Slate: No Faith In Science

[alexey]

By not taking it seriously, is that any different than positively asserting the probability is close to 0?

Yes.

In the part you have in mind, I am merely explaining my reasoning for not accepting the claim.

[PeterMP]

Yes.

In the part you have in mind, I am merely explaining my reasoning for not accepting the claim.

 

What is the probability that this universe is a simulation (you don't have to give an absolute number you can give it with respect to something else (e.g. X > Y)) where there are simulators that control much of the universe, including things like the observed law of gravity?

 

How did you arrive at that information?

[Going Commando]

Seems like the entire article/debate stems from a confusion of the different meanings for the word faith. I think the article does a pretty good job of defining the term faith in the way that scientists use it.

[alexey]

What is the probability that this universe is a simulation (you don't have to give an absolute number you can give it with respect to something else (e.g. X > Y)) where there are simulators that control much of the universe, including things like the observed law of gravity?

How did you arrive at that information?

I do not accept the claim "it is possible that the universe is a simulation", or the claim "it is impossible that the universe is a simulation".

[PeterMP]

I do not accept the claim "it is possible that the universe is a simulation", or the claim "it is impossible that the universe is a simulation".

 

I'm not at all sure what you are saying.

 

What claim would you accept on the topic?

Seems like the entire article/debate stems from a confusion of the different meanings for the word faith. I think the article does a pretty good job of defining the term faith in the way that scientists use it.

 

The OP is misleading because it does not consider the fact that science is based on assumptions that are not and cannot be vetted by science.

 

If I say if I assume A is true, then I can demonstarte B is true, and from that C is true.

 

If you ask me why C is true, I can tell you that C is true based on B is true, and it seems like I have evidence that C is true.

 

But C being true is really dependent on my assumption that A is true.

 

He's appealing for science being based on evidence because when asked why C is true, scientists can appeal to B, while ignoring the assumption made by A.

 

Where it is not possible to investigate A using science.

 

A theory/idea based on an assumpition cannot prove the assumption.

[alexey]

I'm not at all sure what you are saying.

What claim would you accept on the topic?

In the course of our discussion i realized that the word "possible" May mean "has nonzero probability of happening" or simply "conceivable" as in "everything is possible"

So I could accept a claim that the universe is conceivably a simulation, but not claims about that being possible or impossible.

[Going Commando]

The OP is misleading because it does not consider the fact that science is based on assumptions that are not and cannot be vetted by science.

 

If I say if I assume A is true, then I can demonstarte B is true, and from that C is true.

 

If you ask me why C is true, I can tell you that C is true based on B is true, and it seems like I have evidence that C is true.

 

But C being true is really dependent on my assumption that A is true.

 

He's appealing for science being based on evidence because when asked why C is true, scientists can appeal to B, while ignoring the assumption made by A.

 

Where it is not possible to investigate A using science.

 

A theory/idea based on an assumpition cannot prove the assumption.

I see your point, but my question is what is the premise A that is assumed to be true by science? The existence of an external physical universe?

[PeterMP]

In the course of our discussion i realized that the word "possible" May mean "has nonzero probability of happening" or simply "conceivable" as in "everything is possible"

So I could accept a claim that the universe is conceivably a simulation, but not claims about that being possible or impossible.

 

It looks like to me that you are still playing word games in order to avoid answering the question.  To me this is no different than debating somebody like Zguy with respect to his opinions on god.  Unless you can clearly answer questions or state your opinoins and claims independently, them I'm done.

 

Getting into the difference between the words conceivable and possible in your head and how you can simultaenously not accept claims about something being possible and impossible (either it is possible or it is impossible) is not worth my time or effort.

 

If you don't read pretty much this whole thread (including sOcrates posts and your responses to him (e.g. this is a premise and not an assumption, even though it wasn't stated before hand it doesn't make a difference with respect to the probability)) and cannot see the mental gymnastics you are going through to avoid the relevant issues, I don't know what to tell you.

 

Here are my statements on the subjects clearly laid out for the view of everybody:

 

1.  It is not possible to say much of anything about the probability that the assumptions underlying science are true or false based on the evidence we have.

 

2.  Related to the above, for example, we have no good knowledge on the probability that this is a simulation (it must be greater than 0, but less than 1 is about all I can say)  **EDIT**Note, I clarified this point in a following post in response to a question from alexey**/EDIT**.

 

3.  If we cannot say much of anything about the probability of such assumptions, then we have no good reason to believe that "science" won't change tomorrow.  If I can't say anything about the probabilty of A, then I can't say anything about B where B is a subset of the possibilities of A other than A > B.

 

4.  Related to the above, if I don't have good evidence about the probability that this is a simulation, then I can't say much of anything about the probability that there are simulators and they will decide to do something like change the equation that governs gravity tomorrow other than the probability that this reality is simulation > this reality is a simulation and the simulators will decide to change the equation that governs gravity tomorrow.

