i notice a lot of people around here when refering to physics, biology, evolution (to single it out) often make statements about the absoluteness of the scientific models. one of the axioms of the "model" is repeatability of experiments. of course, said repeatability is based on the idea that the "laws" of the universe are fixed. this in and of itself is the mystisim of science. while scientists usually try to avoid the topic, the simple fact is that we can not prove this concept of fixedness, and thus everything within science is built on a "faith" principle.

people such as myself have argued that the universe is a dynamic structure that experiences fluctuations. it is these fluctuations that make the universe stable, for it is when a system is fixed it is least able to adapt and most prone to collapse.

discuss.

The principle of repetition is one of the pre-requisites of scientific methodology because experience has shown that if something happens in one manner today, then it has a very good chance of having happened that way yesterday, and will happen that way tomorrow. To assume that it will not would go against the experience that we have gathered, and thus would become and act of faith.

In other words, basing something on observable principles is not an act of faith.

Now, this is not to say that things regularly taken as fixed are always assumed to be fixed. This is a major consideration when working in the theoretical sciences, such as physics. For instance, while the speed of light can, for all intents and purposes, be considered unchanging, there is tantalizing evidence that, during the birth of the universe, in those first few micro-seconds of existence, the speed of light was different. This is perfectly acceptable and in keeping with the pre-requisites; after all, when conditions creating a phenomena change, it is not unreasonable to assume that conclusions will change as well.

there is quite a bit of faith applied to the notion that because it happens under the conditions only observed constant on earth over the short history of man that they are universally constant.

quite a big leap of faith indeed. as big a leap as those that have faith in "gods". do not forget that basic assumptions found in science and religion are very very familiar.

Science is full with “unknowns” and doubts these are, in every principle, theory, and measurement ever done. But that said they are no more unknown than any other conclusion one could make based on any other principle or method.

The principle you bring up (which for the record I think is worthwhile) is about the limitations of conclusions themselves.

All logic has areas when pushed to extremes break down. Anyone who claims that logically they have a complete and total proof regarding any claim beyond any unknowns is wrong (although even that statement obeys that law).

The fact of the above does not diminish science or make it any less relevant as NOTHING is immune from this concept and so it is an even disadvantage to any concluding method it cannot be held to reduce sciences credibility.

Is that of any help to anyone? or do you mean to highlight something else, or something more specific?

It is isn't only the conditions that have been directly observed, but also condistions that have been inferred to be indentical in the past through a preponderance of evidence. They things we regard as constant are not merely regarded as so because of how we, humans, have seen them, but because all objective evidence (another pre-requisite of science), indicate that they are that way.



Except that what you claim is an assumption on the part of science is based on observed and supported evidence. As I pointed out earlier, there is nothing wrong with suggesting dynamic change in constant principles, and that there are those scientists who do just that, however they do not do so because it is a principle of faith, but rather because they have objective evidence that would support their assumption.

It is one thing to claim that, out of fairness, your belief should be given equal merit as scientifically supported and observed phenomena, quite another when a scientist presents the data that would support a dynamic shift in a previously constant phenomena.

Basically, science claims these things are constant because all the evidence that we have on the phenomena indicates that to be true. You claim that they should be dynamic because of...what? Faith?

i am not saying they "should" be anything. i am just discussing the fact that the "principles" of science are as mystical as those of religion.



i am not saying it diminishes science, i am just opening up the "pandora's box" of the the mysticism of science that most scientist tend to avoid.

How do you mean familiar? "Faith is the unreasonable belief in the impropable" In what ways do scientific belief have to do with that. Now personally i have never observed the action of nuclear fission, impossibly yet I believe in it! How can this be? This does indicates a measure of faith, but a reasonable one, which I hope to show. I have faith that my books are not fradulent, since they are cross referenced with other books and theorist, my faith is increased. I have faith that my lecturers are not liar, through self study, personal research I deduce that they are not that great a liar . I have faith that gravity would work tommorow, the sun will rise again, that the laws of physics as I know it will hold. Theses all are faith that are reasonable . The Scientific methodology is an entirely logical one. There are several methods for determining a Scientific theorem, by process or induction and by process of falsibilty. Clearly I hope that you can reasonably seperate this logical construct from theistic faith. The true test of a man of science is that he will abandon his "reasonable" faith should they be proven false. A religious faith is often more rigid.

