The Fundamental Conflict Between Science And Religion

[elguanteloko]

But you brought it up in that context.

Your interpretation of what I said is just wrong. Sorry.

You explicitly equate parsimony with the notion that without parsimony things are not "proven" in the OP

Oh, brother! I never said, first of all, that there were "proofs" in science. I've actually promoted the correct usage many times in this forum by saying "evidence" NOT "proofs". Proofs are for math and logic, not the empirical sciences. You can also always bring good evidence for a clearly unparsimonious explanations, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Please read the article I provided.

you write -----> "In other words, religion and religious explanations are not scientifically testable."

And from this you get that there are "proofs" in science and that those "proofs" can't happen without parsimony? oh, man!

Because surely you are not claiming that the scientific method is beholden to "economy" or "stinginess"??? So, it stands to reason that you mean parsimony in the context of the often overused Razor.

I still maintain that your OP argument is flawed and the notion of your "conflict" is an illusion, created to purport some "science must be able to reveal the true god" agenda.

That's probably because you aren't reading well enough. The "science must be able to reveal the true god" is a silly proposition I've never subscribed to at all. I don't have anything else to say to you other than "don't assume you already have heard what I'm saying" and "don't assume you have a good refutation to what I'm saying" and "don't look for reasons why you are right already".

I won't be answering your posts in the future in this thread so, have a great life!

[shalamabobbi]

I won't be answering your posts in the future in this thread so, have a great life!

You pontificator you..

Please don't cut us off from from the source of light and reason!

El,

This is your argument in a nutshell..

Why accept it? Because people said they believed what they saw actually corresponded to a resurrected guy? Come on, man.

Translation: Argument from incredulity accepted when applied to religion, rejected when applied to the theory of evolution. (Which theory I accept btw, so don't go there..)

Your attempt to bolster the argument with the mis-application of parsimony is an acknowledgement of the lack of meat on dem bones..

Someone else posted a horrible definition of parsimony and I recommend you guys to read on the several uses the word has. "Parsimony" has as many applications and twists as the word "science" though a very general principle can be perceived.

Yes as horrible as yours..

What was clever about it was the way it used your very wording (though in dissagreement with your usage)..

Here's a trustworthy site on it: http://plato.stanfor...ies/simplicity/

Lol..good! Something from my alma mater..

Give me a chance to wend my way through it completely. I've already found some snippets to do damage to your position.

In the mean time here is some more material to crunch on.

From the Story of Philosophy by Will Durant (pg 586-587)

It is a remarkable thing that Bergson, the David destined to stay the Goliath of materialism, was in youth a devotee of Spencer. But too much knowledge leads to scepticism; early devotees are the likeliest apostates, as early sinners are senile saints. The more he studied Spencer, the more keenly conscious Bergson became of the three rheumatic joints of the materialist mechanism: between matter and life, between body and mind, and between determinism and choice. The patience of Pasteur had discredited the belief in abiogenesis (the generation of life by non-living matter); and after a hundred years of theory, and a thousand vain experiments, the materialists were no nearer than before to solving the problem of the origin of life. Again, though thought and brain were obviously connected, the mode of connection was as far from obvious as it had ever been. If mind was matter, and every mental act a mechanical resultant of neural states, of what use was consciousness? Why could not the material mechanism of the brain dispense with this "epiphenomenon," as the honest and logical Huxley called it, this apparently useless flame thrown up by the heat of cerebral commotion? Finally, was determinism any more intelligible than free will? If the present moment contains no living and creative choice, and is totally and mechanically the product of the matter and motion of the moment before, then so was that moment the mechanical effect of the moment that preceded it, and that again of the one before...and so on, until we arrive at the primeval nebula as the total cause of every later event, of every line of Shakespeare's plays, and every suffering of his soul; so that the sombre rhetoric of Hamlet and Othelo, of Macbeth and Lear, in every clause and every phrase, was written far off there in the distant skies and the distant aeons, by the structure and content of that legendary cloud. What a draft upon credulity! What an exercise of faith such a theory must demand in this unbelieving generation! What mystery or miracle, of Old Tewstament or New, could be half so incredible as this monstrous fatalistic myth, this nebula composing tragedies? There was matter enough for rebellion here; and if Bergson rose so rapidly to fame it was because he had the courage to doubt where all the doubters piously believed.

[elguanteloko]

You pontificator you..

Please don't cut us off from from the source of light and reason!

I meant that to him only. I'm only going to repeat myself to someone like him so many times.

Translation: Argument from incredulity accepted when applied to religion, rejected when applied to the theory of evolution. (Which theory I accept btw, so don't go there..)

No one's arguing from incredulity. I'm not saying simply that because it sounds outrageous that it isn't true. I'm simply saying it seems reasonably less likely to be the case than other explanations with much more reliable evidence. There's a difference between saying "Your explanation can't be true" to "Your explanation is not the best one."

Yes as horrible as yours..

What was clever about it was the way it used your very wording (though in dissagreement with your usage)..

I'm quoting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a reason. His definition is horrible because it is very incomplete. Again, like the word "science" has many meanings, the razor is also used in several different ways and there are many different approaches to it. I never meant to give an exhaustive definition of the razor but I'm using it in a specific correct way of using it.

From the Story of Philosophy by Will Durant (pg 586-587).

Two things: 1) Nothing of what I've said here is either for materialism nor against non-materialism. The razor is perfectly compatible with forms of both of those (and science, believe it or not, at least in principle is also not against non-materialism nor for materialism) so your quote is pretty useless here. I'm also not a materialist. 2) If you are LDS you should probably be a materialist so quoting something against materialism is to quote something against your beliefs.

Edited August 3, 2011 by elguanteloko

[subgenius]

And from this you get that there are "proofs" in science and that those "proofs" can't happen without parsimony? oh, man!

oh man! is right. Since you now seem to be stating that "scientific testing" is not meant to "prove/disprove" anything, exactly then what is the point of "scientific testing". The old "science does not "prove" anything counter-argument is hairsplitting and boring and intellectually dishonest in this context. The fact is that many scientist will not "believe" in anything outside of what science can or has allegedly "proven". Your dodges, revisions, and absurdity doth not a good argument make.

That's probably because you aren't reading well enough. The "science must be able to reveal the true god" is a silly proposition I've never subscribed to at all. I don't have anything else to say to you other than "don't assume you already have heard what I'm saying" and "don't assume you have a good refutation to what I'm saying" and "don't look for reasons why you are right already".

then what possible point could you be trying to make by pointing out the most simple-minded notion of "science can not test for God" ? (yet)

As far as "d'uh" statements go that is a popular one. Are you simply trying to state the obvious or was there an actual discussion involved?

I won't be answering your posts in the future in this thread so, have a great life!

I am not sure how this is different than what you have been doing, you seem to respond but seldom "answer".

Did you mean to say you would not "respond" ???

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

I seldom speak of "Proofs", because outside of the limited field of mathematics "Proofs" are very rare indeed. Equally I speak seldom of physical(natural) evidence for God. I know the limits of science, and the limits of my religion. I prefer the world of faith, and a faith not in some abstract esseence or immaterial God. But of a living God with a tangible body like yours and mine. However I perfectly at home in the world of science. I know it sounds self contradictory but that is how I see it. I trust God will eventually tell me exactly the HOW's of Creation, and I'd be very surprized it he didn't say that he used evolution to do it. That would open up a whole lot of questions for God to answer. But I'm sure he will to my complete and uttermost satisfaction.

Einstein proposed his grand unified theory, but could never make it work, that little thing called Quantum Mehanics kept getting in the way. Steven Hawking is trying his darndest to come up with the theory of everything. Will he succeed? I don't know. He has a better chance than either one of us does. However when he claims there is no God. He is out of his field of expertice, and is no more qualified to addresss the issue of God than my house plumber is in doing open heart surgery(Afterall it is just plumbing).

[subgenius]

elguanteloko:

I seldom speak of "Proofs", because outside of the limited field of mathematics "Proofs" are very rare indeed. Equally I speak seldom of physical(natural) evidence for God. I know the limits of science, and the limits of my religion. I prefer the world of faith, and a faith not in some abstract esseence or immaterial God. But of a living God with a tangible body like yours and mine. However I perfectly at home in the world of science. I know it sounds self contradictory but that is how I see it. I trust God will eventually tell me exactly the HOW's of Creation, and I'd be very surprized it he didn't say that he used evolution to do it. That would open up a whole lot of questions for God to answer. But I'm sure he will to my complete and uttermost satisfaction.

Einstein proposed his grand unified theory, but could never make it work, that little thing called Quantum Mehanics kept getting in the way. Steven Hawking is trying his darndest to come up with the theory of everything. Will he succeed? I don't know. He has a better chance than either one of us does. However when he claims there is no God. He is out of his field of expertice, and is no more qualified to addresss the issue of God than my house plumber is in doing open heart surgery(Afterall it is just plumbing).

[Samurai2012]

There is a huge history across generations and peoples of "empirical" justification of "God existing".

And the evidences ARE "extraordinary".

So, what are you actually talking about? Seems you're wrong.

Well, people are free to believe in a variety of ways. Maybe "God" is just impersonal spiritual forces. Perhaps the order in the universe, or our living planet Earth, came because we were simply lucky, and so on. Philosophical arguments are interpreted in a variety of ways. Again, people are free to believe things until the day when, according to Phillipians 2:10,"Every knee shall bow"

People claim there is no evidence that exists for the Book of Mormon. Educated Mormons know for a fact that is false.

The question is not that evidence doesn't exist for religion or for God or for the Book of Mormon, and that such claims are not scientifically verifiable in some degree, the question is the degree, the accuracy, and on whether it's even known and understood by the person in question.

There's also no solid evidence for the Hebrews' bondage and exodus from Egypt. Again, even with the feathered serpent mythology had by the MesoAmerican peoples, it's not solid proof. There's too many facts open to interpretation here, or lacking. Again, the big point with religious events is that there's plenty of facts that are subject to various interpretation, and the "facts" can't be outright observed. It's also a matter of to how the facts are useable, is it useable to decsribe or build an understanding/predictability about when seas come apart, or is it more important to remember lessons of how God regards the good/evil that you or I do?

You say the scientific method provides no evidence for no God or anything else religious, I say you're ignorant.

My faith is not blind faith, it's based on the evidences of claims. I'm for example a mormon, and not in any other religion originally because mormonism was the only religion that actually fit the Biblical pattern of organization, doctrines, prophets, witnesses, scripture, etc., just like the New Testament Church was established. If that's not evidence and scientific methodology, then nothing is.

It's your own personal work for reforming and making yourself the better person. It's different from what you would apply if you were say, programming a computer, or fixing a car, or trying to design a roller coaster, all of which constitute a role of science.

[elguanteloko]

subgenius

The purpose of evidence (not proofs) is to show that something, somewhere is wrong in a theory. It also serves to find more convincing evidence for a given theory though NEVER to prove it correct. Science is much more humble than people normally think.

Check Popper's falsifiability (and specially the logic behind it) and the Duhem-Quine thesis. Quit being intellectually lazy when I've provided enough references for you to read further on the subject.

Edited August 4, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

I seldom speak of "Proofs", because outside of the limited field of mathematics "Proofs" are very rare indeed. Equally I speak seldom of physical(natural) evidence for God. I know the limits of science, and the limits of my religion. I prefer the world of faith, and a faith not in some abstract esseence or immaterial God. But of a living God with a tangible body like yours and mine. However I perfectly at home in the world of science. I know it sounds self contradictory but that is how I see it. I trust God will eventually tell me exactly the HOW's of Creation, and I'd be very surprized it he didn't say that he used evolution to do it. That would open up a whole lot of questions for God to answer. But I'm sure he will to my complete and uttermost satisfaction.

That's fine with me, TSS. I personally don't mind if people have faith in God or in the LDS Church or anything else. The only problem I have is when that stands in the way of good reasoning or slows judgment down. This is, unfortunately, what happens most of the times but if you get what I'm saying then we're all good.

Einstein proposed his grand unified theory, but could never make it work, that little thing called Quantum Mehanics kept getting in the way. Steven Hawking is trying his darndest to come up with the theory of everything. Will he succeed? I don't know. He has a better chance than either one of us does. However when he claims there is no God. He is out of his field of expertice, and is no more qualified to addresss the issue of God than my house plumber is in doing open heart surgery(Afterall it is just plumbing).

It's not possible to get a theory of everything. Physicists like to talk about it because they are full of themselves (LOL) but Godel proved (and that WAS a proof) that that can't happen... which is a good thing for them, though, since this means they will always have work to do.

About the use of "atheism", I think I've heard Hawking say that he isn't sure that God doesn't exist but that we are justified in saying it just as we are justified in saying a bunch of other things don't exist. That's my view. "Atheism" doesn't need to be a final judgment on God's existence in the strong sense that "God does NOT exist!" but it isn't that different from saying "Unicorns don't exist" or "Flying elephants don't exist". Actually, all the atheists I've heard in my life mean by "God doesn't exist" in this way. They don't mean it is impossible for God to exist or that they know indubitably that God doesn't exist but that they are justified enough in saying he doesn't exist.

Edited August 4, 2011 by elguanteloko

[subgenius]

subgenius

The purpose of evidence (not proofs) is to show that something, somewhere is wrong in a theory. It also serves to find more convincing evidence for a given theory though NEVER to prove it correct. Science is much more humble than people normally think.

Check Popper's falsifiability (and specially the logic behind it) and the Duhem-Quine thesis. Quit being intellectually lazy when I've provided enough references for you to read further on the subject.

wow, at least you are not answering my posts anymore.

Lets take a look at the sincerity in yours: For your entire motivation and fallacy is shown quite clearly in your original post.

The fundamental conflict between science and religion is that religion (Mormonism specifically) makes claims about things that exist that are not parsimonious and/or unfalsifiable (along with other less important problems). In other words, religion and religious explanations are not scientifically testable.

but no mention that science is not spiritually testable, why? Seems bias off the bat. Also a sever implication that "things that exist" must be "parsimonious and/or unfalsifiable", and since religion does not do that, it must not exist. Horrible logic and insulting to people that walk upright.

This is NOT to say they are wrong but while Mormonism accepts things as correct without much justification, science can't do that.

incorrect statement. "scientific justification" yes, but as worded here, it is just misleading and wrong.

Example: God exists.

absurd example. this is not taken in religion without justification.

This claim is never empirically justified (few times even attempted) and still accepted while science just can't do that. Really, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and religion offers very little in this respect. Again, this does not mean God doesn't exist or that prayer doesn't work but it does mean those claims are simply unjustified. Why say "God exists" when all we have are feelings and not trustworthy evidence? Why say "God did this" when that isn't the best explanation for things?

This above quote is just overflowing with little gems:

1. empirical justification = more than science? If something is not empirically justified then what? are you going to propose some sort of judgment as to what that means, or are you going to continue to dig yourself an intellectual hole that has already begun to collapse around you?

2. You claim that religion offers "extraordinary" claims, but what is so unusual about religion? I may argue that it has been "normal" for far longer than science and farther reaching, which would make science the extraordinary. Again we see your bias and predisposed position - not very sciencey at all.

3. Feelings = not trustworthy....wha? been Vulcan for long?

4. Science = best explanation for things.....this is laughable on some many levels, its hard to begin.

The irony is that most of your assumptions are "unjustified" yet you would have us take them as fact.

[elguanteloko]

wow, at least you are not answering my posts anymore.

What can I say? I'm a man of hope.

but no mention that science is not spiritually testable, why?

Because this already assumes there is such a thing as "spiritual tests". Show these are reliable tests and we'll have a conversation about it.

Seems bias off the bat. Also a sever implication that "things that exist" must be "parsimonious and/or unfalsifiable",

"Things that exists must be parsimonious and/or falsifiable" is something I never even implied. This is just wrong, brother.

and since religion does not do that, it must not exist. Horrible logic and insulting to people that walk upright.

