as we can.



Depends what you mean by "limited".
So far, I haven't seen you make a reasonable argument concerning this limit - and it's not by lack of me asking.

Everytime you seem to go on a tangent about objective vs subjective mumbo jumbo. And in light of your OP, it finally starts to make sense to me.... It sounds like you confuse natural science with social science.

I'm talking about natural science. Not about social science. In fact, I have very little interest in social science. Not to be confused with me thinking it doesn't have its place or use. It's just that it doesn't interest me much.



Or true.


That sentence makes little sense to me.

It is funny how I learn to spot non-science words in claims of science. All I did were to read your text for science and non-science and then stop with I spooted the first non-science word. And it connects to faith as trust. Your word was trustworthy.
If I ask you to do that word without subjective mumbo jumbo, you couldn't.
That is your kind and sub-culture and not just you. You do your own kind of subjective mumbo jumbo, but you really do, because you are really objectively special in your own subjective understanding.

But for the rest of your post, I like that you are honest. And you state your subjective interest. That is good.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobody said it is.
Please stop with arguing these strawmen.

And stop using words like drivel as if that is objective and without bias.

BTW that this is in part the sub-forum for science doesn't tell us what version it is.