You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[Kilgore Trout]

I'll give you a current example: the distance of stars. The distance of stars is still greatly debated, yet every time you read something about astronomy, there it is, "... a star 7,000 light-years away."
Do you know the most common method for measuring distances. Its called parallax, and it isn't that accurate, especially the further away you get, because you are measuring how far you think you observe something in motion. The cross point of a distant star in parallax is ridiculous. How are you going to find an accurate parallax for a star when you don't initially know the distance to the reference point?

Of course, parallax isn't the method used to determine the distance of stars beyond a few hundred light years from earth.

 

[Otherright]

Of course, parallax isn't the method used to determine the distance of stars beyond a few hundred light years from earth.

Right, because the angle of parallax becomes to miniscule. But the basis for the foundations of other distances are based on the findings of parallax.

 

[Acim]

What claims do you think science is making? Because it doesn't actually claim that the world is "real," only about how it behaves.

See post #178 on this thread about claims I think proponents of science are making / do make, as well as claims taken from others on this thread. I find claims by others to be, how you say, plentiful and, also, how you say, never substantiated. Aka baseless.

 

[PolyHedral]

Science does not back itself to the point that is can be taken as fact. You have to take a measure of faith with the person's observation, hoping that they are making the best, hoping that their method is sound.

No you don't; if you understand what they're doing, you can check the method yourself. Besides, you've already done a vast amount of science yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be able to come here. You understand most of Newtonian physics purely from observation, for instance. ("Cars can't stop instantly.")

If scientists were dead on in their observations, there would never be need for revision. Take DNA for instance. It was thought in the early fifties that DNA was too small to hold complex information, so hereditary traits were known to come from protein. Well, this is wrong. It required more observation, as the initial observation was wrong.

The initial observations weren't wrong, but the inferences made from it were. Incidentally, this is a feature, not a bug. It means science is always correct to the best of our knowledge.

I'll give you a current example: the distance of stars. The distance of stars is still greatly debated, yet every time you read something about astronomy, there it is, "... a star 7,000 light-years away."
Do you know the most common method for measuring distances. Its called parallax, and it isn't that accurate, especially the further away you get, because you are measuring how far you think you observe something in motion. The cross point of a distant star in parallax is ridiculous. How are you going to find an accurate parallax for a star when you don't initially know the distance to the reference point?

The far-away star is just there so you have something to measure the closer star against. Also, you're right, it's inaccurate for larger distances. Do you know what? Scientific papers never give exact results. If you actually read a scientific article, it will always give error margins, and some of them can be very large indeed. For instance, we know the strength of gravity only to 1 part in a million. This is vast compared to the uncertainty in the electron's mass, which we know to 1 part in 100 million. These are fundamental quantities of astronomy and electronics theory, yet we don't know them completely precisely, and never will.

Also, parralax is based on the mathematics of movement through space. The method itself cannot be wrong, when properly executed.

 

[averageJOE]

I would only be in a violent accident due to using the scientists technology to begin with. I was chronically ill for 8 years and allopathy could do nothing for me. I cured myself with the I-Ching and Ayurveda. Ayurveda was curing people of small-pox in 1500 BCE according to the Wiki.

OK. What about an attack from a wild animal? Or do you think your immune to such an accident? As your lying there bleeding to death would you want to:
a) Rely on I-Ching and start chanting your gods name, or
b) Be taken to a hospital

We have to use the intelligence to control the mind. Real intelligence is to pursue self-realization. Foolishness is base you life on eating, sleeping, mating and defending like an animal.

So why don't you permanatly stop eating, sleeping, mating, and defending? You don't want to be a fool do you?

 

[idav]

I find claims by others to be, how you say, plentiful and, also, how you say, never substantiated. Aka baseless.

Your one to talk about unsubstantiated claims. You going by your feelings can't compare to going by observed phenomenon. Your views are like that of solospsism and the problem is that other minds are also experiencing things and substantiating each other unless you want to argue that your not really debating me but debating a figment of your imagination. Your argument is completely philosophical which is not substantiated.

 

[Acim]

No you don't; if you understand what they're doing, you can check the method yourself. Besides, you've already done a vast amount of science yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be able to come here. You understand most of Newtonian physics purely from observation, for instance. ("Cars can't stop instantly.")

