Question to the "science is constantly changing" fans

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

"If you were dumber you could be our President." - The Nehor

"The primary benefit of religions is that it purports to tell the truth. If it does it is useful. Most of the benefits are in the next life. I am not sure if it benefits society. Would not matter to me if it did not." - The Nehor 

"If they found out tomorrow that the gospel is tied to depression or struggling in life they would not disband the church or disavow the gospel." - The Nehor

And? I stand by all three.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

 Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity easily meet the 7 points. 

Einstein, by most accounts, flat out lost the debates on quantum mechanics vs relativity.  Neither theory works if the other is true. Relativity is a good example of meeting all 7 scientific criteria listed above, but may actually be a bunk theory. 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by pogi

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Fairmormon says, "The state of science is constantly changing. What science declared to be "true" in the 19th century is not "true" in the 21st century. It is reasonable to expect that some things that we consider to be scientifically "true" now may be revised according to additional knowledge that is gained in the future." I completely agree with fairmormon. Science is self-correcting, and that is the beauty of science.  However, some folks love to remind us that when they don't like a scientific theory such as global warming or evolution. 

Please point to a superseded scientific theory that 

1. was backed up by hundreds of research papers

2. made predictions 

3. made scientists highly confident

4. survived tough scientific scrutiny for at least two decades 

5. was used in multiple fields of science

6. was confirmed by observation 

7. Falsifiable 

8. was accepted by the scientific community since modern Physics began 

but years later overturned by new evidence. 

So I agree that science is always changing, but I don't think (very unlikely) that the "basic components of" a powerful scientific theory change, at least not since modern physics.  The seven points easily apply for Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity. 

Edit: My goodness! No one here knows that 1 to 8 apply for successful theories? 

What IS your point, bro? 

Just that scientists sometimes change their minds about what evidence shows?

[MormonVideoGame]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

 Relativity is a good example of meeting all 7 scientific criteria listed above, but may actually be a bunk theory. 

Finally we are getting somewhere. So do you know a theory (was as powerful as Relativity) that was overturned by new evidence?

Edited March 7, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Finally we are getting somewhere. So do you know a theory (was as powerful as Relativity) that was overturned by new evidence?

The theory of relativity itself is not a good enough example?  What was once solid scientific theory is now a giant question mark due to the new evidence of quantum mechanics. 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Fairmormon says, "The state of science is constantly changing. What science declared to be "true" in the 19th century is not "true" in the 21st century. It is reasonable to expect that some things that we consider to be scientifically "true" now may be revised according to additional knowledge that is gained in the future." I completely agree with fairmormon. Science is self-correcting, and that is the beauty of science.  However, some folks love to remind us that when they don't like a scientific theory such as global warming or evolution. 

Please point to a superseded scientific theory that 

1. was backed up by hundreds of research papers

2. made predictions 

3. made scientists highly confident

4. survived tough scientific scrutiny for at least two decades 

5. was used in multiple fields of science

6. was confirmed by observation 

7. Falsifiable 

8. was accepted by the scientific community since modern Physics began 

but years later overturned by new evidence. 

So I agree that science is always changing, but I don't think (very unlikely) that the "basic components of" a powerful scientific theory change, at least not since modern physics.  The seven points easily apply for Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity. 

Edit: My goodness! No one here knows that 1 to 8 apply for successful theories? 

Correctly understood scientific laws aren't going to be superseded.  But I think your faith (yes faith) in modern science is no more a guarantee of accuracy than a medieval scholar's faith in alchemy.

Some scientific theories are pure fact.  Some are works in progress.  God perfectly understands them all.  How else does Christ walk on water, change water into wine, and return from the dead?  When we have the scientific explanation that correctly explains  how those can be done my faith in science may become as great as yours.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Fairmormon says, "The state of science is constantly changing. What science declared to be "true" in the 19th century is not "true" in the 21st century. It is reasonable to expect that some things that we consider to be scientifically "true" now may be revised according to additional knowledge that is gained in the future." I completely agree with fairmormon. Science is self-correcting, and that is the beauty of science.  However, some folks love to remind us that when they don't like a scientific theory such as global warming or evolution. 

Please point to a superseded scientific theory that 

1. was backed up by hundreds of research papers

2. made predictions 

3. made scientists highly confident

4. survived tough scientific scrutiny for at least two decades 

5. was used in multiple fields of science

6. was confirmed by observation 

7. Falsifiable 

8. was accepted by the scientific community since modern Physics began 

but years later overturned by new evidence. 

So I agree that science is always changing, but I don't think (very unlikely) that the "basic components of" a powerful scientific theory change, at least not since modern physics.  The seven points easily apply for Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity. 

Edit: My goodness! No one here knows that 1 to 8 apply for successful theories? 

Couldn't the same thing be said about religion..."The state of Religion is constantly changing"?  Only difference is that we can thank Science and not religion for every single advancement made in the history of man to the quality of life from medical advances to electronics to food production etc...In fact has there even been a single advancement to our lives made by religion?  I'm thinking....ummmm...still thinking....nope can't think of a single one.  This is not to slam religion...it has its value...but it has not added a single advancement to the quality of our life.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

.  This is not to slam religion...it has its value...but it has not added a single advancement to the quality of our life.

Considering how many of the first scientists and scholars were priests and monks and clerics etc I think you have no real argument there.

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

...but it has not added a single advancement to the quality of our life.

Speak for yourself, but very few people on this planet will agree with you. 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Fairmormon says, "The state of science is constantly changing. What science declared to be "true" in the 19th century is not "true" in the 21st century. It is reasonable to expect that some things that we consider to be scientifically "true" now may be revised according to additional knowledge that is gained in the future." I completely agree with fairmormon. Science is self-correcting, and that is the beauty of science.  However, some folks love to remind us that when they don't like a scientific theory such as global warming or evolution. 

Please point to a superseded scientific theory that 

1. was backed up by hundreds of research papers

2. made predictions 

3. made scientists highly confident

4. survived tough scientific scrutiny for at least two decades 

5. was used in multiple fields of science

6. was confirmed by observation 

7. Falsifiable 

8. was accepted by the scientific community since modern Physics began 

but years later overturned by new evidence. 

By modern science I assume you mean quantum theory and relativity. However I think your criteria is kind of misleading since it more or less addressing foundational science which almost by definition changes very slowly. Yet the place where there is a lot of scientific change tends not to be at that level but at a level of more narrow claims. So to see a place where you get lots of science overturned just look at say health studies, psychological studies and so forth. Yes most of those studies aren't foundational. However it is significant that depending upon the field only on the order of 12-20% of studies actually turn out to be accurate. 

Now one might say that the fact we find out they aren't accurate is science working. And of course that's completely right. I think the worry is that often these studies are treated foundationally without really having the rigorous testing they deserve. You see this especially in fields like psychology where various foundational studies like priming studies have come under attack in the last few years. Now of course psychology isn't physics. It's harder to do a psychological study and control the variables. But the concern is much more that there really is a replication crisis in science right now. 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01621459.2016.1240079

Now I think that while psychology has received the bulk of the criticism this actually besets all of science and is a structural problem. That is the way we've incentivized an approach to paper writing is causing big problems. This in turn is largely tied to the job market at universities, funding of science, and frankly overproduction of scientists. I think that over the past few years people have recognized the problem and things finally are adjusting. But we still have a long ways to go such as ensuring null results get more publication, demanding unsuccessful studies (especially with drugs) get published or at least made available, more transparency and better funding of replication studies which right now are still significantly incentivized against as they aren't status worthy for tenure.

All of which is a round about way of saying I think you're kind of presenting a strawman of what science is, how it changes and the like. 

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

The theory of relativity itself is not a good enough example?  What was once solid scientific theory is now a giant question mark due to the new evidence of quantum mechanics. 

QM and relativity developed at the same time. It was noted fairly early on that there was problems reconciling them as a general theory of quantum gravity. String theory attempts to resolve this but is problematic because it explains too much. But each works in their area extremely well. It's just that each theory doesn't purport to explain everything.

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Couldn't the same thing be said about religion..."The state of Religion is constantly changing"?  Only difference is that we can thank Science and not religion for every single advancement made in the history of man to the quality of life from medical advances to electronics to food production etc...In fact has there even been a single advancement to our lives made by religion?  I'm thinking....ummmm...still thinking....nope can't think of a single one.  This is not to slam religion...it has its value...but it has not added a single advancement to the quality of our life.

Speak for yourself.

I was just reading some stuff I wrote in 1973 when I was a virulent atheist.  Pure crap, no comprehension of anything.  Saying that religion has not added to our quality of life is precisely like saying that ethics has not added to the quality of our lives.

In fact the whole IDEA of "QUALITY" of life presumes something non-evidential.  What IS "QUALITY" of life?   Peace and comfort? 

That is precisely what religion provides as well while there is no evidence that "peace and comfort" are "good".  Perhaps we would advance faster if we all were scrabbling for existence if that is what you find "good".  Continuous war is good for the economy if that is your view of "good"

Murdering people for fun is "good" of you are a sociopath.  You could easily argue that 1st world people are "soft" and need to be hardened up in order to compete on the global market.   I have seen that argument made.  Comfort and peace are "bad" in that view.

Science doesn't give a ......... care....... either way about what defines YOUR "quality of life".  The world goes on with or without quality of life, science is totally impartial.

Mankind itself can be seen as parasites on the planet- what does that view do for "quality of life"?

There is no scientific evidence that that anything is "better" than anything else.  

The wheel in the sky keeps on turning and we are dust in the wind to mix two 70's songs metaphors.

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

Speak for yourself, but very few people on this planet will agree with you. 

Oh my flippin gosh.   Again.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

QM and relativity developed at the same time. It was noted fairly early on that there was problems reconciling them as a general theory of quantum gravity. String theory attempts to resolve this but is problematic because it explains too much. But each works in their area extremely well. It's just that each theory doesn't purport to explain everything.

By the way- only caught a bit of SMPT but it was very good.  Good presentation by Patrick Mason on the ethics of scriptural commandments to kill people like Laban, etc.

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Fairmormon says, "The state of science is constantly changing. What science declared to be "true" in the 19th century is not "true" in the 21st century. It is reasonable to expect that some things that we consider to be scientifically "true" now may be revised according to additional knowledge that is gained in the future." I completely agree with fairmormon. Science is self-correcting, and that is the beauty of science.  However, some folks love to remind us that when they don't like a scientific theory such as global warming or evolution. 

Please point to a superseded scientific theory that 

1. was backed up by hundreds of research papers

2. made predictions 

3. made scientists highly confident

4. survived tough scientific scrutiny for at least two decades 

5. was used in multiple fields of science

6. was confirmed by observation 

7. Falsifiable 

8. was accepted by the scientific community since modern Physics began 

but years later overturned by new evidence. 

So I agree that science is always changing, but I don't think (very unlikely) that the "basic components of" a powerful scientific theory change, at least not since modern physics.  The seven points easily apply for Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Relativity. 

Edit: My goodness! No one here knows that 1 to 8 apply for successful theories? 

Is this a true WTF moment on Mormon Dialogue?

[MormonVideoGame]

53 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Is this a true WTF moment on Mormon Dialogue?

Yes it is! It is amazing only few understand my simple question. 

Don't use profanity. You are going to offend the Spirit!   

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

By the way- only caught a bit of SMPT but it was very good.  Good presentation by Patrick Mason on the ethics of scriptural commandments to kill people like Laban, etc.

Yeah I was planning on going then work got busy. 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Einstein, by most accounts, flat out lost the debates on quantum mechanics vs relativity.  Neither theory works if the other is true. Relativity is a good example of meeting all 7 scientific criteria listed above, but may actually be a bunk theory.

Einstein helped develop quantum mechanics. Indeed his Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect not relativity (which was still controversial) I think you were more thinking of the interpretation of quantum theory. He helped come up with the EPR paradox which got at some odd facets of quantum theory. Einstein was a determinist and didn't like the idea of chance. But there are still hidden variable interpretations of quantum theory even if they aren't as popular as they were a couple of decades ago.

Edited March 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yeah I was planning on going then work got busy. 

I discovered my old grad school notes on Heidegger so hopefully I will get up to speed on him again.  All you guys seem to be Heideggarians.  I guess that is Faulconer's fault

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I discovered my old grad school notes on Heidegger so hopefully I will get up to speed on him again.  All you guys seem to be Heideggarians.  I guess that is Faulconer's fault

I'm more Peircean than Heideggarian although that probably helps determine how I read Heidegger, Derrida, Ricouer and others in the phenomenological tradition. But especially the past few years I've mainly been focusing in on the pragmatists. But I try to read a pretty broad swath of figures. As I think I mentioned in the other thread a lot of the style of Continental philosophy annoys me. Interestingly Derrida's On Grammatology came about when he was at Harvard studying the then rarely accessed papers of Peirce for about a year. Since then they've all been published but at the time Peirce surprisingly wasn't well known.

BTW while Faulconer is a well known Heideggarian I think Mark Wrathall is the better known Heideggarian. He moved from BYU to Riverside a few years back. While LDS-Herm isn't as active as it was a few years ago when Joseph Spencer, Adam Miller, Faulconer, Wrathall, myself and a few others discussed things regularly they all still pop up occasionally.

