The religion of science

[Sculptor1]

The fact that science uses maths is a strength

It also means that science inherits the fundamental weaknesses of math.

No. Since science relies on empirical evidence, not just conceits of maths.
It has the advantage of using maths as a tool of description. It the description does not work then science goes back to the drawing board.
It is also worth saying that no all science has much of a maths content, such as natural history, taxonomy..

Math struggles with the very damaging problem that first-order logic generally fails to bind its non-logical symbols to their single, intended interpretation.

Does it?

This problem is unsolvable.

You've not really stated a problem as such. It is easy to say a problem is unsolvable when you have free hand with an undefined problem.
What has any of this to do with the thread?

it completely sets it at a polar opposite to all religions whcih refer to nothing.

Math is foundationalist, and so is religion. Science is absolutely not. Math is therefore the polar opposite of science and not of religion.

You've said this before. It did not make sense then, and repeating it does not help.
You are not addressing what I say.

Science is not a religion in any sense what ever.

Properly understood science is not foundationalist. I do not think that anybody denies this. However, math is certainly foundationalist, just like religion.

If that is the cast then you need another thread.

The real debating point is that one cannot reject religion on grounds of its foundationalist nature while -- when using science as an alternative -- being simultaneously tributary and existentially dependent on the foundationalism in mathematics.

Maths and Religion are not alternative to one another. They share basically nothing.

If religion is wrong for its blind first principles then math is also wrong for the same reason. In that case, how can science be a superior alternative, since science existentially depends on math?

No. Maths is a system of coherence. Religion can state and believe incompatible things. Religion can say 5+4=9 one day and 4+5= 45 another day. Jesus saves all, but some will burn in hell.
God loves Eunuchs, Mat 19,12
God hates Eunuchs Deu 23,1
Does the Old Testament Law still apply?
YES Leviticus 23:14, 21, 31
NO, Rom.7:6

The bible cannot agree on the most simple arithmetic. How many generations cam before Moses, or after him, or how many generations from the exodus to Jesus.
Was Jesus silent before Pilate, whether or not he was adorned in a robe and of what colour; what Judas did with the silver; was Jesus the son of David.
There are 100s of basic contradiction; absurdities and fallacies. Same goes for Mormonism, Islam and Judaism - and probably the minority religions too.
If any of these things had been presented in a science paper, the entire religion would have been laughed all the way to the dump.

[Pattern-chaser]

I like the idea of making a map so complete that it becomes the actual thing.

No need! ... The "actual thing" is the map you describe. When truly and completely identical, the map and the territory become one, and require only one label. That label should probably be "the territory", to avoid confusion.

In context, the Standard Model can be thought of as equivalent to a world map from the 1500s without Oceania.

I don't quite know why, but I find that amusing. It's a reasonable analogy too.

[heracleitos]

It is also worth saying that no all science has much of a maths content, such as natural history, taxonomy..

If justification is not obtained by experimental testing, then it is not science. Therefore, natural history is in my impression not science.

Math struggles with the very damaging problem that first-order logic generally fails to bind its non-logical symbols to their single, intended interpretation.

Does it?

The late Hawking understood that problem rather well, as well as its impact on science:

What is the relation between Gödel’s theorem, and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe, in terms of a finite number of principles. One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory, is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted.

Maybe it would make sense for you to read Hawking's complete lecture? If you want to understand the underlying reasons why the problem occurs, you may also want to read up on the specifics in model theory.

You've not really stated a problem as such. It is easy to say a problem is unsolvable when you have free hand with an undefined problem. What has any of this to do with the thread?

It would be less of a problem to discuss this matter with the late Hawking than with you, because he had actually done his homework.

Science inherits its fundamental problems from mathematics. Hence, it is not possible to discuss the fundamental problems of science without first developing a solid understanding of what they are in mathematics.

Maths and Religion are not alternative to one another. They share basically nothing.

The epistemology of Islamic jurisprudence ("usul al fiqh") is actually rather close to standard proof theory.

But then again, I should probably not assume that you would be familiar with proof theory or with classical Hilbert calculus.

In fact, since you are obviously familiar with neither, what would be the point for us in discussing their similarity? You know it all anyway!

[Pattern-chaser]

Science is not a religion in any sense what ever.

Science can be misapplied by its practitioners such that it very closely resembles a religion. Science becomes so holy to them that they try to use it as the One And Only Tool for Intellectual Inquiry, for example. Some call this 'scientism', but I don't like the word, as a practitioner of scientism is surely a scientist? So I call them sciencists, if only because it sounds a bit naff.

I'm not certain, but I'm reasonably sure, that this topic is titled and aimed at sciencists. They are the ones who think that science proves stuff, and delivers Objective Truth, and so on. They ascribe miraculous powers to science, as you might expect from such people. Luckily, science itself is unharmed by their activities, just as God is unharmed by human religious practice.

[Sculptor1]

It is also worth saying that no all science has much of a maths content, such as natural history, taxonomy..

If justification is not obtained by experimental testing, then it is not science. Therefore, natural history is in my impression not science.

Try telling Charles Darwin that what he was doing was not science.
Then all you seem to be doing is so narrotly definiing science to something you do not like.
It's not much of an arguement.

Math struggles with the very damaging problem that first-order logic generally fails to bind its non-logical symbols to their single, intended interpretation.

Does it?

The late Hawking understood that problem rather well, as well as its impact on science:

What is the relation between Gödel’s theorem, and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe, in terms of a finite number of principles. One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory, is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted.

Maybe it would make sense for you to read Hawking's complete lecture? If you want to understand the underlying reasons why the problem occurs, you may also want to read up on the specifics in model theory.

You've not really stated a problem as such. It is easy to say a problem is unsolvable when you have free hand with an undefined problem. What has any of this to do with the thread?

It would be less of a problem to discuss this matter with the late Hawking than with you, because he had actually done his homework.

Science inherits its fundamental problems from mathematics. Hence, it is not possible to discuss the fundamental problems of science without first developing a solid understanding of what they are in mathematics.

Maths and Religion are not alternative to one another. They share basically nothing.

The epistemology of Islamic jurisprudence ("usul al fiqh") is actually rather close to standard proof theory.

But then again, I should probably not assume that you would be familiar with proof theory or with classical Hilbert calculus.

In fact, since you are obviously familiar with neither, what would be the point for us in discussing their similarity? You know it all anyway!

That comment is reportable.
I think the conversation is at an end.

[Sculptor1]

Science is not a religion in any sense what ever.

Science can be misapplied by its practitioners such that it very closely resembles a religion. Science becomes so holy to them that they try to use it as the One And Only Tool for Intellectual Inquiry, for example. Some call this 'scientism', but I don't like the word, as a practitioner of scientism is surely a scientist? So I call them sciencists, if only because it sounds a bit naff.

I'm not certain, but I'm reasonably sure, that this topic is titled and aimed at sciencists. They are the ones who think that science proves stuff, and delivers Objective Truth, and so on. They ascribe miraculous powers to science, as you might expect from such people. Luckily, science itself is unharmed by their activities, just as God is unharmed by human religious practice.

Yes, I was listening to a Youtube vid of Prof Robert Lustig who reminded me of the saying "science only advances one coffin at a time." - Not sure who said it first, but Kunes would have agreed that paradigm shifts can occur when the old guard dies off and the new thinking is allowed to flourish.
But no matter how you slice it. The judge and jury of science is reality. Paradigms ultimately rise and fall because the either work or they are trashed. Because of this science progresses. Due to vested interests and respect for authority, sometimes the breaks are on but things continue to move and expand.
But where reality is the arbiter of science what is the arbiter of religion? Wishes, fantasy, and cant. Religion changes and it might look like progress if you are on the right side of it, but there is no progress.

[Pattern-chaser]

Religion changes and it might look like progress if you are on the right side of it, but there is no progress.

I'm not sure that "progress" is what religion seeks, or needs.

Human understanding, of God and of religion, is perhaps a different matter. In particular, I think an enhanced understanding of what religion is, and what it is for, would benefit all humans; believers, atheists and non-believers alike.

[Sculptor1]

Religion changes and it might look like progress if you are on the right side of it, but there is no progress.

I'm not sure that "progress" is what religion seeks, or needs.

Human understanding, of God and of religion, is perhaps a different matter. In particular, I think an enhanced understanding of what religion is, and what it is for, would benefit all humans; believers, atheists and non-believers alike.

The only place for religion is in the dustbin of history. You can understand it as much as you like but there is no real need for it.

[Pattern-chaser]

The only place for religion is in the dustbin of history. You can understand it as much as you like but there is no real need for it.

This is why we need E-Prime. Your "is" seems to exemplify 'binary thinking', allowing for no other possibility. It assumes, among other things, that you are correct in your belief(s). Many would disagree, with a lack of evidence and justification only equalled by your own. Opinions are just opinions. I have opinions too; does this change your mind?

[Sculptor1]

The only place for religion is in the dustbin of history. You can understand it as much as you like but there is no real need for it.

This is why we need E-Prime. Your "is" seems to exemplify 'binary thinking', allowing for no other possibility. It assumes, among other things, that you are correct in your belief(s). Many would disagree, with a lack of evidence and justification only equalled by your own. Opinions are just opinions. I have opinions too; does this change your mind?

If I am wrong then you are quite at liberty to show why. But denying me my opinion is not the way to do it.

[Pattern-chaser]

If I am wrong then you are quite at liberty to show why. But denying me my opinion is not the way to do it.

You have misunderstood, or I have mis-written. I wouldn't dream of trying to constrain your opinions.

[Sculptor1]

If I am wrong then you are quite at liberty to show why. But denying me my opinion is not the way to do it.

You have misunderstood, or I have mis-written. I wouldn't dream of trying to constrain your opinions.

Yet you insult me with an accusation of binary thinking.

[Sy Borg]

In context, the Standard Model can be thought of as equivalent to a world map from the 1500s without Oceania.

