Epistemology

[allan175]

I don't think I've spoken to you like you are a creationist in any of this though. You keep bringing up the point again and again and it really is unneccessary.

I said that it sounds like that way. Of course I could be wrong. I didn't bring it up elsewhere that I know of other than the thread in the introductions section and only there since you brought it up.

Evidently you think that anything we say that objects to your view deems you a "creationist".

That's silly. However I do see where a lot of atheists seem to believe that all theists with also creationists. I think someone in this very forum mentioned that.

Personally, I do think all theists are "creationists"! If a you believe evolution is right (which you say) then you have just moved the creation point back a bit to produce the first "spark" of life.
Surely, if you don't believe life was "created" then there is no need for a god at all.

[Pete]

It's you who keeps insisting that all our definitions are wrong or don't cover everything. I've defined evidence over and over and you keep going back and back to it for no apparent reason.

You sound like your upset. I didn't mean to upset you if that's the case. Anyway, I disagree. Please show me where I said that your definition is wrong. I would never say that a definition is wrong. I appologize if I led you to believe I meant otherwise. At best a definition is not how it is defined a textbook or a dictionary etc. In fact I don't believe that its logical to say that a definition is wrong. All I've been doing is merely exploring the consequences of how you've defined the term. Do you object to that?

Here's an example of what I mean: suppose one has a light emitter, a light detector and a clock at a certain point of space in an inertial frame of reference. Call this location the "origin". Let there be a mirror at another location a distance D away which is oriented such that a pulse of light emitted at the origin will be deflected back to the origin. Now suppose that a pulse of light is emitted from the origin, is relected off the mirror and travels back to the origin. The time between the light being emitted and detected is T. Suppose that the results are such that 2.9978 x 10^8 m/s = 2D/T. Do you believe that this can be taken as evidence that the speed of light as measured in this frame of references is c = 2.9978 x 10^8 m/s? While I'm waiting for your response please elaborate how people know of evidence? I.e. do you actually know that there is no evidence that God exists? Since I assume you'll say that no evidence exists then what do you base that on? Is if the lack of you never finding, hearing of, seeing etc of such evidence? You've heard that E = mc2 right? Do you believe its true? On what do you base this belief in? I take it that you've never actually been in a laboratory and carried out all the experiments that led Einstein to make this conclusion? So if you have never actually carried out experiments etc. then how do you know what evidence there is or isn't? My point is that we normally take such things on authority and that is often our source of knowledge. In that sense I ask you what evidence you yourself have of various things you consider to be facts? In fact this is what I was getting at when I asked what people considered to be sources of knowledge. Authority is just one thing people accept as being a source of knowledge. There are others of course.

---

Personally, I do think all theists are "creationists"! If a you believe evolution is right (which you say) then you have just moved the creation point back a bit to produce the first "spark" of life.
Surely, if you don't believe life was "created" then there is no need for a god at all.

When I use the term creationism I mean exactly how it is defined in What is Evolution, by Ernst Mayr. He defines creationism as follows

Belief in the literal truth of Creation as recorded in the Book of Genesis.

I myself didn't move the creation point back to the first spark of life. I moved it further back to the Big-Bang, and perhaps even before that. If you believe that its nonsense to speak of before the Big-Bang then I disagree. There is even a new theory becomming popular amoung string theorists called the Pre-Big bang Scenario. Very cool stuff.

Pete

[Tiberius]

Here's an example of what I mean: suppose one has a light emitter, a light detector and a clock at a certain point of space in an inertial frame of reference. Call this location the "origin". Let there be a mirror at another location a distance D away which is oriented such that a pulse of light emitted at the origin will be deflected back to the origin. Now suppose that a pulse of light is emitted from the origin, is relected off the mirror and travels back to the origin. The time between the light being emitted and detected is T. Suppose that the results are such that 2.9978 x 10^8 m/s = 2D/T. Do you believe that this can be taken as evidence that the speed of light as measured in this frame of references is c = 2.9978 x 10^8 m/s?

Yes, that experiment would count as evidence for the speed of light in that specific scenario, as long as it could be verified again and again.

While I'm waiting for your response please elaborate how people know of evidence? I.e. do you actually know that there is no evidence that God exists?

No I do not know that there is no evidence that God exists. I am an agnostic atheist, I claim no knowledge of God. Theists have it very easy. All they have to do to prove God exists is to find one piece of evidence confirming it. Then it doesn't matter if atheists keep "not finding" him in places, because he has been found. Theists have yet to find this one piece of evidence.

Since I assume you'll say that no evidence exists then what do you base that on? Is if the lack of you never finding, hearing of, seeing etc of such evidence?

I base it on my own observations and the fact that every time I have asked a theist (and others have done so) they have finally admitted that they have no such evidence.

You've heard that E = mc2 right? Do you believe its true? On what do you base this belief in? I take it that you've never actually been in a laboratory and carried out all the experiments that led Einstein to make this conclusion? So if you have never actually carried out experiments etc. then how do you know what evidence there is or isn't? My point is that we normally take such things on authority and that is often our source of knowledge. In that sense I ask you what evidence you yourself have of various things you consider to be facts? In fact this is what I was getting at when I asked what people considered to be sources of knowledge. Authority is just one thing people accept as being a source of knowledge. There are others of course.

I can take things as true based on evidence or based on trusted processes. Just how I would trust my sister when she tells me that she needs some money, I trust the process of peer review. So yes, peer review could be seen as an authority, but it has worked so far so we have a level of trust.