Edited March 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Darren10]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I discovered my old grad school notes on Heidegger so hopefully I will get up to speed on him again.  All you guys seem to be Heideggarians.  I guess that is Faulconer's fault

Always wise to blame Faulconer. He'll effectively philosophize through the accusation.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You're presuming that morality is a consequence of religion...instead of the result of human civilization evolution. Just as humans evolved physically so did our society evolve. Morality is a byproduct  of that evolved society not religion. Although religion certainly claimed it as its own and then used it as a club to beat its adherents with.

No I am not presuming that at all.  I think they are inseparable and that those who think ethics are separate from religion are mistaken.  Yes some religions have gone haywire in their ethics with crusades, persecutions and wars.  No question about that.  But that is due to the misapplication of religion by humans.

In fact there are those who are atheists who find that ethical positions are godless religions and admit to it

Quote

Though coming from different and distinct intellectual traditions, Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo are united in their criticism of the metaphysical tradition. The challenges they put forward extend beyond philosophy and entail a reconsideration of the foundations of belief in God and the religious life. They urge that the rejection of metaphysical truth does not necessitate the death of religion; instead it opens new ways of imagining what it is to be religious―ways that emphasize charity, solidarity, and irony. This unique collaboration, which includes a dialogue between the two philosophers, is notable not only for its fusion of pragmatism (Rorty) and hermeneutics (Vattimo) but also for its recognition of the limits of both traditional religious belief and modern secularism.

https://www.amazon.com/Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134959

Quote

 

In his last book, Ronald Dworkin addresses questions that men and women have asked through the ages: What is religion and what is God's place in it? What is death and what is immortality? Based on the 2011 Einstein Lectures, Religion without God is inspired by remarks Einstein made that if religion consists of awe toward mysteries which "manifest themselves in the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, and which our dull faculties can comprehend only in the most primitive forms," then, he, Einstein, was a religious person.

Dworkin joins Einstein's sense of cosmic mystery and beauty to the claim that value is objective, independent of mind, and immanent in the world. He rejects the metaphysics of naturalism--that nothing is real except what can be studied by the natural sciences. Belief in God is one manifestation of this deeper worldview, but not the only one. The conviction that God underwrites value presupposes a prior commitment to the independent reality of that value--a commitment that is available to nonbelievers as well. So theists share a commitment with some atheists that is more fundamental than what divides them. Freedom of religion should flow not from a respect for belief in God but from the right to ethical independence.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134959

There are many many many others like this as well.

The key to getting secularists to religion I believe is understanding that secularists and religionists indeed have much in common- we just need to eschew metaphysics and give the secularists what they are missing- an understanding of religious experience.

I had religious experiences while being a secularist and I know how that is possible and perhaps how to teach that.   Certainly one step in that direction is mindful meditation.  But that is another very long discussion

When you are meditating and you suddenly realize there is "SOMEONE" out there, it becomes religious experience and can be life transforming.

The rest is the simple application of Pragmatism or Alma 32 depending on how you want to put it.  It becomes Kuhn applied to religion and finding the best paradigm that explains all of reality and its meaning and I think oddly enough, that is Mormonism, properly understood 

Mormons are theists, humanists, and materialists who seek a perfect society led by a perfected Human.  Spirit is matter/energy, and we seek to perfect humanity in imitation of an Ideal Human through direct communication with that Being through out own perfection in orthopraxy.

That ideal is not so far from the ideals of secularism, they just miss the importance of God.

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm more Peircean than Heideggarian although that probably helps determine how I read Heidegger, Derrida, Ricouer and others in the phenomenological tradition. But especially the past few years I've mainly been focusing in on the pragmatists. But I try to read a pretty broad swath of figures. As I think I mentioned in the other thread a lot of the style of Continental philosophy annoys me. Interestingly Derrida's On Grammatology came about when he was at Harvard studying the then rarely accessed papers of Peirce for about a year. Since then they've all been published but at the time Peirce surprisingly wasn't well known.

BTW while Faulconer is a well known Heideggarian I think Mark Wrathall is the better known Heideggarian. He moved from BYU to Riverside a few years back. While LDS-Herm isn't as active as it was a few years ago when Joseph Spencer, Adam Miller, Faulconer, Wrathall, myself and a few others discussed things regularly they all still pop up occasionally.

Interesting.  The more I read my Heidegger notes the more sense the style makes, but after I studied H, I got heavily into analytic philosophy because that is the only game in town in most secular universities

But Pragmatism is definitely the bridge.  See above

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Always wise to blame Faulconer. He'll effectively philosophize through the accusation.

It's H's metaphysical jargon that drives me nuts.  Dasein?  Give me a break!

It's not really metaphysics once you get used to the point of view- its the denial of metaphysics.  But the style is very off-putting for analytical guys!