Fact, Belief, and Faith

[shunyadragon]

This is very basic.
Sentences with propositional content (like " it's raining") are claims regarding truths about reality. Hence they are truth-claims. Not all sentences are such (eg. "Let us go to the movies" is a request and can't be said to be either true or false).

Non of the above represents science. scientific hypothesis nor theories make claims that something is true nor false,

Science is in the business of gathering evidence for or against various truth claims about the world.

Actually, theories and hypothesis cannot propose to falsify the negative nor against anything. They can only falsify positive proposals for theories and hypothesis.

Disagree all you like, but science is a method of knowing (epistemology)precisely because it does this evaluation through the scientific method.

All propositional statements have truth value. See below
Truth Values (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

No references in the Stanford Encyclopedia describe science making 'Truth claims. In fact other reference describe 'Truth Claims' as 'belief system claims' (wikipedia) and others consider it controversial as far as science is concerned.

Excellent reference here on the concept of 'Truth Values' in different contexts, but nothing here reflects your claim that science makes 'Truth Claims.' It is best from the scientific view versus theological/philosophical truth is to look up the correspondence theory of truth versus the coherent theory of truth. Among these references it discusses a hybrid theory of truth I like, but I do not remember exactly where.

 

[David T]

Bunch of nonsense, beliefs can often be facts, scientists believe a lot of things, they believe some things are facts, and as time has told, they're not always right.

Science is mostly based on theories, if a theories seems valid enough with a great probability of being true it starts getting labeled a fact, but even then facts have turned out not to be true, many times.

Agreed. The whole process flowed right up and out of my degree theology which itself is pure narrative fabrication in projection onto.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't use the term "chance" when describing emergent properties of stochastic systems.
But there are random elements in probabilistic processes such as evolution.
Do you disagree?

There are no observed 'random' elements in any natural processes of the macro world. The observed variation in the outcomes is fractal and has no causal relationship to the outcomes. The use of the layman word 'chance' in terms of any outcomes of natural cause and effect relationships is bogus and non-science.

 

[David T]

Non of the above represents science. scientific hypothesis nor theories make claims that something is true nor false,

Seems to be a lot of scientific thinking projected onto the bible and a lot of philosophical fantasy projected onto nature.

 

[shunyadragon]

To say that the claim may be wrong is not the same as saying that it isn't a truth claim. What is happening above is the counter-claim that the speed of light is not constant. Both are truth claims. And both have their truth *value* dependent on observation, like good science would dictate.

Moving the goal posts, *truth value* is most definitely not defined the same as making "Truth Claims" by definition.

 

[shunyadragon]

Seems to be a lot of scientific thinking projected onto the bible and a lot of philosophical fantasy projected onto nature.

Methodological Naturalism is neutral to any claims of *truth value* not 'Truth Claims' concerning the Bible, because of the miraculous non-scientific claims of those that believe in a non-scientific explanation.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are no observed 'random' elements in any natural processes of the macro world. The observed variation in the outcomes is fractal and has no causal relationship to the outcomes. The use of the layman word chance in terms of any outcomes of natural cause and effect relationships is bogus and non-science.

If you take issue with a particular post of mine, feel free to quote it, & respond.
Until then, you're just tilting against straw men.
(I like mixed metaphors.)

In the evolution of species, one random element is genetic damage or modification due to
various sources, eg, background radiation, viruses. This is not to say that evolution is "due
to chance", as some anti-evolution types are want to claim. But random genetic changes
do happen, & they are one component of the system we call "evolution". If you deny that
there is any randomness in natural systems, then I invite you to justify this.

As for random elements in the macro world, there are examples, such as....
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/discovery/
Its unpredictability is what made it a random event.
And it had an enormous effect on evolution.

 

[David T]

There are no observed 'random' elements in any natural processes of the macro world. The observed variation in the outcomes is fractal and has no causal relationship to the outcomes. The use of the layman word chance in terms of any outcomes of natural cause and effect relationships is bogus and non-science.

Shunny I walk out in wilder areas a lot not total absense of people but a lot in forests here on tbe oregon coast. There is no such thing as random chance. I would say fractals are mathmatical simile, to what i am alluding to. Yes i would say thats a good way of putting it. There are aspects of math i like as simile more than literal, or we run our brains as reality creators. I like whitehead, I think he sort of tried to work through that. Godel blew math up as primary for him.

 

[David T]

Methodological Naturalism is neutral to any claims of *truth value* not 'Truth Claims' concerning the Bible.

Yea well its definitely minority in science but exists might say that is good science.

 

[sayak83]

Non of the above represents science. scientific hypothesis nor theories make claims that something is true nor false,

So you are not scientific realist?
Scientific Realism and Antirealism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I am yet to encounter a scientist who is not a scientific realist in some sense or the other.

If scientific hypothesis or theories are not claims that are true or false, what does it mean when scientists say that a theory has been falsified or that the evidence from the experiments have confirmed the existence of Higgs boson to a 5 sigma confidence?
5 Sigma What's That?

When you say that science does not deal with truth/falsity, you are effectively saying (ala Frege and Tarski) that scientific concepts do not refer. That is there are no phenomena out there to whom scientific terms like force, atoms, energy, genes etc. point to or can ever point to. (with some approximation appropriate to the level of precision desired).This will make scientific theories meaningless fictions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Several definitions I put together tonight while bored and watching Frasier. ... (Put in the Science Religion forum because facts are the operational basis of science whereas faith is the operational basis of religion.)

Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.

Fact is rooted in conviction that a thing is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold acceptance* The core of science and day-to-day living.

​

Belief: The acceptance that a non-factual thing exists or is true.

An occasional encouragement in our day-to-day musings. It serves as the basis of faith.

​

Faith: Trust in a belief.

For some, the balm of everyday concerns. Most notably, the trust put in the supernatural and some religious writings. For others, it's simply the confidence that the other guy at the intersection isn't going to T-bone you as you proceed.​

Okay, it's bedtime, any deletions, revisions, or ?



* With a nod to Stephen Jay Gould

.

I believe atheists respond to religion from a deep, emotional place of faith, rather than fact.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you are not scientific realist?
Scientific Realism and Antirealism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I am yet to encounter a scientist who is not a scientific realist in some sense or the other.

If scientific hypothesis or theories are not claims that are true or false, what does it mean when scientists say that a theory has been falsified or that the evidence from the experiments have confirmed the existence of Higgs boson to a 5 sigma confidence?
5 Sigma What's That?

When you say that science does not deal with truth/falsity, you are effectively saying (ala Frege and Tarski) that scientific concepts do not refer. That is there are no phenomena out there to whom scientific terms like force, atoms, energy, genes etc. point to or can ever point to. (with some approximation appropriate to the level of precision desired).This will make scientific theories meaningless fictions.

I might be able to clarify things.....
Science doesn't deal with truth (in the sense of being universal & inerrant),
since all theories are subject to revision. Theories are at best "useful".
But it does deal with falsification, because theories can be shown to be false.

 

[sayak83]

I might be able to clarify things.....
Science doesn't deal with truth (in the sense of being universal & inerrant),
since all theories are subject to revision. Theories are at best "useful".
But it does deal with falsification, because theories can be shown to be false.

One can't infallibly know a proposition is true or not unless it's a definitional or logical/mathematical statements. But one can attach degree of confidence regarding truth property of a proposition (like is it true that it's raining outside?) based on the evidence available. Science is a systematic investigative method by which such assessments regarding confidence regarding the truth/falsity of propositions regarding the world are ascertained.

Given this, science does indeed deal with truth. It tells us how much evidence based confidence one ought to place regarding multiple competing truth claims made about the past, current and future states of the world.

Is this not obvious?

 

[Revoltingest]

One can't infallibly know a proposition is true or not unless it's a definitional or logical/mathematical statements. But one can attach degree of confidence regarding truth property of a proposition (like is it true that it's raining outside?) based on the evidence available. Science is a systematic investigative method by which such assessments regarding confidence regarding the truth/falsity of propositions regarding the world are ascertained.

Given this, science does indeed deal with truth. It tells us how much evidence based confidence one ought to place regarding multiple competing truth claims made about the past, current and future states of the world.

Is this not obvious?

I have the more pedantic approach, ie, that a posteriori knowledge isn't "truth".
To modify George Box's quote....
All theories are possibly wrong, but some are really useful.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you take issue with a particular post of mine, feel free to quote it, & respond.
Until then, you're just tilting against straw men.
(I like mixed metaphors.)

In the evolution of species, one random element is genetic damage or modification due to
various sources, eg, background radiation, viruses. This is not to say that evolution is "due
to chance", as some anti-evolution types are want to claim. But random genetic changes
do happen, & they are one component of the system we call "evolution". If you deny that
there is any randomness in natural systems, then I invite you to justify this.

As for random elements in the macro world, there are examples, such as....
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/discovery/
Its unpredictability is what made it a random event.
And it had an enormous effect on evolution.

There is absolutely no problem justifying this, and it is not a 'random' event. By definition random events are without known cause. The impact of large meteorites have known causes based on natural laws, and are predictable based on simple Newtonian Physics. Today scientists are monitoring with a very high predictive value of the paths of solar meteorites, and the detailed evaluation of at least one extra solar visitor. If we were around with out technology at the time of this meteorite we could easily predict the impact, the size of the meteorite and its impact effects.

