faith vs science.. what vs?

[fire-heart]

it is my personal belief that science in no way contridicts faith and god. i believe they go together perfectly the problem is we cant see from gods eyes and we use human logic. to us it doesnt make sense its impossible its not from god. dont you think there is a reason we are to not lean on our own understanding?

[Tristen]

Science and faith are not inconsistent. They are merely different types of confidence. Science can only legitimately attribute confidence (but never certainty) to claims about those phenomena which are currently, naturally occurring. If any truth claim is not naturally occurring, and/or is not currently available for direct scientific observation, then it is an unfalsifiable claim (and some - not me - would say therefore unscientific). Many unfalsifiable claims can be investigated using an indirect version of the scientific method - namely, by modelling the effects of the putative claim, then comparing current evidence to the model (i.e. not to the claim itself). This is how Standard Cosmology, Common Ancestry, the existence of God and creationism are investigated (i.e. all using the logically identical methodology). One simply has to be aware that consistency between the evidence and models does not logically equate to confirmation of the initial claim. That is, no scientific confidence can be legitimately attributed by this indirect method without committing the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent.

 

Faith is a claim of confidence (equating to certainty) that goes beyond what the scientific method can provide.

 

All science relies upon confidence in unverifiable (and therefore faith) presupposition (including faith in the trustworthiness of observation, as well as faith that the universe is rationally ordered; such that experimentation has meaning). Faith also provides the philosophical paradigms that limit which interpretations of evidence can be considered legitimate by the individual interpreter.

 

Science therefore requires an element of faith. And faith can be investigated through science. The only people who consider faith and science to be mutually exclusive are those who lack the self-awareness to recognise their own faith perspective (i.e. those people who detest the very idea that they too are operating on unverifiable faith presuppositions).

[Enoch2021]

Science and faith are not inconsistent. They are merely different types of confidence. Science can only legitimately attribute confidence (but never certainty) to claims about those phenomena which are currently, naturally occurring. If any truth claim is not naturally occurring, and/or is not currently available for direct scientific observation, then it is an unfalsifiable claim (and some - not me - would say therefore unscientific). Many unfalsifiable claims can be investigated using an indirect version of the scientific method - namely, by modelling the effects of the putative claim, then comparing current evidence to the model (i.e. not to the claim itself). This is how Standard Cosmology, Common Ancestry, the existence of God and creationism are investigated (i.e. all using the logically identical methodology). One simply has to be aware that consistency between the evidence and models does not logically equate to confirmation of the initial claim. That is, no scientific confidence can be legitimately attributed by this indirect method without committing the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent.

 

Faith is a claim of confidence (equating to certainty) that goes beyond what the scientific method can provide.

 

All science relies upon confidence in unverifiable (and therefore faith) presupposition (including faith in the trustworthiness of observation, as well as faith that the universe is rationally ordered; such that experimentation has meaning). Faith also provides the philosophical paradigms that limit which interpretations of evidence can be considered legitimate by the individual interpreter.

 

Science therefore requires an element of faith. And faith can be investigated through science. The only people who consider faith and science to be mutually exclusive are those who lack the self-awareness to recognise their own faith perspective (i.e. those people who detest the very idea that they too are operating on unverifiable faith presuppositions).

 

 

 

=============================================================================

 

Tristen,

 

I agree 100% Conceptually with what you said here.  Concise, Poignant, and Points that strike @ the heart of the matter.....I enjoyed reading it.  However LOL, I couldn't help but notice a statement referring to me .............

 

(and some - not me - would say therefore unscientific).

 

That would be me Sir. 

 

They are "Unscientific"!

 

Many unfalsifiable claims can be investigated using an indirect version of the scientific method - namely, by modelling the effects of the putative claim, then comparing current evidence to the model (i.e. not to the claim itself).

 

There is no such animal as an  "Indirect version of the scientific method".  There's just.......The "Scientific Method" period, end of story.

 

Model/Modeling----is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity.  http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

 

Hence; after some aspects of the concept or theory HAVE BEEN TESTED.  For else, how would you know it has "Limited Validity".

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Not an "Indirect Version" of the "Scientific Method".

 

And you agree with that because you confirmed "My Thoughts" on the matter in the self same paragraph.....

 

That is, no scientific confidence can be legitimately attributed by this indirect method without committing the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent.

 

So the way I see it....... there is some Equivocation and Semantic issues going on with the Terms:

 

"Science"

"The Scientific Method"

"Scientific"

"et al" of the sort

 

Not a huge problem between us but These Terms and their Equivocations "Muddy The Waters" with some folk.... that may use them haphazardly (accidentally or on purpose) in a clumsy ill conceived attempt to undermine The WORD OF GOD...... under the guise of "Science". 

 

 

Hopefully, we have an Accord. 

[gray wolf]

We have an Odyssey.

[jerryR34]

it is my personal belief

You've disqualified yourself from any science discussion in your first 5 words...

