What can science prove?

[Ryft]

Actually, you can be 100% sure that it is real. But that doesn't mean you are right!

WHAM! She slams that one right out of the ballpark for a homerun!

Well done, Saerules.

[Tiberius]

Science says the things I can see exist.

Reality check #1.

Science does not say that. Science assumes it (as surely it must). It might be helpful to consider the word "says" (in this context) as idiomatic, that is, 'what science says' is an idiom whose literal meaning is 'what science concludes'. The things you can see exist, yes. But that is not a conclusion reached through scientific methodology; in fact, the issue is not even available for empirical review in the first place. What exists? What does it mean for something to exist? When does something cease to exist? This is philosophy, not science. The branch of philosophy known as metaphysics is where conclusions are drawn about ontology (existence). Science does not, and cannot, draw those conclusions. It assumes them.

I think you are perhaps over-analysing what I said. Science does make this conclusion, as it involves the reflection of light off objects into my eye. Science further says that things I can hear (i.e. producing soundwaves that get picked up by my ear) exist. I wasn't making some sort of metaphysical claim here, only that science tells us the things we see are real because we understand through science how we see them.

Further, I cannot see how you can reconcile this with what you say below, that "material things do exist". If material things do exist, and light is material, then we can make the conclusion that things light interacts with also exist.

Science relies on the assumption of materialism.

Reality check #2.

Science does not rely on that assumption. Insofar as science is occupied with the study of natural causes and events, it assumes that material things exist (as noted above) but it does not assume that ONLY material things exist. You are conflating an epistemological assumption (which science relies on) and an ontological assumption (which science does not rely on), the latter being the presupposition that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature" (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Macmillan, 1996). Even if metaphysical naturalism were shown to be complete bollocks, we would still have the natural sciences because material things do exist.

If metaphysical naturalism were untrue, then yes, we would still have the natural sciences, but we would have to change them radically, as I noted. What if the reason gravity exists is because of some supernatural gravity being? What if the tides were controlled by spiritual beings?

The reason science currently does not look into such possibilities is because it is working within the confines of naturalism. It assumes naturalism in order to process information about the material world we know exists (as you admit).

If naturalism is untrue, science as we know it will have to re-evaluate everything it has deduced. You can still rebuild science out of it, but the refutation of naturalism would kill science as it stands today.

[Frank]

I don't think it’s this simple, science can only explain what it convinces to believe. Science is our tool, and we can't even decide for ourselves what things are positive or negative. It is easy to prove a positive, but proving any negative is almost impossible. The idea of a negative may only exists in our heads. In reality I can only think of a few negatives(black holes, death). People use the idea of negative when dealing with numbers, poles on a batter, and good and bad.

Indeed proving a negative (e.g. proving god doesn't exist using scientific data or analysis) is probably an impossible task (although arguably with every affirmative proclamation made by science we can conjure up a negative). If I have a goldfish in a fish bowl I can easily think of an experiment to conclusively prove it isn't immortal (kill it)!

[Ace Otana]

Ok question for you then ace. Using your first example of the softball. Is the default assertion you make based off of your original visual observance of the softball that it's real and you seek another sense to confirm it? Or could it be that you are assuming it is a delusion and seek further proof? I've found this is the basic differences between some theists and atheists is the skeptical view point of assuming that null is non-existant and first observation is assumed delusional until seconded by another source. Where as my standpoint is to assume it's real and if (for instance it's too far away) no other sensory input is possible to leave it at that.

Ok question for you then ace. Using your first example of the softball. Is the default assertion you make based off of your original visual observance of the softball that it's real and you seek another sense to confirm it? Or could it be that you are assuming it is a delusion and seek further proof?

The more sources pointing to the same conclusion increases the probablility of it. More sources the greater the likely hood.
Say I heard a sound in an old house. The conclusion I'd reach would be that there is something making that noise. However I could be imagining it so I go to investigate. Once I've located the source of the noise through vision then delusion becomes far less likely. Two sources of incoming data that points to the same conclusion. It's not knowing but a conclusion based on evidence.
Religion which is devoid of evidence means I come to one conclusion for it. Dismissal/rejection.

Where as my standpoint is to assume it's real and if (for instance it's too far away) no other sensory input is possible to leave it at that.