😉 I don't quite know why, but I find that amusing. It's a reasonable analogy too. 👍

On second thoughts, I was being far too generous. People of the 1500s were already slowly unravelling the mysteries of the southern hemisphere. So the equivalent time would be much earlier: https://theconversation.com/four-amazin ... ece-136197

The Histories by Herodotus (484BC to 425BC) offers a remarkable window into the world as it was known to the ancient Greeks in the mid fifth century BC. Almost as interesting as what they knew, however, is what they did not know. This sets the baseline for the remarkable advances in their understanding over the next few centuries – simply relying on what they could observe with their own eyes.

Herodotus claimed that Africa was surrounded almost entirely by sea. How did he know this? He recounts the story of Phoenician sailors who were dispatched by King Neco II of Egypt (about 600BC), to sail around continental Africa, in a clockwise fashion, starting in the Red Sea. This story, if true, recounts the earliest known circumnavigation of Africa, but also contains an interesting insight into the astronomical knowledge of the ancient world.

The voyage took several years. Having rounded the southern tip of Africa, and following a westerly course, the sailors observed the Sun as being on their right hand side, above the northern horizon. This observation simply did not make sense at the time because they didn’t yet know that the Earth has a spherical shape, and that there is a southern hemisphere.

Millennia later, Ancient Greeks figured that something must be south of them:

The name given to the great and unknown southern continent required by the classical Greek geographers, who knew that the earth was spherical, to balance the land mass which was known to exist north of the equator. For a period in the Middle Ages the Church's insistence that the earth was flat led to the complete eradication of all belief in a southern continent, but the great years of exploration by sea in the 15th and early 16th centuries confirmed the approximately spherical shape of the earth. Maps of that period showed Terra Australis as a vast continent centred on the South Pole, and extending as far north as approximately latitude 60° S., and in the Pacific Ocean almost up to the equator. The rounding of the Cape of Good Hope by Bartholomew Diaz in 1478 and of South America by Ferdinand Magellan in 1520 stimulated the search for this unknown continent by many navigators, but notably by Tasman and then by Cook, which gradually reduced the ‘unknown land’ to two smaller continents, Antarctica and Australia.

Some evolution of the mapping process, from Ptolemy onwards: https://exhibits.stanford.edu/global-im ... -incognita



It's hard to imagine how the world today would respond to a finding of this magnitude:

It was 1642 and Abel Tasman was on a mission. The experienced Dutch sailor ... was confident of the existence of a vast continent in the southern hemisphere, and determined to find it.

At the time, this portion of the globe was still largely mysterious to Europeans, but they had an unshakeable belief that there must be a large land mass there – pre-emptively named Terra Australis – to balance out their own continent in the North. The fixation dated back to Ancient Roman times, but only now was it going to be tested.

And so, on 14 August, Tasman set sail from his company's base in Jakarta, Indonesia, with two small ships and headed west, then south, then east, eventually ending up at the South Island of New Zealand. His first encounter with the local Māori people (who are thought to have settled there several centuries earlier) did not go well: on day two, several paddled out on a canoe, and rammed a small boat that was passing messages between the Dutch ships. Four Europeans died. Later, the Europeans fired a cannon at 11 more canoes – it’s not known what happened to their targets.

And that was the end of his mission – Tasman named the fateful location Moordenaers (Murderers) Bay, with little sense of irony, and sailed home several weeks later without even having set foot on this new land. While he believed that he had indeed discovered the great southern continent, evidently, it was hardly the commercial utopia he had envisaged. He did not return.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2021 ... -continent

[Pattern-chaser]

You insult me with an accusation of binary thinking.

Really?

Is this

Your "is" seems to exemplify 'binary thinking', allowing for no other possibility.

really an "insult"?

It doesn't look like one to me, and it wasn't intended as one either. I regret that you took it as one.

Doesn't your text say pretty much exactly what I described? Here it is again:

The only place for religion is in the dustbin of history. You can understand it as much as you like but there is no real need for it.

Your words say, to me, this and only this. In the sense that your words allow for only one interpretation of religion - yours - they do seem to exemplify a form of binary thinking.

...

Except that binary would imply 2 truth-states, and you allow only for 1, so maybe "binary" was a bad choice of words. What's the word for something even more constrained than binary thinking? Does unary thinking fit the bill? I'm not sure.

[Sculptor1]

You insult me with an accusation of binary thinking.

Really?

Is this

Your "is" seems to exemplify 'binary thinking', allowing for no other possibility.

really an "insult"?

It doesn't look like one to me, and it wasn't intended as one either. I regret that you took it as one.

Doesn't your text say pretty much exactly what I described? Here it is again:

The only place for religion is in the dustbin of history. You can understand it as much as you like but there is no real need for it.

Your words say, to me, this and only this. In the sense that your words allow for only one interpretation of religion - yours - they do seem to exemplify a form of binary thinking.

...

Except that binary would imply 2 truth-states, and you allow only for 1, so maybe "binary" was a bad choice of words. What's the word for something even more constrained than binary thinking? Does unary thinking fit the bill? I'm not sure.

Expressing an opinion like this is the result of a lifetime of thinking about the issue. This is not binary in any sense.