From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:07:12 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <1992Nov12.003007.11189@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>Well, speak for yourself.  I don't have faith in science, I trust it based
>on a proven track record.  This is called reasoning based on experience.  I
>have yet to experience anything supernatural, so combined with other
>evidence I conclude that it doesn't exist.  You start with the assumption of
>God which clouds your interpretations, while I start with observations which
>lead me to conclusions about the world.  You can hardly call them
>equivalent.

In other words, you have faith in science.  Why does that bother you?  I'm
glad you don't believe in the supernatural because, if you think you have
psychic abilities, don't quit your day job.  They aren't very good.  I didn't
start with an assumption of God.  I have faith in God for the same reasons you
have faith in science.  Don't get bent out of shape; it doesn't make you any
less of a person or a scientist (now, I'm being psychic :-)).

>>If you read my posts again, I have never stated that I believe in the
>>super-natural.  I proposed that, if the supernatural exists, it does not
>>contradict the claims of science.  I thought it was pretty obvious and
>>should threaten no one.  Apparantly I was wrong on both counts.
>
>How can you believe in God and not in the supernatural?

I never stated that I didn't believe in the supernatural either.  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.

>Read my comment above.  Occam's razor says remove unnecessary assumptions. 
>Unless you can prove the supernatural to be logically necessary, then we are
>reasonably justified in assuming it doesn't exist.

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.  If you insist on
applying Occam's razor, then do so.

>>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?

Rather than spend time teaching you how science works, let me just recommend
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.

Gravity is an invention of scientists to explain (figuratively) why a ball will
fall toward the earth when released from a height.  You don't see gravity, you
see the effect of gravity.  The goal of science is to explain phenomena by
inventing theoretical causes.  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 math-
ematically 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

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