[Ace Otana]

I myself didn't move the creation point back to the first spark of life. I moved it further back to the Big-Bang, and perhaps even before that. If you believe that its nonsense to speak of before the Big-Bang then I disagree. There is even a new theory becomming popular amoung string theorists called the Pre-Big bang Scenario. Very cool stuff.

Pete

This big bang experiment will soon tell us how the universe was made.

I can't wait to study that data from the big bang experiment. Finaly we can learn how the universe was made and how all came to being. That's the whole point of that experiment.

[Pete]

Yes, that experiment would count as evidence for the speed of light in that specific scenario, as long as it could be verified again and again.

Actually it doesn't really prove that. One has to assume that space is isotropic. If one carries out this experiment than all that can be deduced is what is known in relativity circles as the two-way speed of light. That means that all you've been able to do is to measure the time the light takes to go there and back. Its concievable that the light goes faster than c in one direction and slower in the opposite, return, direction. Physicists have gone one step further and have measured the one-way speed of light. That's not as easy as it sounds so it took some time to create such an experiment. What happens is that two atomic clocks are synchronized at one place and one clock is moved to the another place rather slowly. Then signals from distant sources are used to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light is the same as the two-way speed of light. This might seem trivial to some people but its one of the things that physicists go to great lengths to make sure of. Experimentalists are awesome people. Very patient!

No I do not know that there is no evidence that God exists. I am an agnostic atheist, I claim no knowledge of God. Theists have it very easy. All they have to do to prove God exists is to find one piece of evidence confirming it. Then it doesn't matter if atheists keep "not finding" him in places, because he has been found. Theists have yet to find this one piece of evidence.

The point I was trying to make with my example was that what one actually has is experimental data. One has to interpret that data and the interpretation isn't always obvioius. For example; It used to be assumed that the decay rates of nuclei was a constant in time. Recent measurements have shown that there is a seasonal variation (rate changes with Sun-Earth distance) to the decay rates of a few isotopes (and probably applies to many more). So we have data and there is an interpretation. But one has to think about this very carefully and scientists have to do their best to think of other reasons for this variation in decay rate. One obvious reason is that the neutrino flux is larger when the Earth is closer to the Sun and this neutrino flux may be effecting the decay rate. So while nuclear physicists used to think they had evidence that the decay rate was constant it might be true that they made a mistake and the errors in observation were simply within the range of experimental error.

I can take things as true based on evidence or based on trusted processes. Just how I would trust my sister when she tells me that she needs some money, I trust the process of peer review. So yes, peer review could be seen as an authority, but it has worked so far so we have a level of trust.

Many people see E = mc^2 and assume its true. This means that they assume that its valid in all concievable situations. It turns out that is incorrect. There are instances where that relation does not hold. Einstein himself figured that out and a good relativist knows this. Its just one of those very little known facts that is rarely brought up. There have been many similar examples of these kinds of things in the past. When things become clearer it can sometimes lead to scientific revolution.

Here's another question - It is often said that Einstein proved that gravity is a curvature in spacetime. Almost all relativists nowadays will agree with that statement. My question - Is it true?

Another question: It is also often said that the mass of an object increases with speed. Is that true too?

These are obviously trick questions since I know the answers. But the answers are not obvious at all.

Pete

[Jason Jarred]

I don't think it really matters to tell you the truth, as long as science continues to adjust it's understanding of the universe and the way it operates. We'll start with a hypothesis, work our way to a theory which we may believe holds true 100% of the time, discover there are exceptions to the rule, adjust the theory etc etc. So what? All this proves is that science adapts, learns, changes, and says nothing whatsoever about religion.
Neither atheism or indeed science pretend to have all the answers, and I would be incredulous of any person, group, society or organisation that pretends to have all the answers.

[Pete]

I don't think it really matters to tell you the truth, as long as science continues to adjust it's understanding of the universe and the way it operates. We'll start with a hypothesis, work our way to a theory which we may believe holds true 100% of the time, discover there are exceptions to the rule, adjust the theory etc etc. So what? All this proves is that science adapts, learns, changes, and says nothing whatsoever about religion.
Neither atheism or indeed science pretend to have all the answers, and I would be incredulous of any person, group, society or organisation that pretends to have all the answers.

Smart man!

[Tiberius]

Actually it doesn't really prove that.

I never said it proved anything. I said it was evidence.

Many people see E = mc^2 and assume its true. This means that they assume that its valid in all concievable situations. It turns out that is incorrect. There are instances where that relation does not hold.

I know it doesn't hold for quantum mechanics, is that the situation you were talking about?

It is often said that Einstein proved that gravity is a curvature in spacetime. Almost all relativists nowadays will agree with that statement. My question - Is it true?

Whether it is true or not is not something based on how many people subscribe to it. Such is a logical fallacy. If however these people all agree and all have evidence that supports their claim then I can say that it is supported well.

It is also often said that the mass of an object increases with speed. Is that true too?

Again, a logical fallacy to say that "it is often" and come to the conclusion that it is true, so I would simply say that if the evidence supports it and there is a lot of evidence, then it is highly supported.

[Pete]

I know it doesn't hold for quantum mechanics, is that the situation you were talking about?

No. Who said it doesn't hold for quantum mechanics??

Again, a logical fallacy to say that "it is often" and come to the conclusion that it is true, so I would simply say that if the evidence supports it and there is a lot of evidence, then it is highly supported.

Not really. In the last two cases it has to do with definitions.

[Tiberius]

No. Who said it doesn't hold for quantum mechanics??

Either we are talking about completely different things or I've got confused somewhere, because as far as I am aware, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics contradict each other. In fact I watched a documentary the other day about the LHC which discussed it at length.