 

5.  If I can't say much of anything about the probability, then any action based on that probability being in a strict range is pretty much faith.

 

6.  Related to the above, since, I can't say much of anything about this being a simulation with simulators that are going to tinker with the laws of physics in the simulation tomorrow in a way that affects the flight of my airplane, then if I get on an airplane with much belief that it won't crash my belief is not based heavily on evidence and so is mostly based on faith.

 

I do not have good evidence to conclude that there are or aren't simulators that are going to do something that causes my plane to crash and as a result I don't have a good idea what the relevant probabilities are.

 

Therefore, if I assume that the probability that it will not happen and my flight will not crash is very very small, then I'm acting on faith.

 

The existing evidence is not strong enough to support by belief that the probability is small.  I have faith it is small despite not having strong evidence that it is small.

 

And the samething is true for people that believe in God.  They will cite evidence for their belief.  Different people will cite different evidence.  Generally speaking though, people realize that the strength of their belief does not match their evidence, especially with respect to convincing other people.

 

That gap between the strength of the evidence and the strength of the belief is what we call faith.

 

Every day actions related to science are based on faith if you strongly believe such actions are likely to have a particular out come as indicated by science because we do not know enough about the relevant probabilities to have strong evidence that the assumptions that underlie science are true.  There is a gap in the strength of the evidence and the strength of the belief.

[PeterMP]

I see your point, but my question is what is the premise A that is assumed to be true by science? The existence of an external physical universe?

 

The existence of an external physical universe that is subject to natural laws and those natural laws result in reproducibility/consistentcy in the universe (though not in a completely deterministic manner necessarily- though many people, including Einstein, thought that would be the case, but today with quantum mechanics we accept that is not the case).

 

Essentially, science assumes that it is not possible for the laws of the "universe" to change by an external agent (a god, simulator, etc.)

 

And yes science finds evidence that it is true, but it doesn't really have a choice because that's the only thing it can find because that's the assumption it is built on.

 

 

**EDIT**

And this actually does get a little tricky because of how you want to define universe.  If this is a simulation, then we are part of that larger universe that includes the simulators, and if we assume in that universe there are limits too resources (which is true for our universe), then it is actually possible for science to find evidence for the simulators.

 

And people are trying to do so (I posted links in the other thread)

[alexey]

2. Related to the above, for example, we have no good knowledge on the probability that this is a simulation (it must be greater than 0, but less than 1 is about all I can say).

If you have no good knowledge, how do you know it must be greater than 0?

You continue to claim that I am considering the possibility and assuming it to be 0 based on faith.

I continue to claim that I am refusing to consider the possibility based on reason.

[dchogs]

It looks like to me that you are still playing word games in order to avoid answering the question. To me this is no different than debating somebody like Zguy with respect to his opinions on god. Unless you can clearly answer questions or state your opinoins and claims independently, them I'm done.

Getting into the difference between the words conceivable and possible in your head and how you can simultaenously not accept claims about something being possible and impossible (either it is possible or it is impossible) is not worth my time or effort.

If you don't read pretty much this whole thread (including sOcrates posts and your responses to him (e.g. this is a premise and not an assumption, even though it wasn't stated before hand it doesn't make a difference with respect to the probability)) and cannot see the mental gymnastics you are going through to avoid the relevant issues, I don't know what to tell you.

Here are my statements on the subjects clearly laid out for the view of everybody:

1. It is not possible to say much of anything about the probability that the assumptions underlying science are true or false based on the evidence we have.

You sure are saying a lot for not being able to say much.

I'm getting on my airplane tomorrow because flying is safe. **** can happen, and it would suck if it did. Stop creating a scientific god (or simulators) that I HAVE to believe in in order to do anything. It sounds like you had a bad trip while watching the matrix. If you want to assign some kind of "Faith" onto me to make you sleep better, knock yourself out, but it is just a silly word game.

[alexey]

...

Essentially, science assumes that it is not possible for the laws of the "universe" to change by an external agent (a god, simulator, etc.)Essentially, science assumes that it is not possible for the laws of the "universe" to change by an external agent (a god, simulator, etc.)

...

People who do or use science may or may not assume the things you are talking about.

Science itself is a system of studying patterns. It does not assume that patterns will continue, it merely tells you what will happen IF patterns continue.

[PeterMP]

People who do or use science may or may not assume the things you are talking about.

Science itself is a system of studying patterns. It does not assume that patterns will continue, it merely tells you what will happen IF patterns continue.

 

I've already addressed this very point in this thread:

 

"If you want to refute that science doesn't require faith, then the better approach would to actually take on those arguments (and here I'll make the point that it does depend on how you use the word science- science as in the method (i.e. the scientific method) does not requrie faith.  It is just a process.

