Science is Broken -- peer review and replication

[RevTestament]

On 4/19/2016 at 3:31 PM, mfbukowski said:

I am just going to post this about my understanding of Nietzsche and nihilism- because he saw this precise problem coming, over a hundred years ago

A lot of religious people do not like Nietzsche because he like to say things to shock people and so he is misunderstood.  For example his famous dictum that "God is dead" was more an observation about Christianity at the time he wrote it than anything else.   No question he did not like German Protestantism- which he saw as "Christianity", but in my opinion, from a Mormon understanding, MUCH (not all) of what he says has merit.  I personally agree with him that that the "God" of pre-restoration Christianity indeed was "dead" if he had ever even been alive- the god of substance theology and the trinity was based on pagan Greek notions.  Joseph restored the real God in my opinion, and today, to humanity, God lives again.

Nietzsche decries nihilism- the belief in nothing.  That is seen today in those who still believe that scientific truth is the only "truth", it is a truth without meaning.

He is not a nihilist at all- he believes, as do we also, that mankind should create it's own world an give meaning to "matter unorganized", though of course he does not use those terms.  We of course believe that an exalted "Human God" does exactly that.

For once, wikipedia does a pretty good job on summarizing his views and I will quote that article at length.  I think it is germane to this discussion because it shows what happens when one only believes in "objective truth" devoid of meaning- as those who believe in scientism and positivism do.  In fact Nietzsche can be seen as an "anti-positivist"

So read this summary with a grain of salt, and see it as if you are reading something pro-LDS- do not close off your mind because it is that "evil Nietzsche guy".  And doing so, relate it to the present day and see present day circumstances in what is said.

So again, apply what is said to pre-restoration Christianity.

Pre- restoration Christianity provides a belief in objective truth which we now see in atheists like Dawkins who use that belief in objective truth to discredit belief in God.

Science comes in and takes over that position - that the only objective truth is scientific truth- and therefore proves- allegedly- that God does not exist, and the Christian world swallows the argument and we have people leaving churches in droves.

Understand that.  Christianity does not have an open canon- there are TRUTHS revealed once- in the Bible- for all eternity.  Ex nihilo creation.  "TRVTH" inscribed in rock on the top of a Greek pagan temple.

So now science accepts objective truth- but it cannot find meaning.  There is no verifiable way to experiment about God, so God must not exist.  So now you have positivism and Dawkins and scientism

Nietzsche's point- "translated" using LDS jargon is that "truth" is contextual and is created from matter unorganized by the Human Mind.   If we think of God as an exalted "Human" and that each of us as humans, create our own little "worlds" this makes sense. 

We create meaning in our own lives, through study and testimony- direct personal revelation.  We have an open canon and are flexible enough to change with the times as needed because we have a prophet who is living- truth is not dead and etched in stone but part of an interactive process with our Father- our "Human" God with whom we co-create reality as we understand it.  He reveals more to us as we need it.

But the key here is the creation of meaning in our lives.  THIS is the key similarity here with Nietzsche.

So yes, Nietzsche said a lot of crazy things about the German Protestantism of his time.   Some of it was wrong- some not so much "wrong".  But on these points he was right on the money

And the main point is yes- scientisim and its attendant nihilism does not create morality nor does it create happiness.

And now it is becoming clear that it doesn't even necessarily describe "objective reality" but the "truth" which will create the most income for the institution doing the research.

My two cents.

Nietzche is definitely right that traditional Christianity is an interpretation. It began with Athanasius I believe who managed to get his views enshrined in the Nicene Creed. This was the beginning of 1500 yrs of interpretation by one church which was imposed on the rest of Christianity, and W. European's eventual disenchantment with it when it was proved wrong by science, and new translations of the Bible. This set up a false dichotomy in the minds of people that either the Church was right or science was right. 

Why can't both be right? I view the Bible as a spiritual teaching - not a scientific book. It does not describe things in scientific ways, but with symbolism, allegory, parables, and spiritual teachings. Reading it without understanding this is going to give one the wrong impression. Once one understands the symbolism, etc, tho the Bible is quite consistent. When I found that traditional Christianity wasn't consistent with the Bible, I did not give up my belief in God, but essentially set out to learn more about God, or to understand Him better. That search and the Spirit has led me to the LDS Church - not because it has "the perfect interpretation" - indeed I disagree with several given by various GAs over the last  180 years - but because the foundational truths are correct - we realize God is not done teaching us - that He has more to reveal, etc, and that leaders are not perfect. My experiences and spiritual knowledge gained prove to me the LDS Church is true even if I disagree with interpretations by various leaders. The Gospel is consistent with the scriptures and with a just God, and is uplifting. It is the only interpretation I have found in a church which makes sense of the purpose of this world, and our being here. Are there other interpretations? Sure there are. Jeremy Runnells found many, and lost his faith in Christianity. But without the principles of the gospel, I doubt he will find lasting happiness in this life. The true principles of leadership taught by the Savior are what make this life bearable and provide us a sense of fulfillment. 

