Ignatius J. Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 There seems to be a brief lull in the religion/science department, so I figured I'd post something that may or may not be coherant or relevant. As some of you may remember from brief discussions about black holes and the like, I am a physics student going on to UCLA for graduate study in the field, so the logical foundations of science are something I have given some thought to. One of the most problematic issues with science is the so-called "grue paradox" which basically takes a shotgun to our entire basis for scientific thinking. Before, I state the paradox, I want to let you guys know that this isn't just something I cooked up. Many scientific philosophers have been struggling with this since the 1800's and to this date, no one has any idea how to solve it. If anyone does solve it, Princeton (or college of your choice) has an opening for them in the philosophy department. As for why I'm posting it, It is to me, the best single argument why religion and science should be held on exactly the same footing. The fact that no one can solve the problem is a little disconcerting. Here goes: There are two types of inferences in this world. Inductive and deductive. Deductive reasoning is simple logic and works by stating premises and examining the conclusions implied by the premises. All Greeks are stupid. Plato was a greek, therefore, plato was stupid. If we are given the first two statements, deductive reasoning tells us the third. All is fine and well. Inductive reasoning is clearly trickier. This type of reasoning is the domain of science, and is used as the justification of statements like the following: Every time I go to the store, there's a homeless guy begging for change. Therefore, there will be a homeless guy at the store the next time I go. No one would argue that the conclusion is not a valid one. It does not neccesarily follow from the evidence. Just because a homeless guy is at the store every other time, It doesn't mean that the homeless guy will be there everytime. This is sort of the first blow to science, and every scientist admits that nothing he does "proves" anything. Nobody has ever proven a single statement with science because that's not what science does. When descartes developed the scientific method, however, it was believed that induction was somewhat under control. The basis of the scientific method is fairly simple. Scientists must come up with a hypothesis which is eminently testable. More strictly they must be falsafiable. We don't make scientific predictions about the weather on the first planet we discover outside of our solar system because we cannot reject the claim. Likewise, we make no claims about god because we cannot reject the claim scientifically. All seems well and good. We accept the things that are falsafiable and have not been falsafied. Seems like a good enough rule. (this really is how science works, if you examine statistics and any reputable journals of science, you'll see that this is really the way we do things) But there's a really big hole, and it's called the grue paradox. Why do we believe that everything that is green will stay green after 2004? Why don't we all believe that everything green will turn blue after 2004? Consider this: I claim that emeralds are grue. I define the property grue to be green before Jan 1, 2005, and blue after. Is the claim falsafiable? yes. If I find an emerald which is not green tomorrow, then it has been falseified. In fact we have a giant body of evidence, since every emerald which has ever been seen has shown itself to be grue. Why don't scientists believe that emeralds will turn blue in 2005? I suggestyou play with this for a little while, because you won't believe that it's really a paradox at all. I didn't. My guess is you'll say something about having a more complex description of the object, since grue is somehow more complex of a description than green, that the hypothesis should fall to the cut of occam's razor. But I'd say defince bleen to be something blue before 2005 and green thereafter. Why do you think emeralds go from grue to bleen? In the 50's I think, it was proven that every scientific statement falls victim to this same paradox, and it is therefore unreasonable to assume that science tells us anything at all. In the end the best answer we can give is that somehow the one just feels more right, and that's the same answer that most proponents of religion give. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 :?: I'm sure there is an excelent point here, I just don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 I'll chew on the grue paradox for a while before I write anything about it. I've never heard of it, but I'm familiar with the general concept. Are/were you at CalTech, DB? I just moved to Altadena in November. Howdy neighbor! panel - the point of the thread vis-a-vis religion is that like "grue", the concept of God is not observable or measurable such that any inductive reasoning can be applied, e.g. "the 8 people we studied were good people and went to heaven, therefore all good, moral people go to heaven." In short, science is quite simply "blind to God", and therefore scientists have no more to say on the subject of God than do non-scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Originally posted by redman panel - the point of the thread vis-a-vis religion is that like "grue", the concept of God is not observable or measurable such that any inductive reasoning can be applied, e.g. "the 8 people we studied were good people and went to heaven, therefore all good, moral people go to heaven." In short, science is quite simply "blind to God", and therefore scientists have no more to say on the subject of God than do non-scientists. Makes sence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 DB- after a little thought, I'd address Grue's Paradox this way: dates and time are a concept, not a form of matter, and therefore do not determine whether a scientific reaction occurs such that grue might turn from green to blue on 1/1/05. The question really is better posed: "Can a reaction occur for the first time in the future such that our understanding of the way that matter acts and reacts is either no longer (completely) valid?" The answer must necessarily be "yes", given that empirical evidence (which is what science is) first of all only studies what has happened, not what will happen, and second that the scientific method assumes that all things are held equal, that is, are controlled for the purposes of study so that multiple variables are not adjusted at once. This is why, by the way, that scienctists always test hypotheses, rather than simply assume they're true; hypotheses are not always right. That's probably why some of the best inventions, e.g. plastic and rubber, occurred when someone made a mistake and (literally) shattered or burned the scientific process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Obviously emeralds are not grue. Give me a break. They're grink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 This reminds me of one of the most powerful revelations I've read regarding the limit of our imaginations, our consciousness, and our ability to comprehend God or any existence beyond what we happen to perceive via finite (and probably incomplete) physical senses: There Is No Natural Religion by William Blake I. Man cannot naturally Perceive but through his natural or bodily organs. II Man by his reasoning power can only compare & judge of what he has already perceiv'd. III. From a perception of only 3 senses or 3 elements none could deduce a fourth or fifth. IV. None could have other than natural or organic thoughts if he had none but organic perceptions. V. Man's desires are limited by his perceptions; none can desire what he has not perceiv'd. VI. The desires & perceptions of man, untaught by any thing but organs of sense, must be limited to objects of sense. Conclusion. If it were not for the Poetic or Prophetic character the Philosophic & Experimental would soon be at the ratio [rational calculation] of all things, & stand still unable to do other than repeat the same dull round over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 But ASF, if man is limited to his perceptions and cannot imagine or think of anything beyond them, doesn't that prove that God is real? After all, the people who believe in God must have "perceived" Him if you operate with those assumptions. So assumptions II, IV, V and VI are invalid IMHO. I fail to see the revelation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Originally posted by redman I fail to see the revelation. Yeah, but that's just because you're grink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.