 

As a comparision, I could pray even if it had been disproven that there was no god.  Most would consider it a waste of my time, but I could go through the process.

 

But that's only one use of the word science and not what I think people are generally talking about in this conversation."

 

You're playing word games again as compared to most of this thread and the way the word was written for most people to understand the usage of the word science.

 

People using antibiotics are not all scientists and when they have say they have faith that antiobiotics will kill their bacterial infection, they are referring to having faith that the pattern WILL continue, not that what will happen IF it does continaue.

If you have no good knowledge, how do you know it must be greater than 0?

You continue to claim that I am considering the possibility and assuming it to be 0 based on faith.

I continue to claim that I am refusing to consider the possibility based on reason.

 

That was bit sloppy of me.

 

In reality, the probability must be 0 or must 1 (this either is or is not a simulation).

 

What I know is that it has not been disproven this is a simulation so based on what I know I cannot assign it a value of 0 based on the evidence that I have.

 

Similiarily, I know that it has not been proven this is a simulation so the probability I assign cannot be 1 based on the evidence that I have.

[alexey]

...

People using antibiotics are not all scientists and when they have say they have faith that antiobiotics will kill their bacterial infection, they are referring to having faith that the pattern WILL continue, not that what will happen IF it does continaue.

Yes some people will say they have faith and some people will say they do not.

You want to say that all people who take antibiotics have "faith"? OK.

You want to claim that's just like faith in Santa? OK. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I agree with dchogs - you are creating a "science god" that everybody has to believe in order to do anything at all. This way you can equate claims of mythology with claims of science. I see the whole enterprise as silly and absurd.

[PeterMP]

You sure are saying a lot for not being able to say much.

I'm getting on my airplane tomorrow because flying is safe. **** can happen, and it would suck if it did. Stop creating a scientific god (or simulators) that I HAVE to believe in in order to do anything. It sounds like you had a bad trip while watching the matrix. If you want to assign some kind of "Faith" onto me to make you sleep better, knock yourself out, but it is just a silly word game.

 

1.  I'm not here to tell people what they have to believe for the most part.  I'm very much of the opinion for the most part do what works for you.  I've said that in threads related to this topic, evolution to creationists, and to people in alternative medicine threads (and I actually actively try very hard to stay out of those threads).

 

I do have an issue when wrong conclusions are drawn based on implied or explicit assumptions.  If somebody comes into a thread and says that I don't believe in evolution partly (and/or to convince others) because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says it can't happen.  Then I'm going to engage that person under the assumption (which is at least implied in such cases) that the 2nd Law of Thermodyanics is true and explain why they are wrong under that assumption.

 

2.  I'm not claiming that you have to believe anything to do anything.  I'm not sure in some cases it makes any sense, but I do things all of the time that don't make much sense so I'm not going to criticize that either in most cases.

 

3.  I actually do agree with your idea of it beign word games.  While it is true, one of my pet peeves is when people redefine words to suit their purposes, I also understand words like faith and evidence have some flexibility to them and while we might be able to come up with a pretty common defintion of faith and evidence, different people will view different pieces of evidence differently and consider them to have different strengths (especially outside of science). 

 

If you wish to claim that your beliefs are evidence based and not faith based, then I don't have a huge issue with it.  The word game comes into play how we view what is evidence and what beliefs require faith and what I think is faith may not be faith to others.

 

UNLESS, you are going to start making claims like that your beliefs are NOT faith based AND publically say things like:

 

"So the next time you hear someone described as a “person of faith,” remember that although it’s meant as praise, it’s really an insult."

 

At that point in time you've made a positive assertion about your beliefs and then use that positive assertion to attack other people.  In that case, I think it is worth examining the strength of your positive assertion as you have used that positive assertion to attack other people.

 

In this particular case, I'm even more concerned about it because I think such assertions long term will negatively affect something that I'm passionate about- science.

 

Your idea of it being a word game goes both ways in my opinion.  The OP is using the same word game you are criticizing me for, but he's using the word game to criticize people.  I'm happy to say that my point is that it is a word game, and I can play the word game the other direction with appearant equal strength/evidence.

 

4.  I'm sorry if my example of an airplane crashing bothered you given your flight tomorrow, and while I don't actually believe in the power of intercessory prayer, I will say one for the safety of your flight tomorrow.

 

Good luck!

[s0crates]

I see your point, but my question is what is the premise A that is assumed to be true by science? The existence of an external physical universe?

I have covered this in some detail already, so I'll just give a quick example.

The assumption can be put this way: "the future will resemble the past." Or this way: "nature is organized in such a way that we can understand it, it is law like in its operations."

See my explanation above for how this works. Or google the problem of induction.

[PeterMP]

Yes some people will say they have faith and some people will say they do not.

