Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 28, 2024, 4:36 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
#90
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
(January 17, 2022 at 1:07 am)GrandizerII Wrote:
(January 16, 2022 at 10:17 pm)polymath257 Wrote: First, Kuhn's analysis of the Copernican revolution shows how little he knows about the evidence that was available at the time. And, frankly, this paragraph shows the same thing.

The first, most important part is that we *cannot* know whether a particular result is the result of experimental error, incorrect predictions from a theory, or that the theory itself has problems. So, we should not expect there to be 'automatic' error correction--it is impossible without a good deal of evidence what the error actually is.

In the case of the Copernican revolution, the actual evidence in support of the new position simply wasn't available until Galileo and Kepler did their investigations. So we would not *want* the scientists at the time to automatically go for the Copernican system, especially since it ended up (in the version Copernicus gave) being more complicated than the Ptolemaic system.

But, for example, look at the development that happened after the Michelson Morley experiment. A number of different proposals were made, from questioning he results of the experiment itself to aspects related to the ether and possible length contractions. This was all before Einstein submitted his proposal (which was in line with some of the other theoretical work previously). Once a good theory was found, the shift happened fairly quickly because the evidence was already there.

In comparison, quantum mechanics took decades between the first realization that the plum-pudding model of the atom couldn't work (because of the existence of the nucleus) to the realization that electrons, say, have a wave aspect. This involved heated debates on all sides with evidence proposed, questioned, and explanation proposed and debated.

If you expect that working science expects to reject a consensus view and adopt another view quickly, then you misunderstand how science *should* work. It *should* be a process of figuring out what from the old system works, what the different possibilities are for a new system, weighing the evidence and figuring out if it is mistaken (which often happens), etc.

I certainly don't expect scientific consensus to take on an alternative view quickly. On the contrary.

My point (which you have partially reinforced with these paragraphs) is that science is very messy in real life. It's not one rigid and flawless method by which we can efficiently separate correct views from incorrect views. It often takes years, decades, perhaps even centuries for radical ideas to be embraced by the scientific community.

And I think that is as it should be. There *should* be skepticism of the new ideas as well as skepticism of the old. If the old ideas have worked well (and that is usually the case), there *should* be some inertia in transitioning to new ideas. At the very least, an evaluation of what can be salvaged from the old ideas and how the translation process to the new ideas works needs to be done.

Quote:Where we part ways here is you think this is primarily because of insufficient evidence, whereas I think there's more to the story than that. I think human beings, scientists or not, are naturally resistant to new ideas that pose a threat to the worldviews they hold dear to and it therefore takes time to dismantle strongly held erroneous views, even if sufficient evidence was immediately presented and evaluated. Even in the example you brought up regarding the Michelson Morley experiment, we see there was initial opposition to the results of that experiment. Certain circumstances, however, did lead to scientific community widely accepting the results years or decades later.

And that is also how it should be. At the very least, the experiment has to be repeated under a variety of circumstances to see whether it is valid and how it holds up. There was an example with neutrino experiments recently where the observed speed of the neutrinos was faster than that of light. The scientists themselves didn't believe their results, which if true would have been revolutionary. It was found that a coil of wires slightly increased the distance that the light traveled, leading to a false speed for the light.

This sort of thing happens *all the time*. People, being human, make mistakes. Sometimes experiments are not done with sufficient care. Sometimes a hidden magnet can mess things up. The first thing that most scientists say when they get an anomalous result is ask where they made a mistake. And, if you actually read papers announcing discoveries, a good deal of the time is looking at various alternative explanations of the results.

Again, this is as it should be..

But there is more. The way a scientist can make their name is by proposing a new set of ideas that is testable *and passes the tests*. So while there may well be inertia on the part of the older scientists, there is most definitely not on the part of the younger ones. I would also claim that the older ones are as interested in figuring out what is actually going on and are, perhaps, more open to new ideas than you might suspect.

So, accepting the results years or decades later is *precisely* what should be expected from a subject that is self-critical at every stage. new ideas are considered. if there is not enough evidence, they are still discussed, even if not accepted, and once new evidence or a better formulation comes along, the shift is often quite fast. I can give multiple examples.

Quote:
Quote:Many doubt that there even *is* a 'hard' problem of consciousness. And the 'soft' problem is being worked on with major advances in process. The different interpretations of QM are mostly philosophical rot. The theory itself is very clear about what it predicts and the observations agree with it. Anything else is probably useless metaphysics.

