From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:45:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.041450.2296@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>No, there are no other words, science does not require faith.  

How can you do science if you don't believe in it?  You're getting bent out of
shape because I state the obvious.  Why does it bother you for me to say that
you believe in science?  It is truly perplexing.  It's like getting upset 
because I call you a college graduate.

>You attempt to
>obfuscate and confuse by claiming that science and religion are on equal
>footing because they both require "faith."  

Have you actually read my posts?  Apparantly not because my whole point was
to say the exact opposite.  Science and religion are on seperate playing 
fields and can therefore not be compared.  If they were on the same footing,
we could compare the two and draw the conclusions you have drawn.

>This simply is not true, science
>is infinitely more rigorous than religion could ever dream of being.  Your
>use of the word faith renders it meaningless and ignores major differences
>between your so called scientific "faith" and religious faith.  As I said
>originally, science is based on reasoning from experience, whereas religion
>can make no such claim.  Religion relies on revelation and belief without
>reason.  Reason is the realm of science and faith is the realm of religion.
>
>>  I didn't
>>start with an assumption of God.  I have faith in God for the same reasons
>>you have faith in science.                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>
>What reasons are these?

>>I never stated that I didn't believe in the supernatural either.
>
>No, you are just being deceptive and elusive so as not to be pinned down on a
>conclusive answer.  I find it hard to take you seriously when you use these
>tactics.  Consider what you then deleted from my previous post.  I said:

No, I'm trying to keep our discussion meaningful by staying away from religious
issues.  I don't want you to believe in the supernatural if you don't want to.
Just realize that you have, by assumption, excluded it from your world view
so that a conclusion that God does not exist and/or that religion and science
are in conflict is a false conclusion.  In making a proof, you cannot assume
what you are trying to prove.

I'll repeat myself:  this is not a religious point so don't make it into one.

>>  It is
>>irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.  Once again, IF the supernatural
>>exists, it does not contradict any of the claims of science.  Don't read
>>anymore into that.  It's a simple statement that changes nothing about
>>sicence.
>
>Then let me include what you said in previous posts:
>
>:The point is that science by construction excludes such phenomena by
>:requiring
>:that everything behave according to natural laws.  So, acts of God (by
>:definition supernatural) cannot be compared with scientific laws.  Religious
>:accounts (we can specialize to Christian accounts, if you want) put forth
>:supernatural phenomena which cannot be compared with the natural
>:models put forth by science.
>
>: any acts of God (supernatural) are, BY CONSTRUCTION, excluded from
>: consideration.  One cannot make conclusions from science about God's
>: existence or lack thereof because the two are unrelated.  
>
>[me--jc--asking]
><Are you saying that we can't see the effects of God's actions here in the
><natural world?  How do you know this?
>
>:No.  I'm saying they cannot be compared or subjected to natural explanations
>:since they are, by definition, supernatural.  Science and religion are not
>:opposed in general.  They are only opposed by those who reject one or the
>:other.
>
>Now, it sounds to me as if you have changed you tune.  Regardless, the
>central issue is whether or not there is any interaction between the natural
>world and the supposed supernatural world.  Please give me your definitive
>answer.  If the answer is yes, then please give me the reasons why you
>believe this (examples of this interaction being included).  If the answer is
>no, then the supernatural is reduced to being logically unnecessary, and
>hence irrelevant.

Again, why make a really simple point complicated by getting into religious
discussion?  I believe in God and you don't.  Fine.  It is irrelevant to this
discussion.

>>I'm not making any assumptions.  You assume the supernatural does not exist.
>>That is an unnecessary assumption since allowing that it MIGHT exist changes
>>nothing about science other than its interpretations.
>
>Wrong.  How is the word allowing different from assuming in this case?  The
>natural world is a given, so any explanation that unnecessarily introduces
>the supernatural includes an extra assumption which Occam's Razor rules out. 
>It is up to you to show that the supernatural is necessary.

Simple.  You assume the supernatural does not exist so that all phenomena can
only have natural explanations.  I point out that the supernatural may exist
(once again, for the purposes of discussion, I'm not claiming that it does) or
it may not.  There's no assumption there.  Assuming that the supernatural does
not exist is an unnecessary assumption.  It is only necessary if you want 
science and religion to be in conflict.  But then such conflict is assumed on
your part and not a conclusion drawn from science.