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Nietzche is definitely right that traditional Christianity is an interpretation. It began with Athanasius I believe who managed to get his views enshrined in the Nicene Creed. This was the beginning of 1500 yrs of interpretation by one church which was imposed on the rest of Christianity, and W. European's eventual disenchantment with it when it was proved wrong by science, and new translations of the Bible. This set up a false dichotomy in the minds of people that either the Church was right or science was right. 

Why can't both be right? I view the Bible as a spiritual teaching - not a scientific book. It does not describe things in scientific ways, but with symbolism, allegory, parables, and spiritual teachings. Reading it without understanding this is going to give one the wrong impression. Once one understands the symbolism, etc, tho the Bible is quite consistent. When I found that traditional Christianity wasn't consistent with the Bible, I did not give up my belief in God, but essentially set out to learn more about God, or to understand Him better. That search and the Spirit has led me to the LDS Church - not because it has "the perfect interpretation" - indeed I disagree with several given by various GAs over the last  180 years - but because the foundational truths are correct - we realize God is not done teaching us - that He has more to reveal, etc, and that leaders are not perfect. My experiences and spiritual knowledge gained prove to me the LDS Church is true even if I disagree with interpretations by various leaders. The Gospel is consistent with the scriptures and with a just God, and is uplifting. It is the only interpretation I have found in a church which makes sense of the purpose of this world, and our being here. Are there other interpretations? Sure there are. Jeremy Runnells found many, and lost his faith in Christianity. But without the principles of the gospel, I doubt he will find lasting happiness in this life. The true principles of leadership taught by the Savior are what make this life bearable and provide us a sense of fulfillment. 

Agree completely- 

[mfbukowski]

The other aspect of this is that science as a method is not broken at all.  It does what it is designed to do beautifully.

Institutional science- as it is today with the political system of grants and funding etc IS on the other hand "broken" in the sense that it is not pure science anymore- it is politics and proving whatever principle makes the most money.

So you can argue that science does not examine purposes and significance to humanity, and yet should- and that principle is the idea behind Phenomenology

That I understand.  I have a problem with how science limits its topics

But as a method, self limiting as it is, it is not broken- it is the USE of science and the interpretation of the conclusions which is broken

 

[ERayR]

23 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

From whatever the empirical evidence shows. As such it is always tentative. IE; Great man that he was Galileo wasn't the last word on Gravity, neither was Newton, Laplace, Einstein, nor even the Theory of Quantum Mechanics.

Evidence is nothing more that factoids that has to be interpreted through someones paradigm.  Agreement or disagreement with that interpretation only reflects your own POV.

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Evidence is nothing more that factoids that has to be interpreted through someones paradigm.  Agreement or disagreement with that interpretation only reflects your own POV.

So the earth rotating around the sun is just my POV?

[cdowis]

Excuse my ignorance, the decay rate itself conforms to the laws of physics, BUT it also depends on the conditions or extraneous factors, such as the radiation of the sun arriving to the earth's surface.  I understand they have already attempts t make adjustments based on these factors.

Edited April 21, 2016 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, cdowis said:

Excuse my ignorance, the decay rate itself conforms to the laws of physics, BUT it also depends on the conditions or extraneous factors, such as the radiation of the sun arriving to the earth's surface.  I understand they have already attempts t make adjustments based on these factors.

There has been adjustments made in C-14 dating techniques for many years. From tree ring correlates to the increase in radiation from above ground nuclear test.

Also the Potassium-Argon test is not effected by solar radiation/

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Accuracy_of_radiometric_dating

[cdowis]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Thank you for taking the time to educate me.

There has been adjustments made in C-14 dating techniques for many years. From tree ring correlates to the increase in radiation from above ground nuclear test.

How far back was this test (tree rings) able to confirm the dating?

Also the Potassium-Argon test is not effected by solar radiation/

OK, and how closely do these tests correlate with each other.

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

You are welcome.

40,000 to 60,000 years. However after 40,000 years accuracy does suffer. After 60,000 years there is not enough C-14 left for reliable dates.

Very closely. If they weren't we wouldn't use them.

[ERayR]

On 4/21/2016 at 9:54 AM, thesometimesaint said:

So the earth rotating around the sun is just my POV?

Your inane attempts at ridicule are really insulting to your own intelligence.

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Your inane attempts at ridicule are really insulting to your own intelligence.

You are the one that keeps using inane attempts at science to make it just a POV. Show evidence for your claim that science is just a POV.

SEE

What is science?

     Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding¹. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.

Edited April 22, 2016 by thesometimesaint