There is no such thing as "evolution by chance," because the bogus layman concept of chance has no known observable cause and effect outcomes in nature including evolution.

Your consistently using the problem of falsification 'in the phony negative sense." to justify Intelligent Design, because you claim the bogus negative that because natural evolution cannot be falsified due to the bogus problem of "evolution by chance," and therefore ID is the best explanation.

 

[shunyadragon]

One can't infallibly know a proposition is true or not unless it's a definitional or logical/mathematical statements. But one can attach degree of confidence regarding truth property of a proposition (like is it true that it's raining outside?) based on the evidence available. Science is a systematic investigative method by which such assessments regarding confidence regarding the truth/falsity of propositions regarding the world are ascertained.

Given this, science does indeed deal with truth. It tells us how much evidence based confidence one ought to place regarding multiple competing truth claims made about the past, current and future states of the world.

Is this not obvious?

Science deals with *truth value" and not "Truth Claims."

@Sapiens response was simple and straight forward concerning the making of "Truth Claims" in science.

Science does not operate on the binary basis of "truth" claims, rather it operates in the continuum of probability.

Hypothesis and theories can be very complex and do not rely on the binary basis of "Truth Claims" but can rely on partial falsification pending more research and knowledge. The Young science of abiogenesis is a classic example. There is the over all hypothesis that organic life evolved from non-living chemicals. This hypothesis has many partial hypothesis involving the environment, energy, possible catalysts to facilitate formation of organic molecules, and the steps from the formation of organic RNA/DNA to self replicating organism. All the proposed sub-hypothesis may be found falsified or partially falsified, and subject to modification, and others fail. As in all the sciences even those hypothesis that appear to fail may be resurrected, modified and retested.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is absolutely no problem justifying this, and it is not a 'random' event. By definition random events are without known cause. The impact of large meteorites have known causes based on natural laws, and are predictable based on simple Newtonian Physics. Today scientists are monitoring with a very high predictive value of the paths of solar meteorites, and the detailed evaluation of at least one extra solar visitor. If were around with out technology at the time of this meteorite we could easily predict the impact, the size of the meteorite and its impact effects.

That's not a very useful definition of "random".
Knowing that there are natural causes for unpredictable events still allows us
to treat them statistically (which is based upon randomness of occurrence).
We still cannot predict when the next big life altering collision will occur.

I'm guessing that you're saying that reality has "deterministic chaos", & that
this has no random components. But if a chaotic system behavior cannot be
predicted, it's reasonable to call the effect "random", & treat it statistically.

There is no such thing as "evolution by chance," because the bogus layman concept of chance has no known observable cause and effect outcomes in nature including evolution.

And I've never said "evolution by chance".

Your consistently using the problem of falsification 'in the phony negative sense." to justify Intelligent Design.....

At this point, I must ask if you're being mischievous in pushing this absurd claim that I justify ID.
I've said it's "unscientific". I've given the reason that it's not testable, ie, not falsifiable.
You're just getting this all wrong.

 

[sayak83]

I have the more pedantic approach, ie, that a posteriori knowledge isn't "truth".
To modify George Box's quote....
All theories are possibly wrong, but some are really useful.

So "it's raining outside" is neither true or false?

 

[dfnj]

Several definitions I put together tonight while bored and watching Frasier. ... (Put in the Science Religion forum because facts are the operational basis of science whereas faith is the operational basis of religion.)

Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.

Fact is rooted in conviction that a thing is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold acceptance* The core of science and day-to-day living.

​

Belief: The acceptance that a non-factual thing exists or is true.

An occasional encouragement in our day-to-day musings. It serves as the basis of faith.

​

Faith: Trust in a belief.

For some, the balm of everyday concerns. Most notably, the trust put in the supernatural and some religious writings. For others, it's simply the confidence that the other guy at the intersection isn't going to T-bone you as you proceed.​

Okay, it's bedtime, any deletions, revisions, or ?
.

I think your idea of faith in incomplete. In my mind, faith is having a belief that is considered to be true without any proof. And then based on that belief, living your life accordingly as if the belief were a fact. I don't know about all the "trust" connotations you are adding to the word faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

Shunny I walk out in wilder areas a lot not total absense of people but a lot in forests here on tbe oregon coast. There is no such thing as random chance. I would say fractals are mathmatical simile, to what i am alluding to. Yes i would say thats a good way of putting it. There are aspects of math i like as simile more than literal, or we run our brains as reality creators. I like whitehead, I think he sort of tried to work through that. Godel blew math up as primary for him.

I always emphasize that math is a human convention for practical reasons in the human tool box in describing the nature of our physical existence from the basic counting of things to contemporary sophisticated maths. Math and its step child statistics are indeed only tools that can be used and misused, and in reality do not prove anything in the physical world.