From: mpiet@is.morgan.com (Mark Pietrasanta)
Subject: Science vs. Religion (Vatican/Galileio)
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:54:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.003007.11189@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jcopelan@magnus.a
cs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov10.152857.6800@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
|> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
|>
[interesting debate deleted]
|>
|> >Evidence for gravity is not proof of gravity.  One cannot prove anything in
|> >science because everything in science is based on assumptions which are
|> >stated
|> >without proof.
|> >  -- Scott @Brandeis
|>
|> When combined with our theoretical understanding of physics and our everyday
|> experience with gravity, yes we can take this evidence as proof that gravity
|> actually exists.  Are you going to deny that gravity exists?  Can you prove
|> that it doesn't?  What are these assumptions which are stated without proof?
|>
|> Jim Copeland

These last two points seem to get at the heart of the matter.  The issue here
sounds like one Aristotle brought up quite some time ago.  In science, Scott
is basically right that we can not _truly_ prove anything exists (happens,
has a true cause/effect, etc.).  Instead, we use empiracle information to
justify these conclusions.

The question then becomes, when does this empirical data become enough to
justify a specific conclusion?  The answer is unknown.  We have seen many times
where science has come to incorrect (or incomplete) solutions based on limited
data.  Science does continue to progress, but there is no _absolute truth_ here.
Only an attempt to approach it through constant observations and experiments.

Plato believed that there _were_ absolute truths, and that they could be known
(basically) through constant meditation (sounds like religion).  Aristotle
disagreed and said that absolute truths _may_ exist, but they can only be
approached via science and the empirical method.

For example, we all pretty much believe that thunder is caused by lightening.
In fact, we know that the lightening causes a vacuum in the air which immediatel
y
collapses and the resulting sound (also explainable) is the thunder.  However,
this is based entirely on seeing it happen over and over and over again, so that
we are confident in that conclusion and believe it to be 'true'.  What would
happen if one day, lightening were _not_ followed by thunder (I mean at all, not
just the quiet stuff)?  We then went back and reanalyzed it, and found out
that some entirely coincidental event was causing the thunder, and it just
happened that every time up until now, the events were simultaneous.  We would
now have to go back and, via science, figure out what other conclusions were
wrong, etc. etc..

So my point is that Scott is basically correct, in that science doesn't offer
_proofs_ of the existence of things, only very strong evidence and seemingly
reasonable explanations based on that evidence.  Jim, while in my opinion
also correct in his statements of science, seems to be slightly closeminded
(no offence intended) to potential significant change in the understructure
of science.  Hey, that was happening all the time -- Galileio, Pathagoras,
Newton, etc. -- and if you only look at the study of quarks compared to a
few years ago, you see that science is continually evolving to explain things
that no longer make sense within the current bounds of science.  I doubt we
are even close to a real understanding of things.

-- 
Mark Pietrasanta - mpiet@is.morgan.com
* * * * * * * * *

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

----------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: These responses are my own and in no way reflect the
            views of my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism