From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 8 Nov 1992 23:00:43 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1deq3jINNu6@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com> johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk) writes:
>In article <1ded61INNin6@chnews.intel.com>, bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>> 
>>In article <1dchkqINNt4k@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com> johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk) writes:
>>>       ........... Science is more of a falsifier than deliverer of truth
>
>Falsifier as in proving false, not representing falsely.

I see.  (It takes a little of the rhetoricism out of "deliverer
of truth," too.)

In its relationship with religion, science must be a negative
seeker of proof, since religion's positions are always
positive statements of the existence of spirits and the
action of mystical forces.

In its relationship with the universe and our knowledge
thereof, however, it is almost always positive, creating
grand, productive theories of things like electromagnetism,
quantum avalanche, leverage, evolution, birth control,
finance, and the unified nature of all forces.

Its negative results towards religion are due only to the
fact that its positive results towards the physical world
disprove the mystical world's ability to affect the
physical world (except perhaps through the action of those
who maintain faith and expand "holy signs" into action, but
I have little doubt that the science of psychology would
explain these episodes, as well).

>>In article <1992Nov6.020049.6292@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>>>>  If the truth is always changing then what is it after it changes ?
>>>"Error."
> 
>   Meaning in some cases that the previous statement was wrong and can 
>   no longer be regarded as the 'truth'; the nature of the atom, of
>   galaxies, the apparent size of the universe, etc.     

In some cases, viz:

>>Science, when presented properly, admits its faults to examination
>>and discovery; it makes claims only about the logical deductions
>>calculated and the experiments conducted, and those claims are
>>only that the results are as they appear.

For example, if I make a measurement with my DMM, and read
the display upside-down, and I say I read 99 ohms, but I'm
careful to describe the situation (perhaps it's on video
tape), then everyone knows what I did and how I did it and
what result I produced and is able to deduce further
science correctly from it, using the value 66 ohms as the
resistance of my apparatus.

Anyone can lie and obfuscate, however, and do you know if
I myself realized which way the DMM was oriented and whether
or not I corrected for it before stating my findings?

>   Speaking as an agnostic supporter of science a problem that I've
>   seen is that while science has had a lot to say about religious
>   truths and has for a lot of people replaced religion as the means
>   for understanding their place in the world it doesn't offer much
>   in the way of a value system. Have to pray the best I guess %^)
                                              ^for

Morality is a matter of psychology; desire and temperament
make a great force for personality, and the availability of
productive opportunities can forestall selfish tendencies.
But then, the "value system" of religions have resulted in
the inquisition and the crusades and any number of lost
civilizations (making it a force for its own evolution,
ironically enough).  There are probably a number of people
who can show that even archaeology can link religion to
economics, wherein a belief in a diety gives rise to an
enabling ethic that results in improved implementation of
certain indigenous (or tamed or domesticated or imported or
enslaved) resources, but I wouldn't touch the delicacy of
that argument with a five-foot shelf of books.

				--Blair
				  "I'll knock the fear
				   of God right outta ya."
Newsgroups: sci.physics