Applying that to what has been discussed:
you say (and I agree) that science is limited (as a fundamental concept) e.g principles of conclusion etc etc (as explained many times unknown in everything)

But your statement of

“for it is when a system is fixed it is least able to adapt and most prone to collapse.”

Is your observation/theory which is derived using that principle? But your idea of a non fixed fluctuation universe is based on that which is derived from the assumption of a non fixed universe

This is extremely hard (given the time) to fully write explain in written form. if what I have said makes no sense and is highly flawed please disregard it as I am unsure as to if I have explained it properly myself.

There is certainly nothing wrong with learning the reasons why the pre-requisites of scientific methodology were put into practice, but don't you think it would give you a bit more credibility if you made the effort to discovery the reasoning behind them, rather than assuming they were derived from faith alone, and basing your entire discussion on that premise?

i wouldnt use the word "faith" as i feel its meaning is misleading in this context but hyper is right in that science fundamentally by nature does makes assumptions in the process.

But no more than is possibel by anymethod or principle of anything (doubt will always remain.)

you are all thinking i am talking about the scientific process of experimentation. i am talking about the application of findings beyond testable realms. the very basis of physics has been mechanistic, yet we have no proof to support this basic assumption, for example.

huh?
i understand the scientific methodology (if i didn't i would not be where i am now )

(i never said that scientific methodolgy was derived from faith alone. i said that that some fundamental aspects within science have a mystical nature to them because they are assumed without any testing to verify - not that we even can, yet. we have fundamental concepts built on theory and philosophy, not fact)

the principle which makes science "unexact" also makes the conclusion that science is "unexact"...yep youve guessed it "unexact"

Can anyone see that or is further explanation needed by anyone?

no i understand this. and have answered from a concept/principle point.

i believe i know what you are getting at.

indeed. funny how some get so defensive on this topic. almost like a "believer". exactly what i expected.

but i hope you got answers that you feel did understand you, and made a positive contribution, which tends to be rarer from a "believer".

Bad logical approaches are as bad (can be worse) than a stubborn "believer" because the level of distortion is less obvious

its all good.

science is a product of its society. modern science was born of the philosophy of the past. plato, aristotle, etc. science is philosophy with experimentation and process, but we must not forget the philosophical basis of it. how many times in history have we built an entire "scientific understanding" on a philosophy only to many years later shift philosophies?

as i said, i support the persuit of understanding and knowledge. we just have to remind ourselves of its context and its limitations.

q: what is the difference between a stubborn scientist and a stubborn believer?
a: nothing!

i am waiting for someone to bring up that which was mentioned in a previous topic (jesus claim) i stated the relationship between faith and proof.

they will no doubt try (they should) and use that here against the "credibility" of science.

if you are thinking of doing it, i suggest you really take your time and identify and clearly explain the supposed "flaw" in my reasoning.

As you may have guessed i already have thought this through and can account for my statements 9as far as principles and reasoning are concerned).

I do not understand what you are trying to say? Are you dissatisfied with the scientific process, trying to throw doubts at some theory? WHile i may say that scientific theory has not encompass every truth, it has made a great deal of progress. Philosophy may come and go, but science, there is the certainty of logic and ways to test a theory.

I would caution you however Hyperactive: That when one discusses such abstract and extreme principles, the limitations of launguage will rear its ugly head and distort and confuse everything including seemingly bullet proof statements.

think of it as a thought process not mechanical details/processes. that may aid your understanding.

i am not dissstisfied with the process in the least, nor am i throwing doubts on any specific theory. i am reminding people to not take things for more than they are, and to remember where much of what is "assumed" came from. science is built on a long history, and there are philosophical concepts taken for granted (i.e. not proven) including the "holy grail" of science: the mechanistic nature of the universe which allows for repeatability. everything in its context (otherwise it becomes a religion, something that for some it already has).



especially on internet forums....

But you spoke about one of the five pre-requisites as if it should be regarded as unreliable because it was sourced from faith.

I have to admit that I'm still not clear what you are talking about. You start off specifically naming a principle of methodology, but then claim that you are not referring to methodology. You insinuate that principle is flawed scientifically because it is based on faith, but then claim it is not merely faith that it is based on. I have already brought up theoretical physics, but that is also, like every other theory in the scientific community, based on the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology, one of which you are calling into question.

It's possible that we agree on something, I just can't quite figure out what it is that you are trying to say on this thread.

what i am saying is that the essential underlying requirement for repeatability is a metaphysical assumption. as karl popper put it "only if we require that explanations shall use universal laws of nature (supplemented by initial conditions) can we make progress to realizing the ideas of independent, or non-ad hoc, explanations."

But the repeatability of physical phenomena is not a metaphysical assumption, but rather an observed and predicted event. Because of repeatability, we know a given event happens now, we have been able to confirm that it has happened at specific times in the past, and are able to predict when it would happen in the future happen in the future. All other conditions being equal, repeatability is supported by objective and theoretical evidence to have occured. How is any of that metaphysical?

Now, as I already said before, if the conditions under which an event occur, such as the speed of light and the beginning of the universe, then at that point we should go back and review the assumption, however, unless a cause can be shown to falsify repeatability, then it is reasonable to assume that it will continue working in the manner that it has always been known to.

Ah,at last.I have so long waited for such a thread.
I have said so many times,that science is not all-powerful.
Apart from the reasons mentioned above there is the human factor as well.
Humans are driven by greed,the need for respect,etc..Not evereything known as proof today really is proof,only because a few scientists say so.

the point is that we can only conclude stability within our "frame", not universally. when we extend any claim of anything beyond tested grounds we are making assumptions, assumptions based on nothing. we can create wonderful models to give us the probabilities of various events beyond measure, but we are acting on a form of "faith" in believing it without confirmation.

my major point of this was that science grew out of philosophy and "religion", and it can too easily be turned back into a "religion". i have seen this first hand. i am just reminding everybody of the what forms the basis of modern science.

what we take as repeatable fact today may be thrown out tomorrow. it is always important to remember the constraints, context, and perspective.

(there is an ambiguity when structure and law become indistinguishable. we must keep "structure" separate from that which we theorize as "law")

to be a real thorn in your side. can i point out to you that the process you used to reason that conclusion and the conclusion itself are also bound by the same principle!. (as is this post.)

(if you doubt me, ask yourself how you reach any conclusion)

no thorn at all. that is a given.

i dont think you fully understand what is being said by hyper

i dont think you fully understand what is being said by hyper

I do understand.I agree on many things he said.My post is merely an addition.It doesn't have much to do with his original idea.

Well, I do (to an extent) agree, however it is pointless to limit this to science. It is pretty universal.



Agreed to as well. Taking science on faith defeats the purpose. That being said, one must be careful not to assume that a given assumption by science is borne out of faith, rather than objective support.

that which is verified.

Pardon?

we defined our own objectivity when we made declarative statements without universal data to support. everything is objective within the scope of study, beyond that we are operating on probabilities. theories are only robust when they can account for all variences, otherwise there is a "faith" factor in what we are doing. that we are in fact working from the correct principles. we are not always doing so. remember the aether, remember the aether! (laughing)

sorry to be giving you a hard time on this. i don't mistake probabilities for faith, but some do, and that is why i started into this whole thing. too much "absolutism" coming from the science side. we all have to admit when we don't know, but only have a projection based on real data (or whatever the case may be).

i enjoy discussing things with you. the forum is so split into skeptic vs believer seldom does a chance come up to discuss things with another "skeptic".

You can be skeptical about some things that others believe in, and believe in something that others a skeptical about. I don't believe in aliens or bad icecream, therefore I am skeptical about some things, but not all. Am I confusing you?

Anyway I think that it takes just as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God. They both are somewhat similar.

confuse me? not at all.

if you understand the influences of people like plato, aristotle, descartes, newton, etc you will clearly see the intertwining of a "god" belief structure with science. the two are like brothers, that is why they can square off so well.