>>Rather than spend time teaching you how science works, let me just recommend
>
>Hah, that's a hoot!

I take it, then, that you are uninterested in learning how science 
works?  It's a shame.

>>any standard text on the philosophy of science, e.g, Kuhn's work.  Examples
>>of assumptions would be determinism (if you are a classical physicist) or
>>probabilism (if you are a quantum physicist), objective/non-objective
>>reality
>>(same ordering), and (the big one) that nature can be described by some
>>mathematical construct.  There are also practical assumptions like Newton's
>>laws
>>(classical physicist).  Again, read any text on the subject.
>
>But everything that you mention is simply a codifying of our experiences with
>the natural world.  Again, the natural world is a given, we simply observe
>the order and pattern of its interaction with us.  I would not call
>observations based on experience 'assumptions without proof', its called
>reasoning.

They are assumptions necessary for us to be able to do science.  For example,
one must assume some relationship between the observer and observation
(objective/subjective reality) in order to interpret observations.  In contrast,
to assume only the natural world exists is unnecessary.

>>Gravity is an invention of scientists to explain (figuratively) why a ball
>>will fall toward the earth when released from a height.
>
>No, gravity is simply a label that man has given to the interaction
>(attraction) between two bodies.  This label includes an extremely accurate
>mathematical approximation of this interaction.  The interaction is not an
>invention of man and is independent of man.

Exactly.  It is an invention of man to explain a given observation.  You assume
that there is some sort of interaction (one of those many assumptions stated 
without proof) in order to model it in some way.  The interaction that you say
is independant of man, as another poster has pointed out, is only true in
the mind of the scientist.  The results of this proposed interaction correspond
well to observations but gravity only exists in the mind of a scientist.

>>You don't see gravity, you see the effect of gravity.
>
>True, but the fact that it is predictable and reliable (this is what I meant
>by our theoretical understanding of physics and our everyday interactions
>with gravity) gives us every reason to believe that gravity in fact exists. 
>Juxtapose this with claims of God's existence.  We may not see God, but can
>we see the effects of God?  Some say yes, but the effects are neither
>predictable nor reliable and give us reason to doubt those existential
>claims.  If we can't see the effects of God then God becomes reduced to being
>logically unnecessary.
>
>>The goal of science is to explain phenomena by inventing theoretical causes.
>
>True, and those theories which are the most reliable and the most predictable
>and best explain the phenomena are the ones which survive.
>
>>Newton invented the inverse 
>>square theory of gravity to explain the phenomena known to him (e.g. why
>>planets orbit the Sun in ellipses).  When that theory could not be twisted
>>to explain observations (e.g. the precession of Mercury), Newton's version
>>was scrapped for Einstein's tensor version.  In both theories, gravity is a
>>theoretical invention mathematically constructed to explain appropriate
>>phenomena.  Since you must assume that gravity exists to do gravitational
>>physics, you cannot truly prove gravity.  You can merely provide reasons for
>>believing in gravity.
>>  -- Scott @Brandeis
>
>Are you serious?  How much more proof do you need?  What do you mean by
>"truly prove gravity?"  We don't need to assume gravity exists to go walk
>outside and not worry about floating away up into the sky.  I'll ask again,
>do you think that gravity does not exist?  Do you have any other explanation
>for what we experience every day?

Once again, all those theories ASSUME some sort of gravitational interaction
as the basis for the theories.  But it's an invention.  Who knows if gravity
really exists or not.  You have to assume gravity exists if you hope to
provide some natural explanation of why you don't go floating away.  There is
plenty of reason to believe gravity exists but we'll never know for sure
because it is simply an invention of man.  By the way, I assume you realize that
all current theories of gravity are, strictly speaking, wrong.  Any
classical theory of gravity, e.g. General Relativity, is wrong because it
assumes certain things about reality that are inconsistent with modern thought.
The only possible "correct" theory of gravity will be quantum gravity and no
one has found it yet.  Maybe you should get away from gravity and use
theories that are believed correct, like QED (the most successful theory in
the history of science).

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism