Why the Believer Knows More About Science
What's his worldview?
If I had to name the most important topics in science during our time, they would probably be evolutionary biology, cosmology, particle physics, and psychology to understand the human person better.
However, if I had to name the most important issue in science today, it would be something more over-arching. It would be the general issue of metaphysics and philosophy applied to scientific research and interpretation.
This isn’t something I understood even as a scientist in academia or the industry. It isn’t taught, discussed or even admitted. But it’s as obvious as the clouds in the sky, which is probably why this is something I’ve learned studying theology.
Among Catholics, it’s standard practice to try to comprehend the mysteries of nature within the context of the mysteries of faith. The way scientific data is interpreted will be guided by philosophy, and more importantly, an overall metaphysical principle, what some would call a “worldview.” A perusal of the documents from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences makes this concept obvious, even in the papers presented by different scientists. It is especially apparent in Pope Benedict XVI’s opening address to participants of the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 2010 (pages 23-24).
Again, this is nothing new. It’s the way Aristotle viewed knowledge, the way the Scholastics viewed knowledge, and it is traditionally the way Catholics viewed knowledge. Faith is not a human invention. The believer bases faith on Divine Revelation, and bases science on Creation. Both have their common source in God, the Eternal Truth. It is true, the believer is less free in his knowledge than the unbeliever, but only because he knows more.
The non-believer has one source of knowledge – reason.
The believer has two – faith and reason.
For the philosophical Modernist who fundamentally denies objective truth and replaces it with experiential, sentimental (i.e. subjective) truth, the data collected from experiments to test a hypothesis can be interpreted according to his own particular worldview. Whatever it may be…
For instance, if he is an atheist who denies the existence of God, then the (perhaps unspoken) metaphysical principle guiding his research and conclusions is to show that science can explain the universe without needing to “invoke” God (e.g. Hawkings), or to show God is unnecessary. This will be the case whether it is cosmology, evolutionary biology, physics, or psychology, and whether said scientists are in the lab, at a conference, or scribbling competitively on napkins in a bar. No God.
I’m not sure yet how the Catholic Modernist would refute such an atheist without knocking the legs out from under his Modernism (as defined by Pope Pius X) for he must allow the atheist to interpret his own data according to his own worldview – as if it were true. But false worldviews cannot bring about true conclusions in science. If there is no objective truth external to man, there is no true science.
Relativism destroys the essence of science, and reduces it all to mere opinion.
The Catholic scientist follows a different metaphysical principle, that God is the Author of all truth, Creator of all things. Every experiment is designed guided by this principle, every set of data is interpreted by this principle, every new hypothesis is formulated by this principle.
Pope Benedict XVI begins his address in 2010 by noting that the twentieth century is one of major achievements in science, which has led to two extreme characterizations. Because science has advanced so fast, many have come to view science as the way to answer all questions of our existence and hopes, and others have come to fear it as a means by which we will destroy ourselves. The first group has lost faith in God; the second in man.
Pope Benedict XVI points out that neither extreme is correct.
Science should remain a “patient yet passionate search for truth about the cosmos, about nature and about the constitution of the human being.” There will always be successes and failures in science, but exciting new discoveries lead to better understanding allowing for the improvement of theories. Science approached this way becomes a an “unveiling” of man’s intellectual connection with natural reality. And as generations progress, so too will science.
In the twentieth century we have understood our place in the cosmos better, at both the grand and the infinitesimal scales. In science the common denominator for all experimentation is that it is a systematic method of observing nature. Because it is not always possible to directly observe nature at these scales, an even stronger impetus to be aware of a metaphysical or philosophical guiding principle thus results. The Church is convinced that science benefits from man’s spiritual dimension and his acknowledgement that there is a world independent of him, with inherent logic, and also a world that he does not fully understand.
“Scientists do not create the world.” Rather, they learn about it, try to imitate it, and follow its laws. In this way the scientist – a human being – is observing a constant – a logos – that he has not created. Science, then, necessarily leads him to admit the existence of God, “All-Powerful Reason,” which sustains the world. That is where science and religion meet.
“As a result, science becomes a place of dialogue, a meeting between man and nature and, potentially, even between man and his Creator.” – Pope Benedict XVI
Sources:
Hagen, J. (1912). Science and the Church. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the Doctrines of the Modernists (1907).
The Scientific Legacy of the 20th Century. The Proceedings of the Plenary Session, October 28-November 1, 2010. Vatican City (2011).
Category: Church History, Random, Science, Theology
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Stacy, could you outline what a specific experiment would look like – chemistry is fine, if you like, since I assume you’re much more familiar with that – from the perspective of a Catholic vs. an atheist? I’m not sure exactly what your work as a chemist was like, but day-to-day, how would your work differ were you to do it now as a Catholic?
And, could you give an example of how an atheist perspective on a specific experiment would be nothing but opinion?
Finally, how would a journal article written by a Catholic differ from an article on the same topic (let’s assume a fairly neutral topic, chemistry again would be fine) written by an atheist?
Thanks!
Why do you assume that all atheists are relativists? One of the most influential atheists and philosophers out now, Sam Harris, is a strong objectivist. Many scientists trust in the objective truth.
I’d say, in fact, it is rejection of subjective truth and relativism that many people come to atheism.
Michelle,
The Catholic scientist follows a different metaphysical principle, that God is the Author of all truth, Creator of all things. Every experiment is designed guided by this principle, every set of data is interpreted by this principle, every new hypothesis is formulated by this principle.
Take God out of the picture, what’s left? Man serving himself without any greater guidance or unifying principles.
Regarding journal articles, peruse the links. The research is connected by a common philosophy, a common metaphysical guide towards ultimate truth in the context of revealed truth from God. Philosophy and metaphysics are connected with the research.
Peter,
I don’t assume all atheists are relativists, but to say someone is an objectivist who trusts objective truth only begs the question. How does he know what that is if he rejects that there is any truth outside of himself. Who’s he trusting? His own opinions? Well, that’s relativism.
so all catholics experiments are biased from the beginning?
Comment
What do you mean, “who’s he trusting?”. How about what is he trusting! Primarily, his senses. We don’t consider our sensations and measurements to be opinions. If we did science wouldn’t happen. Or have you forgotten the most basic assumption of science? Cogito ergo sum.
Metaphysically, our job is to piece together the data into coherent theories. To presume God as Author is an additional assumption that is based on your opinion and will only bias the interpretive process.
Okay, but do you have an example? I mean, what would a specific experiment designed by a Catholic look like compared to an experiment designed by an atheist to answer the same question? Say you’re trying to answer a specific question in chemistry – how does the Catholic scientist address the problem and interpret the data differently from an atheist?
Peter,
You said, “Many scientists trust in the objective truth.”
You said then that objective truth = your senses. But human reason is not confined to phenomena, to what is perceptible to the senses. Truth is what you sense and nothing more. Human reason can’t know objective truth about what is right and wrong. That is relativism.
It is true that this philosophy is incapable of transcendence, incapable of reasoning the existence of God and then divine revelation is completely called into question.
“Or have you forgotten the most basic assumption of science? Cogito ergo sum.”
Welcome to relativism. You exist whether things whirl around in your head (cogito) or not. And human nature is capable of so much more. This is good news!
“Metaphysically, our job is to piece together the data into coherent theories.”
And everyone must train his mind within certain freedoms. Everyone has preconceptions. This is the job of the intellect.
“To presume God as Author is an additional assumption that is based on your opinion and will only bias the interpretive process.”
Read what I summarized. Faith is not a human invention. It is a virtue of fallen creatures. That God is Author is objectively true whether you think so or not.
Michelle,
The Catholic and the atheist would most likely both stop at a stop sign the same way, but their reason for ever needing to drive in the first place might be different. You won’t see the distinction by focusing on minutia. Metaphysics deals with guiding principles that unite different bodies of knowledge.
Remember the discussion about whether science can deal theology a blow?
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/can-science-deal-theology-a-blow/
“Faith is not a human invention.”
This is not a given.
It has not been “proven”
To start an experiment with the bias that god created everything is a bias, and my understanding is true science does not operate on biases. Am I wrong on that?
Alan,
True science serves Truth.
The believer bases faith on Divine Revelation, and bases science on Creation. Both have their common source in God, the Eternal Truth. It is true, the believer is less free in his knowledge than the unbeliever, but only because he knows more.
Knowing more is not bias. Bias is a systematic distortion of an expected result due to a factor not allowed for in its derivation. Bias is inherently un-truth. Yes, you are wrong.
“To start an experiment with the bias that god created everything is a bias”
Not if it’s the truth.
To the many skeptical questioner about how a Catholic science might look at things differently, how about the reductionist viewpoint? The logical positivists believed that all science was unified by the principle that all things could in principle be reduced ultimately to the laws of physics. That principle yielded sterile theories – if it yielded a single theory at all!
According to the sterile atheist science: Chemistry could be reduced to physics. Biology could be reduced to chemistry. Psychology to biology. Sociology to Psychology. The tides of history could be reduced to the deterministic laws of sociology. I can’t help giggling at that last step.
That’s still the (frankly delusional) position of many atheist scientists.
Developing the narrative a bit, atheists will be loathe to posit a principle of emergence, wherein the higher sciences take their material from lower ones but add a new set of laws that are not exhausted by the lower level observations.
Opposition to emergence was atheist gospel for decades.
Modern biology now repudiates reductionism, and embraces a “system theory” which views each higher science as having its own proper laws, irreducible to lower sciences.
System theory itself was derived by von Bertalanffy, who attributed his inspiration to the principles of Gestalt Psychology. The Gestaltists attributed their viewpoint — i.e., the fact that they would look precisely for wholeness in the universe — to Catholic psychologists (e.g., Franz Brentano of Germany, an ardent Aristotelian). The atheist psychologists of the day found Gestaltists really annoying. The president of the APA at the time said he didn’t like it because it “smelled like religion.”
So there you go. One’s viewpoint absolutely dictates the kinds of theories one is willing to entertain. And some of these viewpoints are very Catholic indeed.
I actually feel sorry for atheists because many of them I fear are stuck at Bacon’s boring inductive method which every self-respecting scientist I know views as an anachronism.
So, will the Catholic scientist use test tubes and things just like the others? Yes. But the Catholic scientist sees more in the data. You should thank us. You’re welcome!
My two cents:
Science has a secret weapon.
This weapon is so powerful (it is a gift of God), that as long as the scientist ruthlessly pulls the trigger over and over again on this secret weapon, the scientist does not need God.
Science does not even need any metaphysics (beyond what the Church has already provided; that there exists a world “out there”, that there exist discoverable principles controlling observed phenomena, that there exist minds capable of discovering, by creative hypothesis and experimental validation, the nature of those principles, and that there exist other minds, capable of duplicating and verifying by experimental demonstration, the validity of those principles).
The scientist can adopt other metaphysical principles which are woefully false, and still make scientific breakthroughs of enormous power and impact.
Take the black-magic obsessed Newton, for example.
He made an elementary blunder of metaphysics when he said:
“Hypothesis non fingo”.
It took Riemann to point the blunder out: Newton was so convinced that absolute space was a (metaphysical) given, that he did not even recognize that he *had* made an hypothesis: absolute space.
This one metaphysical error allowed:
1. The development of the greatest theory in scientific history: universal gravitation
2. The complete collapse of the entire theory based on one simple experiment.
So, interestingly, fanatical black magic obsessed Arian heretics can adopt a metaphysical blunder and nonetheless accomplish the greatest scientific breakthrough in human history.
All because of the secret weapon.
Science- modern science- is the youngest daughter of Catholic theology, but she has grown strong and proud, and it is not unheard of for strong and proud daughters to be wanting patience, at times, when it comes to dear old Mum.
But back to the secret weapon.
Science (in Mom’s terminology, natural philosophy) to an extent far surpassing all the other methodologies by which we come to valid knowledge, is ruthlessly at war with its own triumphs.
Science- real science- is engaged in a ceaseless series of acts of aggression against what it thinks it knows.
The secret weapon of this strong and proud daughter of the Church is *experimental falsifiability*.
“No amount of experimentation can prove me right. One experiment can prove me wrong.”
That succinctly sums up the secret weapon God has given science, courtesy of Albert Einstein.
Science only becomes dull, stupid, lazy, fat, corrupt, and ultimately useless when it seeks to defend what it nothings it knows against possible experimental falsification.
We see this exact dullness, stupidity, laziness, fatheaded corruption and uselessness in the case of a fifteen year refusal to C14 date allegedly 80,000,000 year old Cretaceous dinosaur fossils which present soft tissue, collagen, blood cells………..
The Darwinist program is no longer science.
They already know how old the bones are.
Thus, this datum is a metaphysical, not a scientific, datum.
It is unfalsifiable under the research program of the Darwinians.
Thus they have become metaphysicists.
Now, God is patient with scientists, and has provided them with a secret weapon so they will do their important work, and leave the infinitely more important business of metaphysicists to those who can do metaphysics.
You see, science can be done even by those who do not believe in God.
Metaphysics without God, on the other hand, is an appalling absurdity.
Lawrence Krauss told a documentary film interviewer recently:
“Philosophy asks the same questions, in a sense, that science does. But science has made progress over the last five hundred years. Philosophy hasn’t”.
Just so.
The times they are a’changin’.
Science has bumped up against the legitimate domain of metaphysics, and it shows.
Another great scientist, Dr. George Ellis, puts it this way:
“In the journals these days, most of what you read involves things that have not been experimentally demonstrated, and are even incapable of experimental demonstration.”
This is the sign that the progress of science now depends upon a ruthless examination of those points along the road where she has adopted metaphysics, and put them in a box labelled “science”, knowingly or unknowingly.
Science, after all, sells much better than metaphysics.
For now.
sorry Stacy, it’s a bias.
And Jeff you can trust that the aetheist feel sorry for you, so it’s a circle of not understanding each other.
Jeff, has a very good point. While Catholics are comfortable admitting metaphysics and philosophy, it seems other scientists (not all) run from those words. They run from admitting that they do have a worldview guiding how honest they’ll let themselves be with data, while letting the worldview run amok with conclusions. But the good news is, “some of these viewpoints are very Catholic indeed.”
Michelle and Peter, that isn’t really directed at you personally, but at atheism in science in general. I didn’t always understand this but when I learned what metaphysics and (classical) philosophy really are, it became clearer. Do you understand how one’s “worldview” guides what he is willing to make out of the data?
Michelle you do research for curing cancer. You fundamentally understand that this is good. That drives how you interpret the data, how you define experiments, how you tie in your conclusions to a bigger picture — towards a unified end — helping people in need.
Thank you Jeff.
Stacy (and Jeff, too, since you touched on this), this is more what I’m getting at:
“The Catholic scientist follows a different metaphysical principle, that God is the Author of all truth, Creator of all things. Every experiment is designed guided by this principle, every set of data is interpreted by this principle, every new hypothesis is formulated by this principle.”
Is there any example of a specific experiment, a specific set of data, a specific hypothesis where you can show me this difference? There must be at least one, right? I get the idea of being guided by God and of seeing science as learning more about creation, but I just can’t think of how, on the level of individual experiments – something you both mention – a Catholic would do anything any differently than an atheist.
And Jeff, I think you set up a false dichotomy – each branch of science is reducible (though perhaps not physics), but it also does have its own laws. Everything I do as a biologist is, at its foundation, based on chemical interactions. Those chemical interactions are, at their foundation, reliant on the facts of physics. That’s not to say I could do the same work I do by studying just those facts of physics, because I am studying systems that have their own laws (something you did say), but I think if we ignored the fact that our work is entirely dependent upon underlying principles that might fall into other branches of science, we’d be betraying a failure to understand how the natural world really operates.
Jeff and Rick,
I can’t thank you enough for your contributions. I hope everyone takes the time to consider what you have written.
Rick, when you explain it, it’s so obvious. Science can be done by even those who don’t believe in God, to a point. It needs metaphysics, and metaphysics without God is absurd — as we are seeing.
Yes Jeff, the scientific community should say thank you to Catholics.
If anyone wants more to read about this issue, I just read through this essay from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “Philosophical Foundations of Science in the 20th Century.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/newpdf/acta21.pdf
Starting on page 50.
It covers the same ideas Rick and Jeff mentioned, including falsifiability.
Michelle and Peter, how does this sound?
Michelle,
Jeff did give examples, and I linked another paper on the topic.
Also your last statement about how the natural world operates is something that has been long understood in Catholic theology. Catholic, remember, means whole and universal. Everything in Creation fits together, works by an inherent logic. That’t the only way a perfect and loving Creator would have done it.
Not that long ago I wouldn’t have bothered to read Aquinas, but now that I have many things are clicking. If, for instance, you are interested, St. Thomas addresses what you are talking about in (your last para) in the very beginning of the Summa Theologica, specifically article 2.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm
That’s what Jeff meant when he said some of these ideas are Catholic indeed. Catholics were talking about how everything is unified long ago. Science is figuring that out in spite of itself, which was Rick’s point.
Jeff and Rick, please correct me if I’m missing the point though, much of this is still new to me.
It’s good news, Michelle and Peter, very good news.
Wait, Jeff didn’t give examples, and – maybe I’m just missing it – I’m not seeing any actual experiments designed or interpreted in the way you describe. Could you spell out any example for me? Just the question you’re trying to answer, the experiment to address it, and the kind of data and how you’d interpret it differently as a Catholic. You both talked about this, so I assume there has to be at least one example out there.
And I do see how worldview can come into play. Rick refuses to accept anything that goes against his preconceived worldview. I would never look at a set of data and say “this can’t be explained by what we already know, so that must be God and the bible.” But science done right by a Catholic should be indistinguishable from science done right by an atheist or Muslim or Hindu or whatever. Science is the search for objective truth. The minute you let your unfalsifiable ideas of “truth” (God) into your work, you’ve ceased to do science correctly. You’ve introduced bias, as Alan mentioned, and that sort of bias means you are no longer doing objective research (as with Rick and those bones).
Michelle,
You are missing it. OK, I’ll give you an example, but I was trying to avoid going there without bringing up an old topic. However, it’s exactly the point.
You believe dinosaur bones are millions of years old because that fits with your metaphysical view of the world. Would you ever consider that they might not be? Would you?
You find something that (soft tissue) that threatens to undermine that entire worldview.
Do you:
A) Test it by the standard test to determine age and let honest inquiry lead you to whatever is true?
B) Refuse to do a test because the results might not be what you want them to be?
C) Pretend like the standard test is no longer valid and claim something new (which is also metaphysical) must have been discovered!
If you believe that true science serves Truth, you choose A.
I’ve explained to you before, when you said one data point can’t be devastating, that it in fact can be. It can throw your publication or graduation schedule way off. In a publish or perish, God-less, scientific community, ultimate truth is not always #1 priority. That’s the main reason there is a problem with reproducibility in science today, especially in computational modelling.
Which brings me to another example. Things that are politically motivated, like the breast cancer link to abortion are extremely distorted by worldview. It is common to find “consensus” among like-minded individuals without any balance from opposing views put forth by governments as the true conclusion, when in fact the data has been manipulated beyond what integrity would demand.
There are plenty of examples.
“Rick refuses to accept anything that goes against his preconceived worldview.”
You need to cite an example and not just fling accusations. I read what he writes, he’s never done that.
“this can’t be explained by what we already know, so that must be God and the bible.”
I have never, ever once even remotely observed Rick to suggest such a thing.
“But science done right by a Catholic should be indistinguishable from science done right by an atheist or Muslim or Hindu or whatever.”
You’ll find that in Catholic theology too. That is exactly right. Catholics do seek the truth, something that transcends us all. It’s not worth knowing if it’s false. That was part of the point Rick was making.
“Science is the search for objective truth.”
Ah, but it cannot find all objective truth. What is just, is true, but science cannot measure that, for example. There are things that are objectively true that are not of the purview of science.
“The minute you let your unfalsifiable ideas of “truth” (God) into your work, you’ve ceased to do science correctly.”
OK, God tells us that lying is wrong. Is that true or false? Prove your answer. Christ said that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Is that true or false? Prove your answer. Theology has concluded that pride is the beginning of all sin. Is that true or false? Prove your answer.
Faith is not unreasonable — but you have to employ the gift of reason.
Now, please explain how honesty, concern for your fellow man, and humility are biased. Bias means you leave out part of the truth, and one can never legitimately seek truth by intentionally leaving part of it out.
What I’d love for you to do is to actually make your case now, instead of accusing “Bias!” without even arguing in the proper sense.
Stacy you wrote in response to this comment: “Rick refuses to accept anything that goes against his preconceived worldview.” You need to cite an example and not just fling accusations. I read what he writes, he’s never done that.
Of course he does. For instance, regarding the dinosaur bones. He insists that the soft tissue MUST be from dinosaurs (because it suits his worldview) and only pays attention to studies that support that view.
Second, even if the soft tissue IS from the dinosaur, he jumps to the conclusion that this means the dinosaur must be of recent origin. And when someone quite reasonably suggests that investigation might teach us new ways that this tissue could be preserved for millions of years, he dismisses it utterly (again paying attention only to those studies that support his views) and even mocks this reasonable suggestion as an appeal to “magic,” thus denigrating even the notion of investigating it.
Rick, frankly, is an example of someone who refuses to accept anything that goes against his preconceived worldview — and in fact is the example par excellance.
RobT,
No, actually he makes a good point.
I know this because I looked up what he said and he’s right.
They refuse to submit the tissue for C-14 testing, which is the standard test for soft tissue.
The investigation might teach us something new, but the scientists are only looking where they want to look. That’s biased (covering up one side of the investigation or refusing to even do it).
Explain how that is open-minded and honest. Explain why the standard test should not at least be done and the data presented. Explain how the scientific method somehow means to ignore standard tests in favor of wild new hypotheses which are never before tested?
Stacy, you’re changing the subject. You asked for examples of how Rick refuses to accept anything that goes against his preconceived worldview, and I provided two of them. Criticizing the scientists is not the same providing justification for Rick’s errors.
Stacy
“OK, God tells us that lying is wrong. Is that true or false? Prove your answer. Christ said that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Is that true or false? Prove your answer. Theology has concluded that pride is the beginning of all sin. Is that true or false? Prove your answer.”
Umm so god gets credit for all that? And can any of what you are asking be proven in a scientific setting? I mean yeah we know lying is wrong, but sometimes telling a little lie to make someone feel better (does this dress make me look fat perfect example) is not so bad.
“Now, please explain how honesty, concern for your fellow man, and humility are biased. Bias means you leave out part of the truth, and one can never legitimately seek truth by intentionally leaving part of it out.”
Please look up bias. Not sure your definition is the true definition. But we are talking biases in a scientific situation. Knowing that god is the answer before hand (even though god may not be) is a bias. Why do the experiment if you already know the answer?
And fyi, of course biases are not the dominion of only catholic scientist. Far too many people are out to prove themselves right rather than prove any truths. It’s really kind of sad.
RobT,
You said this, “For instance, regarding the dinosaur bones. He insists that the soft tissue MUST be from dinosaurs (because it suits his worldview) and only pays attention to studies that support that view.”
No, the scientists who found the tissue insist that it is soft tissue and it MUST be from dinosaurs. Rick is insisting that those scientists should C-14 test it then because no soft tissue that old has ever been found, nor is there any reasonable pathway by which it would be preserved. They said is was soft tissue; and they refused to do C-14 testing. The standard test.
Scientists shouldn’t jump to new hypotheses unless the standard theories are proven incorrect.
I found another set of “theys” who said it was NOT soft tissue, but biofilm. They did do C-14 testing and found it to be recent in origin to prove their point.
Both conclusions were taken as valid and published, in the same journal.
And no one has even tried to reconcile this.
What goes against our worldview is dishonesty, and truth replaced with absurd, unfalsifiable metaphysical ideas that replace authentic science.
“Second, even if the soft tissue IS from the dinosaur, he jumps to the conclusion that this means the dinosaur must be of recent origin.”
No, scientists did. He asked why one group wouldn’t do the standard test, and concluded it was because they were afraid of the result. I found a paper by another group who did do the test. They found exactly what Rick predicted they’d find, only under a different hypothesis.
Rick was right, it is metaphysical absurdity.
Are you upset that we ask for the truth?
I only brought up other scientists because you attributed their conclusions to Rick. Now could you explain that?
Alan,
“And can any of what you are asking be proven in a scientific setting?”
That was the point, not all objective truth is scientifically verifiable.
“Please look up bias.”
I already did give you the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary definition of “bias” as it relates to science. There is no more authoritative source of the English language.
Thank you, Rob, couldn’t have said it better myself!
Stacy, that’s why when I originally asked, I said to pick a neutral topic, because I knew you’d want to discuss the bones again. If that’s the only example you have, and you can’t actually come up with a question, experiment, and data set, then I think I have my answer.
I’ve already argued about those bones as much as I’m going to, and I’m still baffled that you think Rick has anything to offer in a scientific discussion. Rob has described the situation perfectly, and so I’ll say no more on that. But I’d really like an example, if there is one.
Way to go, Stacy.
The only thing I won’t accept is the refusal to do science.
The refusal to use all available methods to investigate an astonishing anomaly like soft tissue in dinosaur bones is a refusal to do science.
It is an admission that the ago of dino bones is no longer subject to any experimental falsification whatever.
It is an admission that Darwinism has become a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.
Michelle,
A good example =/= no others exist. That’s illogical. If asked for an example, what is logical is to give the best, most relevant example one can think of.
Does that mean no others exist? No.
I gave you other examples. I gave you material that explains the importance of metaphysics to science. I encourage anyone with a sincere wish to understand what they are arguing against — to peruse the links in the post and comments above. So far, honestly and not to be snarky as they say, all that has been provided is, “Nuh,uh.” No substance, just denials and avoidance, repeated questions already given answers.
To be fair, I realize you probably struggle with this because you are a person of integrity and cannot imagine doing dishonest science. Why? Because you do research on curing cancer and you know that dishonesty could cost lives. I’m sure you are not being honest just to save your career (which you will save and be rightly rewarded for), but you are most fundamentally doing good for the right reasons. You are doing it for something that is beyond yourself, and that is admirable.
I get this desire. You are closer to God than you may admit, and He will grace you with the knowledge and the love you need to continue — because He loves you and is drawing you to Him.
The example Rob gave applies to the so-called scientists, not Rick. Rick is not insisting anything is true except that Darwinism has become a metaphysical construct that is unverifiable. It has. And that is guarded by dishonest people. Why? Well, no lives are at stake.
Only careers.
That may seem innocuous enough, but falsehood also leads souls astray. When souls are at risk because of your choices, that is most serious.
Rick says, “The only thing I won’t accept is the refusal to do science.
The refusal to use all available methods to investigate an astonishing anomaly like soft tissue in dinosaur bones is a refusal to do science.”
But his own history doesn’t back him up. What did Rick do when Michelle was discussing soft tissue in the dinosaur bones and suggested we might “learn about a new means of preservation we hadn’t known about before that gives a date apparently younger than the tissue really is.”
Rick mocked her and dismissed the possibility as “magic.”
Reactions like that suggest that Rick refuses to accept anything that goes against his preconceived worldview. It certainly demonstrates he’s not interested in using “se all available methods to investigate an astonishing anomaly.”
He’s only interested in the methods and investigations that back up his worldview.
And the fact that you don’t see this, Stacy, when he’s written it in your own blog, suggests a blindness on your part, too.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, Stacy! Means a lot.
All I really wanted, though, was an example of how designing an experiment and looking at data could be done differently/better by someone with one worldview than another, since that was something you and Jeff explicitly mentioned. Oh well.
And, as for evolution, my genetics professor said something interesting at the beginning of the semester (so, not a verbatim quote here – should have written it down when he said it!): “Scientists love exceptions. That’s what’s really exciting in science, is when you can find an exception to something. That’s why, if someone found something to disprove evolution or anything like that, they wouldn’t be hiding it – it’d be all over all the journals and on the cover of Time and Newsweek and it’d be huge news.”
I’m not saying all scientists are perfectly honest people – I know I’ve brought up Wakefield before, and I’m sure there are others who have a vested interest in making the science appear fit what they want to see, even if it means flat-out lying and changing data. But I fail to see how all of evolutionary biology is a massive coverup or a plot to disprove the Bible. If the observations and data truly pointed to the conclusion that evolution was a lie, you would have people falling over each other to publish the first articles and get their names behind the big discovery. They’d be in every biology textbook from now until the collapse of civilization if they made a discovery like that.
No RobT,
Scientific Method: 1) Ask a question, 2) Do background research, 3) Construct hypothesis, 4) Test with experiment, 5) Analyze results, 6) Draw conclusion, 7) If hypothesis is true based on data report results. If hypothesis is not true based on data begin again with #1.
Do you understand that? Honest question.
You don’t “learn about a new means of preservation we hadn’t known about before that gives a date apparently younger than the tissue really is” until you actually work through the SM to verify that you in fact have a new means of preservation. To assume without any data or experiment is absurd — metaphysical magic without data.
Oh never mind. That’s boring.
Hypothetical.
You buy a new-ish Rolex. It doesn’t really keep time, but, hey, it looks nice on your wrist. You get a notice from an attorney that a criminal has been caught who confesses to fixing up and selling old Rolexes as new, but alas! the original serial codes still exist (unbeknownst to thieves) on the watches where they can’t be tampered with. Yours is one of them. It’s a potentially devastating data point since “fixed up” Rolexes no longer hold their value because Rolex won’t certify them any longer as Rolexes. Plus, you paid for a new watch, not an old one that was going to fail.
Do you:
A) Look up the standard and official Rolex serial codes to determine the age of your watch, and let honest inquiry lead you to whatever is true so, devastated as you might temporarily be, you can at least deal with the truth going forward?
B) Refuse to look up official Rolex serial codes because the results might not be what you want them to be?
C) Pretend like all Rolex serial codes are no longer valid and claim something new and mind-altering must have been discovered! Rolex has just invented a new method of serial coding that took effect the instant you bought your watch! Magically!!! Your watch is new, because you say it is.
You’ve answered zero of my questions, Rob. Do not avoid this one. What would you do?
Signed,
Passionate old Rolex wearer which has been certified by the company as original through and through, a gift from my husband who knew I’d look up every detail about authenticity and send it in to the company to be verified.
Michelle,
I understand what your professor said, and I believe you are both sincere.
“If the observations and data truly pointed to the conclusion that evolution was a lie, you would have people falling over each other to publish the first articles and get their names behind the big discovery.”
No one said that evolution was all a lie. There is something to it, we know by observation that offspring vary genetically slightly from their parents and that, as such, they respond differently slightly to their environment.
Evolutionary theory, however, has many, many holes and questions left unanswered and it is now becoming more of a metaphysical worldview, accepted as perennially true without question.
It ought to be OK to still question its veracity since the whole thing is constructed with dots over the course of time.
The refusal to do a standard test really does shatter the confidence that evolution is still about observable data.
That is Rick’s point.
Your professor said “if” but the failure to even submit samples for testing necessarily means that we’ll never GET TO the “if.” Never.
How do you find out the truth if you aren’t allowed to question?
It won’t make either of us is some whacked out nut, it just means we are comfortable asking questions and scratching our heads about the results. That should never, ever be squelched.
“And can any of what you are asking be proven in a scientific setting?”
That was the point, not all objective truth is scientifically verifiable.”
If we were talking about objective truths then this might make sense, but you very specifically titled this post “Why the Believer Knows More About Science” (which being married to a brilliant scientist who does not believe I find to be both amazingly arrogant and just plain wrong on your part) so lets stick to science. If you start an experiment already certain the answer is god then that is a bias. Sorry, but it really just is.
“Please look up bias.”
I already did give you the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary definition of “bias” as it relates to science. There is no more authoritative source of the English language.”
Dictionary.com has a slightly different definition…does that make it wrong?
And in your response to Michelle you “Evolutionary theory, however, has many, many holes and questions left unanswered and it is now becoming more of a metaphysical worldview, accepted as perennially true without question.” You expect us to accept are perennially true god without question, and there is no scientific proof at all god even exists. Please explain why you expect this of us.
Stacy, I’ve said many, many, many times why the data would be meaningless. Rick (and you, it seems) believes that if you get a C-14 date, that’s it, done, macroevolution is over and dead and gone. But C-14 dating will only give you a result in the range of what it can date. So, hypothetical example to get this point across: say you had a decibel reader that only read up to about 60 decibels (the level of normal conversation). If someone shoots a gun and you measure the decibel level, you’re going to get a reading that’s within the range the reader is capable of giving you. That doesn’t mean the gunshot was as loud as someone talking, even though measuring decibels is the standard test to determine how loud something is. Does that make sense? It’s not a matter of not doing the test because you might not like the results (which you keep saying, and is hardly true), it’s a matter of not doing the test because the results will tell you nothing.
And, I’m sort of surprised you said this:
“You don’t “learn about a new means of preservation we hadn’t known about before that gives a date apparently younger than the tissue really is” until you actually work through the SM to verify that you in fact have a new means of preservation. To assume without any data or experiment is absurd — metaphysical magic without data.”
Um…of course? I only suggested the new preservation method as a reasonable explanation, one far more likely than your and Rick’s explanation that evolution and nuclear physics are fundamentally screwed up. Of course you’d have to verify it! I was suggesting a hypothesis, not saying that was the explanation (and, for the record, you and Rick both jumped to the conclusion that macroevolution was false…with no data. And the fact that there was no published C-14 data made you convinced that there was damning evidence against evolution. And you said my hypothesis was ridiculous!).
But, back to my original point: no one has given me an example of how an experiment is done differently from the perspective of a Catholic vs. an atheist. You and Jeff both talked about it specifically in terms of experiments and data, so it shouldn’t be some abstract concept that I’m just too dense to understand. You can’t do science differently/better on a large, overreaching scale if you’re doing the experiments themselves and interpreting the data exactly the same as any atheist.
Michelle,
“Stacy, I’ve said many, many, many times why the data would be meaningless.”
I know, but you are wrong and when someone has tried to explain it you just “nuh-uh” it. It’s not just one test, it’s a series, with controls, with proper preparation and comparisons. Like any other testing in science.
The other group that hypothesized that the tissue in question was biofilm did submit the samples for C-14 testing, and published their results as valid. They said the tissue is of recent origin.
What do you make of that?
“I only suggested the new preservation method as a reasonable explanation…”
Well, the lady who found the soft tissue also suggests that some new preservation method has been discovered, but she didn’t
doreport the C-14 data. She also referenced the biofilm people but failed to address their C-14 results. In her paper she just said they were wrong.What do you make of that?
“But, back to my original point: no one has given me an example of how an experiment is done differently from the perspective of a Catholic vs. an atheist.”
For seriously the last time, I did. Hint: breast cancer.
I haven’t read the studies, but if tests were done beyond just C-14 dating it, saying it’s recent tissue, and calling it a day – what Rick made quite clear was good enough to throw out evolution, I believe – then fine. But, unless I’m cluelessly blundering through these discussions, I think you and Rick were obviously eager to interpret the results (which you complained over and over didn’t exist, and now you’re saying they do…?) as disproving evolution. That’s all I’m going to say on that, because if I have to talk any more about dinosaur bones I will rip my hair out.
Okay, abortion and breast cancer (sorry, missed it when I was reading that comment the first time). How does this prove your point, though? You’re saying that the believer knows more about science, but all you’ve really done is shown that people like to have their beliefs backed up by science, which is hardly big news. (Twenty seconds of Googling, and I found a cancer.gov link [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/ere/workshop-report] saying that there’s no link.) So, while your beliefs may affect what you are willing to believe (dinosaurs, abortions, aborted dinosaurs with breast cancer, whatever), it doesn’t make you any better at science. Anyone with strong views who wants to see them supported by research is going to have a bias. What good science actually requires is an open mind with no vested interest in interpreting data and evaluating studies in a particular way – something obviously hard to accomplish, since everyone has biases – and from what I’ve read here and elsewhere, religious belief makes open-minded science that much more difficult.
Michelle,
Rick’s point was that the test and the data should be considered. Both our point is that evolutionary science has lost its scientific nature. It’s become metaphysics — a worldview that cannot be falsified. And there’s only one Truth.
I get where you are coming from, I do. We seem like the religious nuts with fingers in our ears screaming, “Genesis 1 and science is bad!” But that’s not what we are saying. That’s what the atheist community says we say. It’s what (possibly) you’ve been conditioned to hear.
We want open and honest science — data based — to seek the real truth. We are interested so that we can know the truth. That’s what God made us to do, He made us in His image with the power of intellect and the freedom of will. He gave us Creation to discover, using those facilities.
And God is good.
If scientists are covering up data for the purpose of misleading people, or so they can get paid, then we oppose that because it leads people into error and sin. It damages souls, and while suffering on earth might be unpleasant, suffering for all Eternity is far graver.
We want the Truth. It’s not a game to us. It’s reality.
On breast cancer. I’ve reviewed the data, (I’m qualified and my husband is a senior level executive statistician who has to analyze data honestly or people lose their jobs, including him the sole salary for a family of eight) and those methods were so distorted that it was shameful. Data modelling is dangerous because with a little knowledge, anyone can make the numbers sing to any tune.
And they did. The medical members on the ACOG and RCOG were ALL abortion advocates, doctors who profit from it. That’s where cancer.gov gets their information too, it gets propagated as a pseudo-truth by repetition. They threw out studies that found a link. They ignored physiological explanations. They ignored doctors who disagreed with them. The “consensus” was biased in the worst way.
I used that example for another reason.
I ask you…
What do pro-life people have to gain by telling women that abortion might increase their risk for breast cancer?
What do pro-abortion doctors and politicians have to gain?
**Sad to note that Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued for Roe in RvW, had an abortion when she was young. She is now battling breast cancer in her 60′s. She’ll die denying there was a connection, though with a pen and paper I could outline the reasons why in a way that my 5 year old could understand.
***You’ll really want to pull your hair out if you get into ABC (abortion breast cancer) research with me. I’ve read about dinos for a few months, ABC, for years.
Stacy, I don’t think there’s much point in continuing this. You asked for examples of how Rick refuses to accept anything that goes against his preconceived worldview. I provided you with examples. You’ve responded by criticizing what people-who-are-not-Rick have done, and however apt your criticisms of people-who-are-not-Rick, they do not refute the examples I provided of how Rick refuses to accept anything that goes against his preconceived worldview.
It seems we’re having two different conversations. And by the way, sorry about the snarky comment about your “blindness” in my last post. That wasn’t me at my best.
Well, you believe in God, and that can’t be falsified…but whatever. I don’t agree, and I think you are badly mistaken, but there’s nothing I can say to make you see that. I’ll let it go.
And, as for the abortion-breast cancer link, I absolutely don’t want to get into a discussion on that. I haven’t read any of the literature and don’t foresee having time to. But to answer your questions:
• The anti-abortion crowd is able to make abortion look bad from another angle in a way that (if true) would turn more people against abortion.
• The pro-choice crowd, of course, would like there not to be a link, but if there were a link, it wouldn’t do them much harm. Smoking is known to cause lung cancer, but people take the risk and do it anyway.
Of course, there’s going to be a bias either way. Especially with politicized issues (which is why I asked for an example that isn’t politicized! but we can’t have everything, I suppose), it’s hard to keep a truly open mind, no matter what your worldview. But the minute you start thinking that your particular beliefs – particularly ones that cannot themselves be falsified – are guiding you to “better” scientific answers that you might not have gotten otherwise, then I think it’s safe to say you’re doing it wrong.
Alright. I am out. Off to go do some godless, wrong science!
Rob, someone told me after I converted that one thing I’d learn about Catholics is that they can argue with a passion and then set it aside and go have a beer. I’ve found that to be true. I’ve also found that I love to argue, and it’s not to get to the beer. It’s to push myself to think. And to meet nice people, of which I consider you one. Cheers!
Michelle,
This is from that Pontifical Academy of Sciences resource I linked, quoting (p. 120):
Fight against preconceptions
Science fights an unceasing battle against preconceptions: even if centuries are needed to dismantle them. The great difference between Classical Physics and Modern Physics lies in the fact that a tiny quantity (the so-called Planck’s Constant) was considered to be exactly zero. Another enormous quantity (the speed of light) was considered infinite. Three hundred years to break down two preconceptions.
The entire document covers Revolution, Racism, Universality, Elevation of the Individual, Intellectual Stimulus, Humility, Truth, Reflection on Facts, Goodness and Tolerance, Generosity, Freedom of Thought.
That’s good science, no? I don’t think you do wrong science. I think you are closer to God than you admit.
I know, I know. Have a nice weekend.
The Catholic Church is one of the most pro-science religious institutions on the planet right now.
The Catholic Church, overall, has been very supportive of good science. Any Catholic who supports seven-day creationism, thousands of years old earth, or other nonsense, acts to undermine that support.
And people like that are more effective than a dozen Richard Dawkins’s in discouraging Christians from science, and in discouraging scientists from Christianity.
Religious people can be excellent scientists. But if they obsess on bad ideas connected loosely to old doctrines, they can become worse than bad scientists. They make war with science, and utterly nullify any credentials they may have had previously.
Of course, as Jason Lisle has proved, a PhD in Chemistry or Physics from a good school can go far in special creationist circles. He made a lot of money organizing that Creation Museum and Planetarium in Kentucky.
Hi Stacy,
Have you and your husband connected with Dr. Nadal regarding your reviews of the ABC links. I’m sure he would love to chat some….. and compare notes with you guys.
Regards
Michelle, I’m so sorry I dropped off. I wasn’t avoiding you, I have some distractions
You asked for an example of how a Catholic and a non-believer would design different experiments.
Unfortunately, you and I might disagree on the definition of an experiment, but I have to start somewhere.
Mine is pretty mainstream philosophy of science:
A theory implies an experiment which can falsify it:
T -> E
But not really, it’s the theory plus Auxiliary Assumptions that imply an experiment which can falsify it:
T(A1, A2, A3…) -> E
A1, A2, or A3 could be a mathematical theorem, a scientific law, any mechanical calculation rule, etc. For example, A1 = “water freezes at 32 degrees F”. Right? They are the links in the derivation chain from the theory to the empirical realization, or experiment.
Wait, but there are also metaphysical givens, like “A = A” and “the universe is intelligible” and “there are numbers” etc.
Given X
T(A1, A2, A3…) -> E
When an experiment fails to attain the expected result, a scientist either rejects theory T, or else retains it but rejects one or more of the auxiliary assumptions. But the experimenter doesn’t reject the Givens, which are small in number. A warning here: pure empiricists are loathe to allow ANY such givens. Even silly truisms like A = A.
If you’re with me so far in that definition of an experiment, then here’s what I mean by Catholic looking at an experiment differently.
The Catholic will explicitly take “the universe is orderly rather than disorderly” as a Given which means it will not be implicated in experimental falsification.
A self-reflective atheist must include “the universe is orderly rather than disorderly” as an auxiliary assumption because they can’t prove the universe is orderly rather than disorderly. So the atheist has to mistrust fundamental givens in doing experiments. So, for example the logical positivists could not admit that the number 3 had any reality at all. All they would accept is that it appears that the category of “3 cows is similar in the aspect of number to 3 chickens” was so well established as true by experience that it was almost as good as a given.
The Catholic has proof that the universe is orderly, or that the number 3 is a real entity by revelation. God created the universe. He created all things with weight and measure. Statements like these are givens, and will not be implicated by a falsification.
Consequently, if an experiment were performed, and the experiment failed to attain, the atheist could logically question whether it might be false that the universe is orderly. The Catholic trusts the metaphysical axioms and therefore sees the result of an experiment differently.
One practical consequence: according to Fr. Stanley Jaki, the scientific revolution could only occur logically in a Christian context precisely because Christians asserted as axiomatic that Christ is the logos, the creative reason, that holds the universe together as a coherent, rational thing. Thus, Christians had the epistemological confidence to continue in the face of failure, whereas the Humean and Cartesian doubters would have spent their lifetimes wringing their hands “oooh but how do we really KNOW that there are universal laws at all? couldn’t it just be coincidence?”. Blah. Christians are courageous. But I’m glad atheist scientists have sort of caught up to us and our optimism!
Sorry, too long. In short, Catholic scientists, it would seem, would proceed far more efficiently, and would be far less likely to dally over spurious questions when interpreting experiments.
Jeff, interesting response.
Do you accept that falsifiability is an essential part of a scientific theory?
Because, after thinking about it a while, I don’t think it is.
I think some scientific ideas, old scientific ideas, are definitely wrong. They can never be brought back. Because now there are better ideas. Now, the new ideas might be wrong, but falsifying them does nothing, in my mind. Another, new and different, idea needs to be proposed in order to give up the old idea.
So, example one:
Geocentric theory -> Heliocentric theory. The earth definitely seems to be moving. If it’s not moving, then the idea of motion must be something different than what we thought.
Heliocentric theory -> Relativity. What is center and what is stationary is, from the perspective of physical principles, entirely arbitrary. Maybe relativity will be shown to be inconsistent (in fact, when it comes to quantum mechanics, we know it is!).
But some new explanation has to be put in place, in order to give up on relativity. Some new idea about motion is necessary, different from anything that came before it, because if relativity is wrong, it’s still a better idea than any of the ones before it, so they will be even more wrong once relativity is overthrown.
Example 2:
Special Creation -> Darwinian evolution. Same rules. A few bones that should be young wouldn’t be enough to overthrow evolution. Also, I suspect there are good reasons for thinking the bones and the cellular matter are very old, and that our idea about how long that matter can survive is what needs to be revised. I am encouraged in this speculation by the original discoverer, who thinks the same.
—–
We know that the ideas of a young earth, special creationism, etc. are wrong. But we also are seeing signs that current ideas are also wrong (although less wrong). What’s next? Whatever it is, it will have to be something brand new. Probably something we haven’t even imagined yet!
Paul, Relativity was adopted, among other reasons, because it gave us a remarkable answer to a very simple question:
Does the Earth revolve around the Sun and rotate on its axis, or not?
Relativity said:
The question is meaningless.
It is exactly as valid to say “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves”, as it is to say that ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest”.
Just as Newton’s physics rest on the metaphysical assumption of absolute space, so Relativity rests on the metaphysical assumption of the relativity principle (expressed mathematically in GR as “global space-time”).
Now if GR is true the universe should be isotropic and homogeneous, nut it isn;t, so bye bye GR (it of course will not go easily, but it will go).
What’s next?
Not some utterly new theory, Paul, because a metaphysical choice has been made and falsified:
absolute space
Another metaphysical choice has been made and falsified:
Isotropic and homogeneous spacetime
A third metaphysical choice was rejected in the choice of both of the above:
absolute Earth frame
That one remains completely consistent with all observations, and has the advantage of predicting inhomogeneity and a cosmological significance to the ecliptic, which turns out to be just the local expression of the CMB Axis.
One can only ignore Door Number Three so long, Paul……….
RobT still doesn’t get it
If we have two possible answers to an anomaly; say, a dino bone with soft tissue, then the risky test is the one that involves the possible falsification of the theory:
“Hey! Guess what! The bones have measurable C14 so they aren’t as old as we thought!”
That’s the experiment which has the power to falsify an important prediction of the theory.
The other approach is to research *only* those approaches which would tend *not* to challenge the theory:
“Well, what a surprise! Who would have thunk these soft tissues and blood cells could last 80 million years when all our physical models say that can’t!”
The second approach is not a true attempt to falsify the model, and hence no resulting research should count as corroboration of the model.
“Science as Falsification”, by Karl Popper, sets this out precisely, and shows what a hoax it is to refuse to date the bones and instead insist on pursuing ;one range research into how soft tissues can last 80,000,000 years.
“Paul, Relativity was adopted, among other reasons, because it gave us a remarkable answer to a very simple question:
Does the Earth revolve around the Sun and rotate on its axis, or not?”
Your comment starts out very well. It is only mostly wrong.
The most compelling reasons to adopt relativity have nothing to do with the motion of the earth.
Door number three is a goat
“Now if GR is true the universe should be isotropic and homogeneous…”
And that’s not even mostly wrong. That’s just completely wrong.
Oh well.
Well.
I suppose you could fix GR, if you put Earth in the center of the universe, like the folks at Oxford U have done, and then you can toss out the whole model based on FLRW solutions and use LTB instead.
After all, spherically symmetric, isotropic but inhomogeneous, is a very good way to say “geocentric”.
The problem is that only gets you to Weak Geocentrism.
But its’ a start…….
Ok a few questions, and bear in mind I am a simple guy so simple answers are best.
With the dino bones are we questioning evolution on the whole or just that maybe dinosaurs are not as old as originally thought? If we are questioning evolution on the whole then do you think all fossils and dino’s and “proof” of evolution are fake?
Also Jeff writes “The Catholic has proof that the universe is orderly, or that the number 3 is a real entity by revelation. God created the universe. He created all things with weight and measure. Statements like these are givens, and will not be implicated by a falsification.”. But I ask what is that “proof”?
Alan:
With the dino bones we have a chance to see whether the evolution research program is scientific or not.
If it is, it will seek the opportunity to test a “risky” prediction of the theory: that Cretaceous bones can be dated according to the radiometric dating results of the strata in which they are found.
This has been fanatically resisted.
This shows the evolution research program no longer considers its timeline falsifiable.
It is now a metaphysical, not a scientific, datum.
So evolution is now, at least, a metaphysical research program.
Nothing that it claims in the way of consilience:
“Ooooo look how many things fit together so perfectly! We have the fossils in the columns and the radiometric dating and it all fits together…..”
Bunk.
Metaphysics.
“Consilience” only counts, as Popper says, when it is the result of a true test of the theory:
“It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
“Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
“Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.”
“Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)
“Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”– Popper, Science as Falsification
The refusal to C14 test Mary’s Bones and to instead pursue “research” into how organic material can last 80,000,000 years is *exactly a “conventionalist twist* as Popper indicates above.
I do not know how much of the claimed “consiilience” of the Darwinian theory is the result of similar conventionalist twists.
I suspect a lot of it is, since we know for sure what they did in the face of a clear, direct challenge to the model: Mary’s Bones.
Since we see that Darwinism as a metaphysics is *really bad metaphysics*, it ought to be challenged and defeated on metaphysical grounds.
I thought I had responded, so if it shows up twice I apologize.
Rick, I am sure you are a really smart guy, but all I see is a needlessly wordy answer that never answers the first question I asked, and well a complete ignoring of my second question.
I said I am a simple guy, I don’t use alot of words when few are needed, I don’t use “big” words when simple words convey so much more.
So now maybe you could look at my questions and answer them simply and directly?
Alan, I read Rick’s reply and I’ll sum it up for you. [Emphasis mine]
Alan: With the dino bones are we questioning evolution on the whole or just that maybe dinosaurs are not as old as originally thought?
Rick: With the dino bones we have a chance to see whether the evolution research program is scientific or not.
Alan: If we are questioning evolution on the whole then do you think all fossils and dino’s and “proof” of evolution are fake?
Rick: …evolution is now, at least, a metaphysical research program.
Alan: Also Jeff writes “The Catholic has proof that the universe is orderly, or that the number 3 is a real entity by revelation. God created the universe. He created all things with weight and measure. Statements like these are givens, and will not be implicated by a falsification.”. But I ask what is that “proof”?
Me: Wisdom 11:21 “…but you have ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.”
Believed to have been written 1st or 2nd century B.C., proved over and over to be true since then by science.
How’s that?
Stacy
Thanks for the effort, you kindly used simple words.
Didn’t help at all though. It still seems to be tap dancing around the questions without really answering them.
If evolution is not science does that mean it did not happen?
And the proof of god…well really it is not so much proof. Sorry but I don’t see it
“If evolution is not science does that mean it did not happen?”
It means it cannot be measured or observed, but it is something that is proved by the power of human reason.
God can be proved by the power of reason, and great men have systematically studied that for 2,000 years (well, actually for all recorded history) providing tight logical proofs.
Evolution can be disproved easily on metaphysical grounds. Atheists in recent history have said that evolutionary theory gave atheism legitimacy, only revealing that even atheists knew atheism was illogical and needed something to bolster it up in their minds.
But trying to pull one’s self up by one’s own bootstrap is a futile exercise.
*Should add that evolution can be disproved on metaphysical grounds IF no God is admitted. There’s no explanation for the directive force behind it all.
ok so you think evolution can be disproved because it is not a science? Or that evolution and god are the same because they can be proved by human reason?
So this makes one wonder about all those fossils and what appears to be physical proof of evolution. What physical proof is there of god?
I guess for me it does not necessarily mean if we don’t know the origin of something it is not proof that god is the origin of it.
And aethism to me is no more illogical than believing in god. I guess this is my wish for you all to understand.
Alan, you keep repeating the challenge to prove that God exists.
What exactly is the form of proof you’re looking for? Deductive?
If a, b, c then God
a, b, c are true.
Therefore God.
Oh dear, sorry, Alan, St. Thomas Aquinas said there can’t be a pure demonstration of the existence of God because our intellects are incapable of formulating a concept of God. Thus we can’t issue the declaration “If a, b, c, then God.” You get that, right?
Instead, we reason a posteriori (rather than a priori). Why? Because God by definition is unknowable. Therefore we can’t set God’s nature as a major premise and draw deductive inferences about Him. We can look at nature itself and infer that the existence of creatures implies a creator (if you’re a language buff you might notice that creature (= Latin “he is created”) implies creator. So by that logic, you, Alan are proof of God’s existence.
But do people reason a posteriori in every day life? Of course they do. With great authority. Physicians do it when they look at your symptoms, reasoning that stiff neck and fever must have an unobservable cause, and while not a proof, it is rational to argue that the best possible unobservable cause of stiff neck and fever in the same individual is meningitis.
Alan, I submit that your difficulty is that you aren’t a connoisseur of every day scientific inference. In the real world, people are fairly good at recognizing valid arguments. For example, medical doctors.
You trust medical doctors, don’t you Alan? Or do you beg your doctor for more than “mere” a posteriori proof when he or she gives you a diagnosis? The logical structure of a medical diagnosis, and most real world inference is a posteriori logic.
I’m genuinely curious, Alan. Why do you hold Christians to a higher standard than you would hold your family doctor to?
I recommend a crash course in American pragmatism, starting with Charles Saunders Peirce.
Alan, you’re a good man. You ask questions. We couldn’t possibly turn you away here because you’re a genuine fellow. Keep asking questions. We love it!
Thanks Jeff! Alan, dear fellow creature, do keep asking questions.
I just stumbled across this:
“The progress of science appears small, so much so, that the greatest progress seems to consist in the knowledge of how little we know. This was the conclusion arrived at by Socrates, Newton, Humboldt, and so many others. The very instruments teach this lesson: the deeper the microscope descends into the secrets of nature and the higher the telescopic power reaches into the heavens, the vaster appears the ocean of undiscovered truths. This ought to be kept in mind, when the progress of science is loudly proclaimed.”
I guess Jeff I am looking for scientific proof. Deductive proof doesn’t work, because it is not indeed proof. Two people can deduce the same evidence in very different ways.
I do question my doctors. I want test to back up results. It’s just the way I am, but I don’t just take peoples opinion. In fairness I must admit I ma married to a doctor so I am lucky that I can always get a second opinion. I can say that my doctor does not diagnos without tests, he may suggest what I might have, but he does not make difinitive statements without backup. I think that is a standard that doctors should be held to. But that is a totally different conversation.
And I don’t think I hold christians to a higher standard. But it seems that christians seem to want to hold all to their standards, and I just don’t agre with that. So to you it seems like I am expecting more from you, but you need to know from where it comes. When christians stop telling me how to live my life I will stop expecting them to provide proof that I know cannot be provided. Does that make sense.
Thank you for continuing to be so open to my continued questions.
Good points, Alan.
I think we’re still on the same page.
You said you would want a doctor to perform tests.
As you probably know via your doctor spouse, every test possesses sensitivity and specificity, as well as true and false positive and negative rates.
Quick, go ask your spouse how often a diagnostic test has both sensitivity and specificity equal to 1.0. I believe that answer is “not too often.”
So here you are, getting your test result. Your doctor says there is a level of uncertainty in the result.
If the diagnosis is right, you will certainly die unless you get to the emergency room immediately
Will you accept your diagnosis with its limitations and go to the emergency room, given that the cost of being wrong is quite high?
I would.
If my conclusion about God is right, and I fail to act on it, the cost of my being wrong is quite high.
So I’m a believer. That’s rational.
I think the point is, in real life we usually can’t wait for perfect information. We are thrown into situations in which we have to make a decision and must work with the level of evidence we have on hand.
That’s life. It’s very existential. But again, Christians are pretty courageous people, and maybe that’s why we don’t mind gritting our teeth and making the decision. We call it the leap of faith. Doctors make it. Can’t we?
Jeff absolutely you can make the choice to believe, but only for yourself. Not for me.
Which brings us back full circle………
The believe knows more about science because the believer possesses a superior metaphysics; one which can account for the existence of a cosmos, of principles operative in it, of minds capable of hypothesizing and experimentally validating those principles, and of other minds capable of duplicating the experimental validation.
The atheist can account for not a single one of these things from within his own metaphysics.
Which is why it is a very good thing that atheist scientists continue to leave their impoverished metaphysics at the door when doing actual science.
They adopt just as much of Catholic metaphysics as is necessary in order to do science, and they do science just so long as they are at ceaseless war with what they think they know.
Rick
Please continue in your ignorance.
Sorry believers do not know more.
Ah, I shouldn’t but I’m going to.
Alan,
“Sorry believers do not know more.”
Can you prove that? I’m looking for scientific proof.
Stacy, no, it cannot be proven.
Nor can it be proven that the believer knows more, which is why Paul is continuing in his ignorance. And arrogance.
So, wait.
You can say something as if it were true, that you admit can’t be proven.
But if you think someone else does that (by your reckoning), then they are “ignorant” and “arrogant.”
Got it.
LOL yes Stacy that is exactly it. (as this is a blog post I will let you know this is written in a very sarcastic vein)
You are asking me to prove something “scientifically’ that cannot be proven scientifically. You know it cannot be. Nor can it be proven non scientifically. But then you “seem” to think you can prove that believers do know more about science, but we both know again it cannot be proven. So yes you saying that believers know more about science is arrogant and ignorant while me saying no they don’t is not. Because I am not saying that non believers know more. That would be arrogant and ignorant.
What I am saying is neither necessarily knows more about science. My husband knows more about science than I, that is a fact and can be proven. I suspect he knows more about science than a great many here. Is that fact? No. But he knows alot about science. So of course I am going to find your statement ignorant, for many reasons.
The arrogant part pretty much speaks for itself. If you don’t see it I certainly can’t make you. I’ll give you a hint though. Any time one group thinks they know more about some other group on the whole, well that is just plain old arrogance.
Make sense?
“Any time one group thinks they know more about some other group on the whole, well that is just plain old arrogance.”
So, then, Alain, if one group claims to know that 2 plus 2 equals 4, and another group insists that it could be 4, but might also be 3, is it “plain old arrogance” for the first group to say:
“Nope. You’re wrong. We’re right.”?
Ot would it rather be a case of truthfulness to say it?
Perhaps the idea that really upsets the atheist, is the idea that any Absolute of any kind might be found to exist……..
Right Rick, Because if it did…
Alan, have you ever wondered what that means — to prove something scientifically?
The very first itty-bitty step in science is in fact very non-scientific (if science is limited to that which is observable and quantifiable). We have to first define what it means to observe something and to name quantities, and we have to accept it as capable of determining what is true. There’s always that leap!
The first time I read that was a “ding-ding” moment in my noggin. (too many kids and cartoons, sorry)
Good golly, it is hard to get a concept across here, but not surprised by this.
Sorry Rick, it is ignorant to say a group “knows more than you” about certain things. Yes catholics know more about catholicism, gays know more about being gay,so they can claim some greater knowledge in these area’s, but science is just not something you can claim believers know more about because they believe. Sorry it’s just plain ignorant to think that..so spin and make all the analogies you want. You do this because in the end you know that I am right.
Perhaps the idea that really upsets the believers is that they know they are wrong?
Oh and fyi,I am not an atheist.
Alanl64 says:
“science is just not something you can claim believers know more about because they believe”
But it can, exactly, be claimed that believers know more about science.
It has been so claimed.
If your oily refutation is:
“that’s arrogant”
I am afraid arrogance is not, even if demonstrated, any kind of refutation of the premise that believer know more about science in virtue of their status as believers.
I have already pointed out that believers can account for the origin of the reality which science observes, can account for origin of the principles which govern the phenomena which science observes, can account for the origin of the minds which are capable, through hypothesis and experimental validation, of discovering those principles, and also can account for the fact that such minds can communicate those discoveries to other minds, which can then independently validate the experimental demonstration.
This seems to have sort of just slid right on by you so far, Alain, but please think about this:
*Not a one of these things* can be accounted for by an atheist.
Since *every one of these things* is absolutely, irreducibly necessary for science, it would seem to follow……
The believer does, in fact, know more about science.
The atheist can make up for this if he plays fair- that is, if he does science- that is, if he honestly seeks to experimentally falsify anything he thinks he knows whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Stacy,
You seem to like to question me like I am one of your children. Or at least that is how it comes across a great deal
The first itty bitty step? For real?
Regardless of what science is, regardless of what the first step is, the point is that you thinking believers know more than other folks continues to be ignorant. But it is just how you are I fear. Your rights are better and need to be protected more. You should tell others how to live their lives. You know more. All others are inferior. You may not say those words but the words you use, the way you title your posts, well the are all just so arrogant and full of ignorance. I know it is not your intent, but to me that is how it all comes across.
I tell my friends about coming here and posting, and they wonder how I can do it continually when not one of you who believes actually listens to what I have to say. You are just all so intent on proving me wrong, your minds are just not open.
And you can say mine is not open either, but I think if you were to truly read what I have written, see when I have agreed with you, then you will see I have tried to have an open mind with you.
We disagree on almost everything.
I’d say I am done, but I have proven to myself that some of what you write needs someone who disagree’s with you. You need to be told that not all see it as you do, and that you are no more right than the rest of us. And I need to read what you write so I can know exactly what I am fighting against.
I have said it before and it bears repeating. You all really do make me question the existance of god. I don’t want to, but good golly if your god really does think like you then I am really really frightened about what can happen and must renew daily my fight against this country becoming what you want it to be.
Hyperbole, maybe, but then I think that puts me in good company here.
You are so right Rick, it can be claimed.
I stand corrected.
But that doesn’t make it true.
No more than me saying I am green and six feet tall.
You can continue in your ignorance and arrogance, I for now am done with this discussion.
Have a great night.
“I suppose you could fix GR, if you put Earth in the center of the universe, like the folks at Oxford U have done, and then you can toss out the whole model based on FLRW solutions and use LTB instead.”
GR doesn’t specify anything about whether FLRW is right. In fact, we know FLRW is wrong. Clumps of matter exist. Therefore te universe is inhomogeneous. Therefore FLRW is wrong. But it might be a good approximation. That’s why it’s used.
Lemaître–Tolman includes FLRW. Lemaître–Tolman does not account for inhomogeneity. Lemaître–Tolman says nothing about the location of the earth.
Maybe someday you should take a class in relativity.
alanl64:
“Nor can it be proven that the believer knows more, which is why Paul is continuing in his ignorance. And arrogance.”
I am ignorant about a great deal of general relativity. And I am also arrogant.
I’m arrogant in the face of stupidity or nonsense or when it’s clear to me that people are talking about things that they do not understand.
But I’m humble in this one way:
I’m always up for learning more. I am very open to being shown when I am wrong and how I can correct errors in my thought.
What scientific errors do you see that I accept? Or what do I claim to know that is unknown?