How much of scientist are you really?

[dahduh]

To answer both cheekymonkey and drpepper:

Yes, of course verification is required, and of course to verify you would use a method that has previously proven to be reliable; but it doesn't have to be the conventional scientific method.

For example, suppose you have discovered five mostly reliable gods; nine times out of ten they will tell you the right thing, but 1/10 one of them will slip up. Well, to verify what one god says, you can trot round to the other nine and ask them if god #1 is telling you BS or not. If most of them agree he isn't, then that's a reliable method of verification. If you think that sounds silly, that's pretty much how a court decides 'truth' when there are multiple eye-witnesses but no physical evidence.

Regarding gods being capricious and whimsical, exactly the same objection can and has been leveled against the implicit induction in science. "How do you know the sun will come up tomorrow," they cry. But the sun has come up for over four billion years, so we reasonably conclude from this that this induction is pretty reliable and that the laws of gravity won't be repealed tomorrow. Likewise, if our god proved himself to be reliable and non-whimsical, we would consider him to be a reliable source of information.

There's no such think as certainty, not even in conventional science. Everything is provisional, and all we need to be is pragmatic. Use what works.

[cheekymonkey]

And how do you know if the gods are telling you the "right thing"? How is there any concept of "right things" without independant verification. For all your independant verfication needs I recommend "The Scientific Method"(TM). When asking some deities opinion just isn't enough.

[sjdave]

Just an aside: courts and juries do not establish "truth"; they determine which lawyer is the best at persuasion and assembling the testimony and evidence to support his client be it as a defense attorney or a prosecutor.

As for the original question, I agree with those who say none of the above. Currently, using the scientific method is the best way to model the way the universe works.

In your case of ten gods "voting" on what is the truth about how the universe works, what if they are all devious? The only way to know would be by gathering data the old fashioned way and testing their hypotheses (I think someone else stated this similarly). The same for using the telephone to call a god using Naz's secret number, the only way to know if what it said would be to gather data, test it, and determine if what it said worked - as you said - pragmatism: use what works best until something better comes along.

[drpepper]

Dec 2, 2009 19:24:24 GMT dahduh said:

T



Regarding gods being capricious and whimsical, exactly the same objection can and has been leveled against the implicit induction in science. "How do you know the sun will come up tomorrow," they cry. But the sun has come up for over four billion years, so we reasonably conclude from this that this induction is pretty reliable and that the laws of gravity won't be repealed tomorrow. Likewise, if our god proved himself to be reliable and non-whimsical, we would consider him to be a reliable source of information.

There's no such think as certainty, not even in conventional science. Everything is provisional, and all we need to be is pragmatic. Use what works.

I agree with there is no certainty and that we look at the probabilities that the universe is consistent. There is another problem with Gods, however, The seem to me motivated by the same illogical thinking patterns as humans. They usually want to control behavior and use extreme measures that don't seem to work. Lowers the probability that things will be the same tomorrow as they were today. The universe doesn't seem to care about us one way or the other.

[Suluby]

Nov 30, 2009 19:09:22 GMT dahduh said:

Here's a challenge to those of you who believe in the scientific method.

But first, let's begin with a challenge to theists. You agree with the statement "God exists". Now suppose I were to find a way that incontrovertibly proved that God does not exist; no wriggle-room left at all. How would you feel about it? Rate yourself on the following scale:

1. I can’t even imagine it; I can’t possibly be wrong.
2. It would absolutely awful, it would ruin my life.
3. It would be upsetting, but I would survive.
4. I would just accept it and move on.
5. What a relief! I hope I am wrong!

Well, if you chose anything other than 4 you are susceptible to confirmation bias. It means that you are emotionally invested in the idea that God exists, and any reasoning you engage in on the subject is likely to be subject to that bias and therefore questionable.


I would say #4 ...... with a corollary. I would continue to live as I do, and follow the rules I follow now. I would do that because I believe it is a good way to live.

Even if it could be incontrovertibly and verifiably proven that the G-d I believe in does not exist, it cannot be a bad thing to be a good steward of the planet I live on ....... there will be others who live after me, and I don't want to leave them a cesspool to live in. It cannot be a bad thing to treat other creatures - human and otherwise - with compassion and decency; that should be the norm, and if enough of us do, it would be.


Now while all the non-theists are feeling smug, let's pose the following question to you. Almost certainly you subscribe to the following statement: "I believe evidence and reason lead us to an understanding of the world." Now suppose someone came up with incontrovertible proof that this was not so - for example, there really was a deity fiddling with the trajectory of every atom. Go back to the list and rate yourself: is it something other than 4? Be honest!

If it is not, then you are not really a good scientist. Science if fundamentally a pragmatic exercise: we don't use the scientific method for some profound philosophical reason, we use it because it works. And if someone finds a better way, then fantastic. Let's do it that way instead.