I have always been curious how theists conclude the existance of something without evidence to do so. I wouldn't assume anything is real unless there is some kind of evidence for it. Even a little.
For all I know you are probably a computer AI responding to my post. But I don't conclude that because I have never incountered an AI computer as advanced as this that is able to respond to such a degree. So with reason I conclude you are a real person.
The question I'm faced with is, how do you conclude god exists?

[LukeMC]

Therefore, they can make absolute conclusions within those parameters (which is really all I'm saying).

Indeed they can, but they may not be absolutely right

<3Adrian for making this thread

[Ryft]

I wasn't making some sort of metaphysical claim here, only that science tells us the things we see are real because we understand through science how we see them.

To make my point, revisit the Matrix scenario as posited by Dagda last fall. In the Matrix, science would tell you that sound waves, the object that produced them, their interaction with the ossicles and cochlea inside your ear, etc., are all real—and it would be wrong. "You think that's air you're breathing now?" Science is an empirical discipline; it would be viciously circular for science to assume these things are real and then conclude they're real. No, it assumes they're real and proceeds to describe them in terms of being real.

If metaphysical naturalism were untrue, then yes, we would still have the natural sciences, but we would have to change them radically, as I noted. What if the reason gravity exists is because of some supernatural gravity being? What if the tides were controlled by spiritual beings?

You are making an unwarranted leap. Metaphysical naturalism is already considered bollocks by the majority of people (and for extremely good reasons)—including many who are scientists—and yet science has not had to change for them. Those scientists who reject metaphysical naturalism still do science in the usual way, studying natural causes and events. It's a very common thing to hold that abstract things exist (e.g., numbers, minds, etc.), which a monist view rejects. There is no good reason to think that science is altogether something different for people who subscribe to a dualist view. They use exactly the same science as those who subscribe to a monist view, sometimes working alongside them. Your leap is unwarranted, because supernatural meddling does not automatically follow from the rejection of monistic views of reality; there are dualists who reject the supernatural. Just because I accept that abstract entities exist, that doesn't mean I have to toss out geodesic paths and metric tensors, etc.

[Tiberius]

Touché Arcanus...touché.

[tavarish]

I wasn't making some sort of metaphysical claim here, only that science tells us the things we see are real because we understand through science how we see them.

To make my point, revisit the Matrix scenario as posited by Dagda last fall. In the Matrix, science would tell you that sound waves, the object that produced them, their interaction with the ossicles and cochlea inside your ear, etc., are all real—and it would be wrong. "You think that's air you're breathing now?" Science is an empirical discipline; it would be viciously circular for science to assume these things are real and then conclude they're real. No, it assumes they're real and proceeds to describe them in terms of being real.

If metaphysical naturalism were untrue, then yes, we would still have the natural sciences, but we would have to change them radically, as I noted. What if the reason gravity exists is because of some supernatural gravity being? What if the tides were controlled by spiritual beings?

You are making an unwarranted leap. Metaphysical naturalism is already considered bollocks by the majority of people (and for extremely good reasons)—including many who are scientists—and yet science has not had to change for them. Those scientists who reject metaphysical naturalism still do science in the usual way, studying natural causes and events. It's a very common thing to hold that abstract things exist (e.g., numbers, minds, etc.), which a monist view rejects. There is no good reason to think that science is altogether something different for people who subscribe to a dualist view. They use exactly the same science as those who subscribe to a monist view, sometimes working alongside them. Your leap is unwarranted, because supernatural meddling does not automatically follow from the rejection of monistic views of reality; there are dualists who reject the supernatural. Just because I accept that abstract entities exist, that doesn't mean I have to toss out geodesic paths and metric tensors, etc.

This reminds me of the heated argument the non prophets radio staff had about Francis Collins. Some tried to make the point that his radical religious views would hinder his progress in the NIH. Matt Dillahunty basically took apart that point and said it was basically unfounded and bigoted. The most outspoken atheist of the bunch was defending a theist who was applying for a scientific position. Pretty cool.

here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqd5fNFwLuo


/offtopic

[leo-rcc]

I remember that. I had that podcast on my speakers on the way to Germany and I remember me shouting "That is not what Collins is saying you idiots"

[Minimalist]

Science can prove a positive, though. For example, it can demonstrate through all available evidence that the earth is not the center of the universe.

If religious bullshit has to be jettisoned as a result of such a demonstration so much the better.