LOL That is indeed horrible logic. Stop using it.

incorrect statement. "scientific justification" yes, but as worded here, it is just misleading and wrong.

?

absurd example. this is not taken in religion without justification.

not all attempts at justification can be called "justification" in the proper sense. If you try to justify killing someone by saying "Zeus told me to" I won't even call that a justification.

1. empirical justification = more than science?

...no, I said there is more to science than empirical justification. Read what I told you to, for Pete's sake!

If something is not empirically justified then what?

Here are some examples: logically justified, mathematically justified, philosophically justified, pragmatically justified. Sciences uses all of those.

2. You claim that religion offers "extraordinary" claims, but what is so unusual about religion?

You really need to read better, brother. "extraordinary" =/= "unusual" in this context. Religious claims are in fact VERY usual but extraordinary. You must first pin down what I'm trying to say before trying to attack it. Please stop wasting my time like this.

I may argue that it has been "normal" for far longer than science and farther reaching, which would make science the extraordinary. Again we see your bias and predisposed position - not very sciencey at all.

3. Feelings = not trustworthy....wha? been Vulcan for long?

?

4. Science = best explanation for things.....this is laughable on some many levels, its hard to begin.

keep laughing all you want. I want to make clear that this is the case (that science offers the best explanations for 'things') only for things within the purview of science, though.

The irony is that most of your assumptions are "unjustified" yet you would have us take them as fact.

When you refuse to read the literature offered I'm sure you'll find it unjustified because you don't get it.

[Zakuska]

Why does this thread remind me so much of "Nightmare before Christmas"?

Where did "science" get Jack?

[elguanteloko]

Why does this thread remind me so much of "Nightmare before Christmas"?

Where did "science" get Jack?

I tried watching that movie once but it was too boring. What do you mean?

[shalamabobbi]

general reply

A couple of quotes to start out:

William of Ockham himself was a theist. He believed in God, and thus in some validity of scripture; he writes that “nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.” Unlike many theologians of his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically proven with arguments. In fact, he thought that science actually seemed to eliminate God according to the Razor's criteria. To Ockham, science was a matter of discovery, but theology was a matter of revelation and faith (e.g. some sort of Non-overlapping magisteria).[39] He explains: “only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.”

So my basic complaint, is that the whole article is written from a perspective of someone who confuses a successful and operational theory, with fact: Theories are always ad hoc, always subject to revision, never a final truth. In such a scenario Occam's Razor ceases to become what it is sometimes purported to be, an arbiter of truth quality, and becomes what I believe it was originally intended to be, a pragmatic tool for the philosopher and scientist, to maintain discipline and economy in theoritic formulation.

This second quote agrees with my understanding of the principal, that it is not a means to decide what is *true*. I take your statement:

There's a difference between saying "Your explanation can't be true" to "Your explanation is not the best one.

as implying that the principal somehow can determine a degree of truth to the extent that it can be used as a means of comparison. I would quibble with this since that is not the way it is used in science.

from your source:

The grand aim of all science…is to cover the greatest possible number of empirical facts by logical deductions from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or axioms (Einstein, quoted in Nash 1963, p. 173).

In my own words "your explanation is not the best one" is off with the use of the word "best". It would be correct to say that "your explanation does not account for the facts in the simplest way". That is all parsimony is. The simplest way is not necessarily connected with "most likely" or "best" or any other qualifier you might come up with.

That is why it is useful in science and why it doesn't address the reality behind science at all.

From your source:

Kuhn (1977) takes this line, claiming that how much weight individual scientists give a particular theoretical virtue, such as simplicity, is solely a matter of taste, and is not open to rational resolution.

The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another (Sober 1994).

Sometimes the theoretical virtue of simplicity is invoked as a primitive, self-evident proposition that cannot be further justified or elaborated upon.

Justifying a methodological principle requires answering a pragmatic question: why does it make practical sense for theorists to adopt parsimonious theories?