That I understand "Newtonian physics" purely from observation (I am taking this to mean common perception), means I've done "vast amounts of science myself?" Is this what you are saying. Were people doing this "science" before Newton was around? (Pretty sure I know simple answer to that, but just want to be clear.)

The point I hear Otherright making is, even while the method can be checked myself, how often are we who do vast amounts of science, doing this? For specific tests, on incredibly large scope of data, I would say rarely. Instead, we go with credibility, which is precisely faith based (Trust). On level of core method as fundamental basis of particular version of science (the kind that might rule out introspection), I would say somewhere between never and far more rare than the multitude of tests on physical phenomenon. I don't think Otherright was stating this point, but not only is it implied in Otherright's argument, it is the basis of it. Science, as a discipline, doesn't (maybe even cannot) back itself up. It is not observable in the physical sense, nor do we even try. It is not something found in "nature," and is instead something we 'imagine' and/or are self convinced is entirely reasonable. What comes from this framework, may be incredibly rational. But the basis of what starts as Reasonable "outlook" and is transferred to "use of physical senses to observe" is vastly under explored. More often than not, I see what amounts to reluctant admission of science being faith based. That is when I'm with 'honest' folk. Sometimes, instead, I see denial of plausible, even possible, alternatives and THAT is reason why we must stick to this method of understanding, confirming fact(s).

The initial observations weren't wrong, but the inferences made from it were. Incidentally, this is a feature, not a bug. It means science is always correct to the best of our knowledge.

Allows for a whole lot of slack on progressive ignorance. Which is seemingly denied to spiritual types. Our initial revelations with Deities may have been interpreted less than accurately. This is a feature, not a bug. It means religion is always correct to the best of our knowledge.

The far-away star is just there so you have something to measure the closer star against. Also, you're right, it's inaccurate for larger distances. Do you know what? Scientific papers never give exact results. If you actually read a scientific article, it will always give error margins, and some of them can be very large indeed.

So, if we allowed the conclusions that come from introspection to follow this framework, it ought to be fine and dandy that "error margins, at least some of them, may be very large indeed," as long as the experimenter attempts to account for that in a published finding. I wonder how vastly different counterarguments to God would be if the accepted logic at work included idea that says, "Religious doctrine never give exact results." Cutting a whole lot of leeway in progressive ignorance with assertions as bold as that.

 

[Acim]

You going by your feelings can't compare to going by observed phenomenon.

Again, you are referencing "feelings" with such notions as: Reason, Life, Science, and Math. None of which are observed phenomenon. And all apparently are, for you, "feelings."

Your views are like that of solipsism and the problem is that other minds are also experiencing things and substantiating each other unless you want to argue that your not really debating me but debating a figment of your imagination. Your argument is completely philosophical which is not substantiated.

I'm not the one hiding from this, nor denying it. I believe you exist, as aspect of nature, as do I. Believe me, the notion of solipsism is very familiar to me. But, where I might differ from how you are using the word, is my concept of Self. I don't see me as creating you, nor you creating me. I see it as Creator within "us" and we are extensions of "this."

Furthermore, this can be substantiated from within. I have done so. I am willing to provide whatever method, tests (so to speak), and conclusions I have as result of what I know to be demonstrative. Yet, best advice I can provide before considering my findings is "earnestly go within" as if science can / does include this. Allow for all the leeways, sense of patience, years of understanding you do with 'outer' science, and I believe substantiation in way that works for you and is clear to you will occur. I don't 'think' it might occur, I know it will. My findings, in hands of incessant skeptic / critic, may be not be something that produces 'reason to even try.' Then again it might. But to lack moral conviction to do it yourself, because of something akin to fear of being delusion is absurd, precisely when you recognize just how delusional it is to do outward science.

Where Life is met with desire to intelligently explore (seek) concepts and things, the basis of Reason will always be (inward or outward) interdependent on Faith.

(Hey, my new signature line)

 

[idav]

Again, you are referencing "feelings" with such notions as: Reason, Life, Science, and Math. None of which are observed phenomenon. And all apparently are, for you, "feelings."