Yeah, I don't know why some doubt there is a hard problem of consciousness, but the fact is no one has been able to scientifically show how the physiological translates to the phenomenological (or in the case of illusionists, to the appearance of the phenomenological). So whether you doubt there is a problem or not, the challenge remains.

Oh, I agree that there is a *soft* problem of consciousness: determining the neural correlates of experiences. But, I don't see a 'hard' problem. Once we find those correlates between neural activity and reported experiences, I think we have solved the problem of consciousness.

Quote:I disagree that QM interpretations are mostly philosophical rot, and consider some of them to be different scientific (or science-based) stances on QM. Besides, surely, you must hold to some interpretation of QM (even if it's just the Copenhagen one). Otherwise, it's basically a "shut up and just do the maths" stance which isn't a stance that reflects much intellectual curiosity and appears to imply that science does have its limitations.

And this is where I think you are wrong. ALL of the interpretations lead to exactly the same predictions about observations. ALL of them will give the exact same answer for the energy difference between orbitals in an atom, or the correlation between measurements of entangled particles. And the fact that they do, in fact, give *exactly* the same results is *why(* it is philosophical rot.

Now, it may be possible that one or the other interpretations will lead to an *extension* of QM in a testable way and that is one reason scientists (as opposed to philosophers) keep thinking about the alternatives.

Quote:
Quote:I'll be more than happy to take revelation seriously when it gives testable predictions of sufficient detail that is can be taken seriously. if you want to propose non-physical evidence, please present it in a way that leads to testable predictions that can be tested via public observations.

If it's non-physical, I'm not sure that's possible. But look, that's part of the ideology you hold to, so that's fair.

The ideology is that any theory has to have testable predictions that can be publicly verified. If that cannot be done, you aren't doing science, you are doing metaphysics.

Quote:
Quote:Agreed. There is an aspect of ideology, but I would argue that it is more the cautious aspect of science that frustrates people than the fact that it actually reaches conclusions eventually.

To be honest, I think what frustrates people as well is that people who hold to an idealized view of science often appear to have a blindness to the philosophical positions upon which science is based, positions which cannot be justified via science itself. All the while decrying those who do make claims not justified by science and referring to them as "useless metaphysics" or some such.

Scientists have found that the philosophical issues tend to not give testable predictions. Instead, they tend to say how things 'must be' when actual evidence says otherwise. In general, it isn't blindness as much as the realization that the philosophy goes nowhere.

A good example is QM, where the actual theory is probabilistic and not deterministic or causal (in the classical sense). Most of the interpretations come from attempting to reconcile classical metaphysics with modern physics. But that is a problem: we *know* that classical metaphysics is wrong *because* we have actual experiments showing that QM works. What we need is a new metaphysics that isn't based on classical realism or idealism. but instead takes into account the discoveries of physics over the last century,
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization - by polymath257 - January 17, 2022 at 10:44 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why are Christians so full of hate? I_am_not_mafia 183 17612 October 18, 2018 at 7:50 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Tell All Book Says Pat Robertson Full of Shit Minimalist 12 3551 September 29, 2017 at 3:51 pm
Last Post: Atheist73
  No Surprise, Here. Xtians Are Full of Shit. Minimalist 5 1199 August 4, 2017 at 12:31 am
Last Post: ComradeMeow
  Orthodox Christianity is Best Christianity! Annoyingbutnicetheist 30 6806 January 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  Heaven is full of tapeworms Brakeman 15 4545 August 13, 2015 at 10:23 am
Last Post: orangebox21
  This holy water thing is full of shit! Esquilax 35 12107 March 20, 2015 at 6:55 pm
Last Post: Ravenshire
  Christianity vs Gnostic Christianity themonkeyman 12 8499 December 26, 2013 at 11:00 am
Last Post: pineapplebunnybounce
  Russian antisuicide forum which is full of shit feeling 6 2380 December 18, 2013 at 4:17 am
Last Post: feeling
  Moderate Christianity - Even More Illogical Than Fundamentalist Christianity? Xavier 22 18329 November 23, 2013 at 11:21 am
Last Post: Jacob(smooth)
  My debate in Christian Forums in full swing greneknight 99 39058 September 17, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Last Post: System of Solace



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)