All these point to the fact that parsimony is not a law in itself but simply a matter of taste, that whether it is applicable is determined by the subject matter, that its application cannot itself be justified but is taken as a primitive, that in the end its usage is a pragmatic consideration.

Again from your source:

and this points to a more general worry concerning the narrowness of application of OR1. First, how often does it actually happen that we have two (or more) competing theories for which ‘other things are equal’? As biologist Kent Holsinger remarks,

Since Occam's Razor ought to be invoked only when several hypotheses explain the same set of facts equally well, in practice its domain will be very limited… Cases where competing hypotheses explain a phenomenon equally well are comparatively rare (Holsinger 1980, pp. 144–5).

Second, how often are one candidate theory's ontological commitments a proper subset of another's? Much more common are situations where ontologies of competing theories overlap, but each theory has postulates which are not made by the other. Straightforward comparisons of ontological parsimony are not possible in such cases.

Again from your source:

Philosophical interest in these two notions of simplicity may be organized around answers to three basic questions;

(i) How is simplicity to be defined? [Definition]

(ii) What is the role of simplicity principles in different areas of inquiry? [usage]

(iii) Is there a rational justification for such simplicity principles? [Justification]

It is item (ii) that is of consideration with respect to religion and history perhaps. Your use is a specific use where God is "kicked out" of the scientific process altogether. I do not have an issue with this. How could He be included within the scientific paradigm/process? Clearly that isn't possible. Who's definition of God will be used? The LDS viewpoint or Rob Bowman's? How will we discern where and to what extent God played a role in the creation? We cannot. How will we determine whether God created the universe or whether it is self existing? etc. There are no tools within science to include God. And as parsimony does not determine truth there is no conflict to the extent that you declare exists in methodologies.

A simple consideration of any court trial will establish that there is no fundamental conflict between forensic evidence and the use of testimony.

So likewise there is no necessary conflict between the LDS religion and science.

Again from your source:

OR stipulates only that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. OR1, by contrast, states that entities should not be multiplied other things being equal, and this is compatible with parsimony being a comparatively weak theoretical virtue.

Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.’ But necessity for what, exactly?

The less parsimonious theories are condemned for profligacy, and lack of direct evidential support. The more parsimonious theories are condemned for their inadequacy to explain the observed facts.

And here is the issue. As pointed out in blarsen's excellent post, testimony is acquired individually. It is not in the objective arena. Is it therefore not *true*?

If we are to apply parsimony here we arrive at a road block. For the cynic will apply parsimony to eliminate the testimony, where (considering the possibility that the testimony is true) the individual with the testimony must apply parsimony to include the observed facts of which he is now aware.

If you are LDS you should probably be a materialist so quoting something against materialism is to quote something against your beliefs.

And there is also the statement about intelligence, that it is self existing. Is it an entity or part and parcel of material existence?

Whether a dodge/distraction or not, or whether you know only a little about LDS beliefs, the reason for the quote is that reductionism doesn't answer the existence of consciousness and free will.

So until science succeeds in creating them, scientism is "pre-mature" to use MP's words, and agnosticism (with respect to scientism) is in order..

And this is pertinent to this discussion since parsimony to be applied correctly must cover all the facts and these facts are not yet well covered..

[Zakuska]

I tried watching that movie once but it was too boring. What do you mean?

Jack uses the scientific method to test Santa's suit and it lead him to the wrong conclusion/decision. Even though what he observed seemed to confirm his theory.

[Jeff K.]

It illustrates how the perception of facts are often misconstrued by people who claim science answers all questions or that science is the only system by which questions can be answered.

[Zakuska]

It illustrates how the perception of facts are often misconstrued by people who claim science answers all questions or that science is the only system by which questions can be answered.

It also demostrates how Scientists tend to fall in love with their own pet theories and trying to control the universe around them to the point of becoming blind to other important facits of life.

[elguanteloko]

Jack uses the scientific method to test Santa's suit and it lead him to the wrong conclusion/decision. Even though what he observed seemed to confirm his theory.

Got it!