I'm not the one hiding from this, nor denying it. I believe you exist, as aspect of nature, as do I. Believe me, the notion of solipsism is very familiar to me. But, where I might differ from how you are using the word, is my concept of Self. I don't see me as creating you, nor you creating me. I see it as Creator within "us" and we are extensions of "this."

Furthermore, this can be substantiated from within. I have done so. I am willing to provide whatever method, tests (so to speak), and conclusions I have as result of what I know to be demonstrative. Yet, best advice I can provide before considering my findings is "earnestly go within" as if science can / does include this. Allow for all the leeways, sense of patience, years of understanding you do with 'outer' science, and I believe substantiation in way that works for you and is clear to you will occur. I don't 'think' it might occur, I know it will. My findings, in hands of incessant skeptic / critic, may be not be something that produces 'reason to even try.' Then again it might. But to lack moral conviction to do it yourself, because of something akin to fear of being delusion is absurd, precisely when you recognize just how delusional it is to do outward science.

Where Life is met with desire to intelligently explore (seek) concepts and things, the basis of Reason will always be (inward or outward) interdependent on Faith.

(Hey, my new signature line)

I do understand where you differ from solipsism yet you question the very nature of being able to objectively observe the universe. This is problematic for your position since you have said that it is ok to go by peoples experience. You seem to have issue of taking other peoples experience to heart to the point that we should be skeptical of all the text books similar to the skepticism people place on religious texts. This doesn't make sense since science text books are not not just written based on peoples notions and philosophies but have to be backed up.

 

[Otherright]

No you don't; if you understand what they're doing, you can check the method yourself. Besides, you've already done a vast amount of science yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be able to come here. You understand most of Newtonian physics purely from observation, for instance. ("Cars can't stop instantly.")

The initial observations weren't wrong, but the inferences made from it were. Incidentally, this is a feature, not a bug. It means science is always correct to the best of our knowledge.

The far-away star is just there so you have something to measure the closer star against. Also, you're right, it's inaccurate for larger distances. Do you know what? Scientific papers never give exact results. If you actually read a scientific article, it will always give error margins, and some of them can be very large indeed. For instance, we know the strength of gravity only to 1 part in a million. This is vast compared to the uncertainty in the electron's mass, which we know to 1 part in 100 million. These are fundamental quantities of astronomy and electronics theory, yet we don't know them completely precisely, and never will.

Also, parralax is based on the mathematics of movement through space. The method itself cannot be wrong, when properly executed.

I can directly observe Newtonian physics, and know several equations to predict the outcome, but if you have not made an observation yourself, then yeah, you are taking someone else's word for it and relying on their method and observations. I've never genetically altered corn. My best friend has. I have to take his word for how he does it. Even if he writes it down.

Yes the observation was wrong, they attributed heredity to the wrong thing. In this case the best of their knowledge was wrong. It took both better observation and method to pin it down.

If you don't know the distance of either object, you can be guaranteed that your measurement is wrong, regardless of which star you are measuring. If I have point A, B, and C, and I have no idea how far B or C is, then I have no way of measuring them. It doesn't matter how far B appeared to move from b1 to b2, by my observation. I have no spacial perception on which to base the equation.

 

[PolyHedral]

I can directly observe Newtonian physics, and know several equations to predict the outcome, but if you have not made an observation yourself, then yeah, you are taking someone else's word for it and relying on their method and observations. I've never genetically altered corn. My best friend has. I have to take his word for how he does it. Even if he writes it down.

You could invest the time and energy to do it yourself, if it's important. It usually isn't, though, hence why we take it on trust.

Yes the observation was wrong, they attributed heredity to the wrong thing. In this case the best of their knowledge was wrong. It took both better observation and method to pin it down.

And now we have bettr observation, and we will continue to get better in the future. What's the problem?

If you don't know the distance of either object, you can be guaranteed that your measurement is wrong, regardless of which star you are measuring. If I have point A, B, and C, and I have no idea how far B or C is, then I have no way of measuring them. It doesn't matter how far B appeared to move from b1 to b2, by my observation. I have no spacial perception on which to base the equation.