[Guest shiloh357]

 

it is my personal belief

You've disqualified yourself from any science discussion in your first 5 words...

 

No he hasn't.  And you are not qualified to say who is or is not qualifed to participate in a discussion of science.  YOU do NOT set the terms for the conversation. So get over yourself.

[Tristen]

Hey Enoch,

 

You said “However LOL, I couldn't help but notice a statement referring to me ... That would be me Sir. They are "Unscientific"!”

 

I actually had in mind all those secularists who mock creationism as unscientific based on its unfalsifiability, whilst failing to realise that their own preferred hypotheses are equally unfalsifiable.

 

At its core, science is the pursuit of knowledge. The problem I have with your rational is that certain pursuits of knowledge which people accept as scientific (e.g. forensics and archaeology), which utilize scientific reasoning, logic and methodology, would be rendered unscientific - because they deal with constructing models of the unobservable, unverifiable past.

 

For the sake of logical consistency, either all investigations of past events must be considered unscientific, or all which utilise scientific methodology must be considered scientific. I prefer the later position for several reasons;

 

1) I don’t think the argument that unfalsifiable = unscientific is sufficiently justified in logic. If scientific tools and reasoning are used to investigate a truth claim, then it is a scientific investigation; regardless of how much confidence can ultimately be attributed to the claim (remembering that neither unscientific nor unfalsifiable means “untrue”). Some truths simply cannot be verified – but that doesn’t render them logically impossible or beyond the scope of scientific investigation. Also remembering that the original goal of scientific investigation was to understand and glorify the work of God – Whose very existence represents the ultimate unfalsifiable premise.

 

2) (& less importantly) I don’t see any reason to complicate the debate by trying to retrain people to adopt a new paradigm of what constitutes science (e.g. trying to explain why forensics isn’t actually science). It is far easier to simply demonstrate that the same logic and methodology is used to investigate both secular claims and Biblical claims.

 

 

“There is no such animal as an  "Indirect version of the scientific method".  There's just.......The "Scientific Method" period, end of story.”

 

There is no consensus scientific method. What is commonly referred to as the scientific method (& what I refer to when I use the phrase) is a simple logical framework; namely, observation leading to hypothesis formulation leading to hypothesis testing. Differing disciplines utilise the method differently. Empirical experimentation takes an entirely different approach (i.e. just try as many experiments as possible and see what works – no hypothesising necessary) – which is still a scientific investigation, yielding scientific results.

 

I used the term “indirect” as an adjective, not a title. It is indirect in the sense that what is scientifically tested (in accordance with the scientific method) is the model, not the originating hypothesis. Therefore, scientific confidence can only attest to the strength of the model – not the initial hypothesis. One may infer that the strength of the model indicates the correctness of the initial claim – but they cannot legitimately attribute scientific confidence to that claim apart from logical fallacy.

 

 

“Model/Modeling----is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity”

 

With respect to the author of this article, that is a ridiculously narrow defininition of the use of modelling in science. Almost every scientific pursuit employs modelling at some stage of the process. Much of science is entirely preoccupied with formulating statistical models of hypotheses. Even the formulation of experimental design is an exercise in modelling.

 

The pertinent point is that in some investigations (i.e. historical or supernatural), the model is the only thing available for direct testing – thereby mitigating how much scientific confidence can be attributed to the originating claim. Whereas in operational science, the initial claim itself is available for direct testing and observation.

 

 

“'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'”

 

Evidence simply means facts (observations; inc. mechanical) that have been interpreted to support or discount a particular position (i.e. as “evidence” for or against that position). The phrase “scientific evidence” simply means facts interpreted for or against a scientific position (i.e. as opposed to facts interpreted for or against a legal position). The “scientific” is merely an adjective describing the type of evidence being referred to.

 

The “scientific method” does not determine how facts are collected or interpreted. Each scientific discipline will have its own best practices regarding how facts are collected. Interpretation is only limited by logic and the faith perspective of the interpreter.

 

 

“there is some Equivocation and Semantic issues going on with the Terms”

 

Any “Equivocation” is in your interpretation – not in my usage. “Science” and “scientific” are used as general terms referring to the use of scientific tools, methodologies and critical thinking (including the use of the scientific method). The “scientific method” is a general logical framework to which most scientific investigation adheres.

 

So no “muddy waters” from my end.

 

 

“Hopefully, we have an Accord”

 

Of course.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Tristen

[fire-heart]

 

 

it is my personal belief

You've disqualified yourself from any science discussion in your first 5 words...

 

No he hasn't.  And you are not qualified to say who is or is not qualifed to participate in a discussion of science.  YOU do NOT set the terms for the conversation. So get over yourself.