[elguanteloko]

It illustrates how the perception of facts are often misconstrued by people who claim science answers all questions or that science is the only system by which questions can be answered.

People who claim sciences answers all questions often misconstrue the "facts", granted. No one here, however, is taking that approach, but thanks for sharing that with us.

[elguanteloko]

It also demostrates how Scientists tend to fall in love with their own pet theories and trying to control the universe around them to the point of becoming blind to other important facits of life.

Sure, but it is science again which corrects them, never religion or religion-like methods. Thanks for sharing this with us but this is pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

[elguanteloko]

A couple of quotes to start out:

This second quote agrees with my understanding of the principal, that it is not a means to decide what is *true*. I take your statement:

I agree with that. I never took OR to be "a means to decide what is true"... like, at all.

as implying that the principal somehow can determine a degree of truth to the extent that it can be used as a means of comparison. I would quibble with this since that is not the way it is used in science.

from your source:

I would quibble, too.

I don't agree with Einstein there, though. Since facts don't explain themselves the aim of science is to do both: discover facts and discover the explanation of those facts.

In my own words "your explanation is not the best one" is off with the use of the word "best".

"Best" sure is a general word but I never intended to give any exhaustive view of the philosophy of science here. It doesn't matter how deep you get into the subject, science is still pragmatically justified in many of the things it does (at least for now) because they seem to work best or are the most convenient. It may be leading us in the wrong direction (something hard to believe but let's just say) but it's the best we've got.

It would be correct to say that "your explanation does not account for the facts in the simplest way". That is all parsimony is. The simplest way is not necessarily connected with "most likely" or "best" or any other qualifier you might come up with.

Once again, I've been using one of the different correct uses of OR. You seem to have missed this from the article:

The third and final question from Section 1 concerns potential justifications for principles of ontological parsimony such as Occam's Razor. The demand for justification of such principles can be understood in two importantly distinct ways, corresponding to the distinction between epistemic principles and methodological principles made at the end of Section 1. Justifying an epistemic principle requires answering an epistemic question: why are parsimonious theories more likely to be true? Justifying a methodological principle requires answering a pragmatic question: why does it make practical sense for theorists to adopt parsimonious theories?

All these point to the fact that parsimony is not a law in itself

...and I never said it was.

but simply a matter of taste, that whether it is applicable is determined by the subject matter, that its application cannot itself be justified but is taken as a primitive, that in the end its usage is a pragmatic consideration.

I do want to state here, though, that saying this is a matter of mere taste is misleading. That parsimony is based more on pragmatic grounds is something I would never deny... but "pragmatic grounds" doesn't mean they just use if for fun or because they find it likeable. The pragmatic use of parsimony (and if you read Kuhn you'll realize this) rests in that science needs to discriminate between theories that are proposed. After all (and you seem to realize this) a limitless number of theories can explain a given set of facts... which ones to chose and test? There are many criteria used like simplicity, familiarity with concepts, consistency, falsifiability, mathematical justifications, predictability, susceptibility to testing and measurement, etc. "God did it" isn't accepted as an explanation (or even as a fact) because it hardly meets those criteria. I never implied these factors took us to "the truth" or the "correct answer" at all. All I've been saying is that these rational and practical considerations are what have been working better and what seem more likely to get us to better results than ignoring them like religion does. That is where the conflict with religion comes and branches out from.

It is item (ii) that is of consideration with respect to religion and history perhaps. Your use is a specific use where God is "kicked out" of the scientific process altogether.

That depends on the use of "God" and how you propose "God's manifestations" to come about. Read through the thread and you will find that most people here believe in God's physical existence and influence on the physical but by all means, design a test to test what you think God's existence of influence can be supported with credible evidence! I'm all for that! Since those proposing the "God explanation" don't do this, then it is left out of science NOT as outside of its purview in principle but outside of its current reach. That is why science won't accept the God explanation as of today.

I do not have an issue with this. How could He be included within the scientific paradigm/process? Clearly that isn't possible. Who's definition of God will be used? The LDS viewpoint or Rob Bowman's? How will we discern where and to what extent God played a role in the creation? We cannot. How will we determine whether God created the universe or whether it is self existing? etc. There are no tools within science to include God.