Should science ever becomes as dogmatic as a religion, be sure that younger and hungrier scientist are out there trying to prick the bubble of self satisfaction. Of course, it will have to be stood up to peer reviews and judgemental process. If I had to have absolute knowledge before making a statement , I will be in bad trouble, refer to my previous post here. We are all skeptics here, one side mistrust the beliefs of the other side.

science very similar to religion?

lets not get carried away and remember that Everything is bound by the principle.

everything is bound, is it?

the highschool through undergrad teachings of science are perhaps bound in such a way much as the basic understandings of mathematics are bound. there is more taken on faith in science than you are either aware of or admitting to. as i said, even one of its principles is taken for granted.

while the application of logic and process are "unique" to science, do not think that these principles in and of themselves encompass all of science.

I think you expressed this vey well, thats a very deep observation, I feel the natural state of things is always evolving and that an attempt to go against that will
eventually cause a collapse, I actually heard some scientist say that we know all there is to know about science, The universe and its laws to me are as mystical as you can get, I'm not a scientist just a average person, proof of anything to me is based on my personal experience, and the variables fluctuate constantly.

no i am fully aware of giant assumptions in scientific principles and have admitted so. but the principle you are stating IS bound to every other method of conclusion.

if you dont think so please provide an example.

on further reflection i think its important for you to clearly define what "science" means.

some could say science merely means application of logic and only describes a process.

i would be interested to here your definition

Science (to me) is the study of life from many different perspectives, a discipline , approached from many different angles I feel science and spirituality are very close in nature if not the same (religion would have us believe otherwise)

if it is merely the application of process then there is quite a bit of unscientific science being conducted! as will all fields, the rigid application of "laws" is done only well within defined parameters. many of these parameters are taken for granted, or on faith, so that specific work can be done. this is part of the process. there is of course the need to construct these "laws", and these constuctions occur outside of our constructed "laws", but still account for observed phenomena.

science is a process, but it is also a business, a paradigm, and a religion. i began this thread by pointing out how one of the axioms of the scientific process is taken for granted, or on faith.

yes, sheri, there can indeed be a "spiritual" aspect to it, but not in the supernatural way. ask someone in quantum biology about spirituality.

the absolute states some believe in are fine, they fit quite well into larger dynamic models. it is akin to school children understanding the real numbers and thinking of it as an absolute (where advanced mathematics shows us their true nature).

but again this applies to everything (methods).

the shortcomings of science are universal in nature. anyone who claims science is absolute is being unscientific (how ironic).

the very principle of logic and reason, and analysis (such is science) especially on extreme principles (outside any testable boundary) is limited. but to interpret this principle or even have any thought itself it is within this "limited frame" thus rendering the validity of the principal as valid as science itself.

i.e logic and reason lead to that principle but that principle applies to that logic and reason.

i fear almost nobody will continue reading this thread as i feel it strains even the most advanced minds.

exactly.

we work within a probablistic realm.

the discission of the limited frames is essential. all too often people incorrectly take a framework to encompass much more than it does. such is the true limiting nature of science if we want to work with absolutes. everything we do is tightly constrained such that much is yet to even be verified in the "real world", but we apply it based on likelihood.

people need to learn to think in terms of probabilities instead of "absolutes".

i hope the thread does not die off. i don't think what we are discussing is "straining".

now if we start bringing in specific examples that require some background it could become complicated.

but again introducing things as probabilities of correctness (which i have always believed) can be a problem on an extreme concept due to the probability system having limitations (i dont mean mathmatical i mean in concept)

again the reasoning leads to a conclusion but that conclusion is questioning the reasoning.

if you dont find these advanced concepts straining then either you are godly or your not pushing yourself hard enough.

personally i feel total comprehension of this apparent paradox is impossible.

thinking about this stuff is just "business as normal" for me.

but then again i dream in "numbers" to put it simply.....

The only thing I worry about is that it still sounds like this is a precursor to claiming that Repetition shouldn't be considered a scientific principle because it is taken on "faith" (a concept which, again, I do not agree with) in the theoretical sciences.