 

its quite alright i am used to being criticized for my beliefs. technically he is right if we were scientists and debating, in science you need actual evidence saying you own personal belief is not scientific. however when you combine faith and science that changes everything. for instance the big bang theory, which happened with two atoms i think sorry if i am wrong i am a little dusty on this subject. according to science these atoms were just there nothing created them.

i asked my friend who loves knowledge and science how could these things just always have been there without being created? he replied they just were not everything needs to be created.

so you see even scientists have a certain faith they cannot exlain why in a vast emptyness two atom just existed and werent created 

[Enoch2021]

 

 

========================================================

 

Hey Tristen,

 

It's either "Scientific" or "Scientific Evidence" or NOT...... there is no grey area.

 

The problem I have with your rational is that certain pursuits of knowledge which people accept as scientific

 

It's not my rationale and it's not up for a vote or what we think or "what people accept".  The discipline either uses the "Scientific Method" or not.  Each derivation from a Hypothesis or concept, and most importantly it's method,..... is to be evaluated individually on its own merits.

 

Let me ask you, what makes science...."Science"??  In other words, what's the Difference between "Science"  and  "Carpentry" or anything else ??  It's the Method:

 

"The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. "

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

You can't do experiments on the past; Heretofore, anything dealing with the past is "UNSCIENTIFIC" by definition.

 

There are other techniques employed to ascertain Truth.  We have Intellect: Logic, Deductive/Inductive Reasoning, Critical Thinking, and good ole fashion Common Sense.  Combined with Sound Scientific Principles "LAWS"....is a pretty powerful combination. 

 

HOWEVER; ...if it's dealing with past events its not "science".   It's....

 

'Evidence--- broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Which is differentiated from....

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

By THE METHOD.

 

 

either all investigations of past events must be considered unscientific, or all which utilise scientific methodology must be considered scientific.

 

They are by definition.

 

And No for the 2nd part.  Define "scientific methodology"??

 

You're Equivocating......"Scientific Methodology".

 

Just because I use tools:  Hammer, Nails, Square et al....... doesn't automatically make me a Carpenter.

 

This is also a False Dichotomy wrapped in an Equivocation Convolution......with the term "science" and with "scientific methodology". 

 

Forensics, Archeology, Paleontology et al are Historical Sciences.  Biology, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Physics are Experimental/Operational Sciences.

 

The Term "Science", "Muddies the Waters" IMHO.  That's why I stick with their Products:  "Scientific Evidence" or "Evidence" to differentiate.

 

 

Some truths simply cannot be verified – but that doesn’t render them logically impossible or beyond the scope of scientific investigation.

 

Strawman. I never said they render them logically impossible.

 

With respect to the author of this article, that is a ridiculously narrow defininition

 

Why because you said so?  If you click the link he expands on it.  And it's not narrow.... and your refutation of it was Non-Sequitur... "Almost every scientific pursuit employs modelling at some stage of the process. Much of science is entirely preoccupied with formulating statistical models of hypotheses. Even the formulation of experimental design is an exercise in modelling."

So?  What does that have to do with....

 

“Model/Modeling----is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity” ??

 

or do you think that your "Almost every" or "Much of science" phrases are enough to refute?  Does it Preclude the fact that it has to have some validity?

 

And...just because models are built doesn't then automatically denote efficacy or validity/veracity?  I can build 20-30 models today concerning the step by step process of constructing of a beehive or construct a "Tree Diagram" and place "Complex" Organisms @ the nodes with "Simpler" Organisms @ the Base or Stems, Right?  So What?

 

There is no consensus scientific method. What is commonly referred to as the scientific method (& what I refer to when I use the phrase) is a simple logical framework; namely, observation leading to hypothesis formulation leading to hypothesis testing.

 

Hogwash, each has and utilizes the Basic Tenets of the Method (of which you have in your example).  And you trapped yourself within the self same sentence.....How do you test a past event?  And please don't say Modeling.

 

To legitimize the TEST You need:   the Dependent and Independent Variable along with the Control Group.  Please tell me HOW you do this with a past event??

 

 

Empirical experimentation takes an entirely different approach (i.e. just try as many experiments as possible and see what works – no hypothesising necessary)

 

 

 

The “scientific method” does not determine how facts are collected or interpreted.

 

Your Hypothesis is either Validated or Invalidated Tristen from Experimentation/Testing!!!! ....where do we get them, from the "Scientific Method".   There is no "Interpretation" or Subjectivity or how we think it should be or what our favorite colors are.  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis....end of story.

 

 

Any “Equivocation” is in your interpretation – not in my usage.

 

Why, because you said so? Your whole Post and Premise has it's foundations in Equivocation and is Laced 30 meters thick with it... as I have just demonstrated above.

[jerryR34]

 

 

it is my personal belief

You've disqualified yourself from any science discussion in your first 5 words...

 

No he hasn't.  And you are not qualified to say who is or is not qualifed to participate in a discussion of science.  YOU do NOT set the terms for the conversation. So get over yourself.

 

Where would science be if everyone who practiced it was allowed to let their personal beliefs influence their observations?  Leave your beliefs at the door when you are observing nature.  There is not room for them in the lab.

Edited March 4, 2014 by jerryR34