Then there's no rational justification for accepting the God explanation. If you can't even test in principle God's existence or participation, why accept God as an explanation at all other than you just feel like it?

And as parsimony does not determine truth there is no conflict to the extent that you declare exists in methodologies.

(Again, I never said parsimony 'determines truth', that's silly!) This is where the conflict is: since science can't even test or reach IN PRINCIPLE that God, then there is no reason to accept such an explanation. We aren't speaking of some sort of mystical proposition here but of physical existence with influence on the physical. THAT is the conflict. Scientific-oriented thinking leads one to say, "Since there is no evidence nor is God necessary to explain something, then there is no good reason to accept his physical existence and his influence on the physical" while religion says "Anyways we will accept the God explanation". The latter is directly antithetical to science.

And here is the issue. As pointed out in blarsen's excellent post, testimony is acquired individually. It is not in the objective arena. Is it therefore not *true*?

If someone was to conclude that because something was 'subjective' that it was therefore false, that would be very bad reasoning. I'm not saying this. Please, bobbi, read what I'm trying to say carefully. I'm NOT saying that because science can't test it that it is, therefore, false.... at all. All I'm saying is that there isn't any good reason to accept propositions like "God has a body of flesh and bones" if we accept scientific REASONING, not tests. You can't accept science and accept such propositions AS TRUE without being inconsistent.

If we are to apply parsimony here we arrive at a road block. For the cynic will apply parsimony to eliminate the testimony, where (considering the possibility that the testimony is true) the individual with the testimony must apply parsimony to include the observed facts of which he is now aware.

I have never applied parsimony to eliminate anything. Please read more carefully what I'm trying to say.

And there is also the statement about intelligence, that it is self existing. Is it an entity or part and parcel of material existence?

Whether a dodge/distraction or not, or whether you know only a little about LDS beliefs, the reason for the quote is that reductionism doesn't answer the existence of consciousness and free will.

So until science succeeds in creating them, scientism is "pre-mature" to use MP's words, and agnosticism (with respect to scientism) is in order..

I agree. No one is a scientism-ist here.

And this is pertinent to this discussion since parsimony to be applied correctly must cover all the facts and these facts are not yet well covered..

All the facts of a set of facts. Parsimony isn't about the WHOLE set of facts, that's silly as heck! PLEASE read the article more carefully, brother, you are simply not getting it.

Edited August 5, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 04 August 2011 - 02:27 PM, said:

It illustrates how the perception of facts are often misconstrued by people who claim science answers all questions or that science is the only system by which questions can be answered.

People who claim sciences answers all questions often misconstrue the "facts", granted. No one here, however, is taking that approach, but thanks for sharing that with us.

I think I understand your problem elguantepoco. You have a reading comprehension issue.

Reread, rethink and get back to me...

[Jeff K.]

Zakuska, on 04 August 2011 - 02:48 PM, said:

It also demostrates how Scientists tend to fall in love with their own pet theories and trying to control the universe around them to the point of becoming blind to other important facits of life.

Sure, but it is science again which corrects them, never religion or religion-like methods. Thanks for sharing this with us but this is pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

No, not really. Scientists can hold the same opinion for quite some time, and then destroy the livlihood of those who disagree with them. Only a fool would overlook that and not acknowledge it.

Science doesn't correct itself, people correct science. And people are just as open to incorrect perceptions as anyone else. You had better rethink.

[elguanteloko]

I think I understand your problem elguantepoco. You have a reading comprehension issue.

Well, you talked about "people who claim science answers all questions or that science is the only system by which questions can be answered." I'm not one of those (and no one who has posted here is) so what you said is completely irrelevant.

[elguanteloko]

No, not really. Scientists can hold the same opinion for quite some time, and then destroy the livlihood of those who disagree with them. Only a fool would overlook that and not acknowledge it.

Science doesn't correct itself, people correct science. And people are just as open to incorrect perceptions as anyone else. You had better rethink.

I grant all of this.