You want to say that all people who take antibiotics have "faith"? OK.

You want to claim that's just like faith in Santa? OK. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I agree with dchogs - you are creating a "science god" that everybody has to believe in order to do anything at all. This way you can equate claims of mythology with claims of science. I see the whole enterprise as silly and absurd.

 

I've been clear about how I've been using the word faith in this conversation with multiple examples over two threads over a several days (has it been a week now?).

 

I've repteadly asked you questions that I have given answers that if you would answer in a clear manner, that would make it appearant where we disagree (as I've given answers).  You've regularly avoided those questions or answered them in ways that are at best unclear.

 

If you don't like it in a real robust manner, you can point out why in real clear terms why you think I'm wrong or how to better define probabilities.

 

And I'm fine if we leave it at the whole thing is silly and absurd, but then I'm not the one starting threads claiming these people's actions/beliefs aren't dependent on faith, while these other people's are.

 

An argument that is going to require a robust defintion of faith.

[alexey]

Peter,

Clear terms: I consider it absurd to claim that all people who get on the plane have faith in continuous functioning of natural laws.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

Clear terms: I consider it absurd to claim that all people who get on the plane have faith in continuous functioning of natural laws.

 

I'm sorry, but that's not at all clear because you've used the word faith.

 

It isn't clear how you are using faith in the above sentence.

 

You've repeatedly shown in this thread that you'll use the word faith in a manner that is convient to you, but when I press you to actually define faith it in some robust manner (in terms of things like proability and the strength of the evidence), you'll avoid doing so.

 

You are still playing word games, while trying to make it look like you aren't.

 

**EDIT**

What do people that get on planes believe with respect to the probability that their plane will crash?

 

Why?

 

Which beliefs are based on evidence?  How good is that evidence?  And how does that related to the strength of their total belief?

 

Be specific.

[alexey]

I gave you an example of what I consider to be an absurd way to use the word "faith"

[PeterMP]

I gave you an example of what I consider to be an absurd way to use the word "faith"

 

See the edit to the above.

 

One example in the absence of any other context is meaningless.

[alexey]

Peter,

When people get on the plane, they may have a variety of beliefs or lack of beliefs, faith or no faith, certainty or no certainty, different views in probabilities, and so on.

Therefore I think it is absurd for you to claim that all people who get on the plane have "faith"

This is a fine illustration of our disagreement. I heard your arguments and I have not changed my mind. Please do not repeat yourself.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

When people get on the plane, they may have a variety of beliefs or lack of beliefs, faith or no faith, certainty or no certainty, different views in probabilities, and so on.

Therefore I think it is absurd for you to claim that all people who get on the plane have "faith"

This is a fine illustration of our disagreement. I heard your arguments and I have not changed my mind. Please do not repeat yourself.

 

Oh, yes because I used the word all in one post where I was using it to indicate that people beyond scientists use antibioitics (not to indicate a shared belief amongst everybody), every post I've written in this thread should be read as if I'm speaking about all people, while the OP uses the word all in the context of the four statements it sets up, doesn't specifically state they aren't referring to all people, but it should be taken seriously.

 

Let me know when you want to write something like I did in post 108 (where I didn't use the word all in any manner that could be construed as everybody).

 

Let me know when you want to actually support the positive assertions made in the OP and not play word games.

 

**EDIT**

and with respect to antibiotics, I specifically stated this earlier in the thread:

 

"But I don't know anybody that has ever said to me I don't take antibiotics, because I'm not sure the assumptions in science are true.

 

Or has said, the doctor prescirbed this antibiotics, but I don't believe they are going to work so I also requested a few other drugs (e.g. I'm going to talk a modern antibiotic, but also a sulfa drug and do other things that they did pre-antitiobics.).   Most people I know act like the antibiotic is going to work because they believe it will."

 

Most people- not all.

[alexey]

Peter,

I do not see a point in continuing the dialog unless you agree with this: "people can fly on airplanes without relying on faith"

[PeterMP]

Peter,

I do not see a point in continuing the dialog unless you agree with this: "people can fly on airplanes without relying on faith"

 

From post 108:

 

"Related to the above, since, I can't say much of anything about this being a simulation with simulators that are going to tinker with the laws of physics in the simulation tomorrow in a way that affects the flight of my airplane, then if I get on an airplane with much belief that it won't crash my belief is not based heavily on evidence and so is mostly based on faith.

 

I do not have good evidence to conclude that there are or aren't simulators that are going to do something that causes my plane to crash and as a result I don't have a good idea what the relevant probabilities are.

 

Therefore, if I assume that the probability that it will not happen and my flight will not crash is very very small, then I'm acting on faith.

 

The existing evidence is not strong enough to support by belief that the probability is small.  I have faith it is small despite not having strong evidence that it is small."

 

Let me know when you want to write something similar.