Actually, you know the important bit: how far Earth is away from the Sun. From there, you can calculate the parallax of a star even without the second star to help you. It'd just depend on the accuracy of your telescope's aiming mechanisms.

 

[Otherright]

You could invest the time and energy to do it yourself, if it's important. It usually isn't, though, hence why we take it on trust.

And now we have bettr observation, and we will continue to get better in the future. What's the problem?

Actually, you know the important bit: how far Earth is away from the Sun. From there, you can calculate the parallax of a star even without the second star to help you. It'd just depend on the accuracy of your telescope's aiming mechanisms.

And the accuracy of the observation you made, and the accounting of stellar motion. At that enormous distance, as the parallax angle gets smaller, there's no telling how far you may be off by the time you reach 1/1000th of a degree of parallax. One tick, and you're off by 3.26 LY.

I'm not saying there is no accuracy at all, I'm saying don't tell me its 800 LY away when you know good and well that you can be off as far as 5% by the parallax and multiple ticks on your observation. 5% on Alpha Centari is no big deal, 5 percent on Rigel is a pretty big deal. You could be 40 LY off with perfect parallax.


But there is no problem. I didn't say science was bad, I said you can't have absolute knowledge with anything that requires revision. It requires trust, therefore faith.

 

[PolyHedral]

"Absolute knowledge" automatically requires faith; you believe, completely baselessly, that you cannot be wrong.

 

[Otherright]

"Absolute knowledge" automatically requires faith; you believe, completely baselessly, that you cannot be wrong.

Like I said, you aren't going to get absolute knowledge in science, but you will have to rely a little on faith, not baseless faith, but faith all the same.

 

[idav]

Like I said, you aren't going to get absolute knowledge in science, but you will have to rely a little on faith, not baseless faith, but faith all the same.

I'm not sure having a degree of certainty requires faith if you realize it is not absolute knowledge. At the point of degree of certainty you are already acknowledging that you could be wrong to a certain extent which doesn't require faith.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well what empirical evidence do you have for the opposite?

That's not how it works.
You make the claim, you support it.
I'm not making any claims regarding god(s).
I'm merely stating that this claim has not been supported.

If you think that life emerged from matter then why has such a living entity never been found and why can't they produce one artificially?

Mate, you're a living entity made from non-living matter.
Please think before you say these things...

You also have nothing but faith.

Err... no. I have evidence based on observable physical reality.
Now, if you want to argue that physical reality is an illusion (or something similar) allow me to hit you over the head a couple of times and then we can discuss whether you think that really happend or not.

 

[Otherright]

I'm not sure having a degree of certainty requires faith if you realize it is not absolute knowledge. At the point of degree of certainty you are already acknowledging that you could be wrong to a certain extent which doesn't require faith.

I'm talking about observations that you don't make. You, yourself, standing in your back yard can't look at a star and say, this star is called Rigel, its 800 LY from here. You can't make that observation yourself. If someone else has made it, you are taking their word for it , trusting they are correct in their observation and method to conclude that Rigel is 800 LY away.

That trust in their observation is faith, not religious faith, but faith.

 

[Acim]

I do understand where you differ from solipsism yet you question the very nature of being able to objectively observe the universe. This is problematic for your position since you have said that it is ok to go by peoples experience. You seem to have issue of taking other peoples experience to heart to the point that we should be skeptical of all the text books similar to the skepticism people place on religious texts. This doesn't make sense since science text books are not not just written based on peoples notions and philosophies but have to be backed up.

Strawman.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm talking about observations that you don't make. You, yourself, standing in your back yard can't look at a star and say, this star is called Rigel, its 800 LY from here. You can't make that observation yourself. If someone else has made it, you are taking their word for it , trusting they are correct in their observation and method to conclude that Rigel is 800 LY away.

That trust in their observation is faith, not religious faith, but faith.

Secular Faith and Religious Faith -- those should be two words that don't even look like the same word. There is no similarity between them. Religious Faith in God has nothing to do with Secular Faith my car will start tomorrow morning.

 

[Acim]

You could invest the time and energy to do it yourself, if it's important. It usually isn't, though, hence why we take it on trust.

That trust in their observation is faith, not religious faith, but faith.

Was going to same about same thing, but these 2 quotes go hand in hand.