Wednesday, July 04, 2012

The "God particle" and the new Religion of Science

Our prayers have been answered. The "God particle" has been discovered. What The New York Times is calling the "Holy Grail" of physics has finally been found.

Sort of.

Scientists at the "Large Haldron Collider" announced that they had finally discovered the "Higgs Boson" particle, a particle that gives the particles that make up atoms their mass (One of the things about being a "God particle" is that you have to go to mass). 

"The God particle has been found," blared the headlines, although the fine print revealed that they only "may have" discovered it. They definitely discovered it, only they really didn't. The particle was found "probably": They had "gathered enough evidence" to show that it "looks like" a Higgs Boson. It was "newly discovered" but scientists "stopped just shy" of "claiming outright that it is the Higgs Boson itself."

They "believed" they "gathered enough evidence" to demonstrate that they had "probably" discovered a particle whose "characteristics match" what "could be" the Higgs Boson with "99 percent certainty." Or was that "99.99 percent" certainty? Or maybe "99.9936 percent" certainty?

We're not certain.

The only thing that is certain, we are told, is that in order to get "5 sigma level" certainty (that's the certainty you must have in order to say your certainly certain), one must have 99.99995 percent certainty. Otherwise, your left at the 4 sigma level, which is sort of like .

So here we have a bunch of scientists making this big announcement and they've only got 4 sigma level certainty? Are you kidding?! We all got excited some 4 sigma level nonsense? What is this? Geraldo Rivera opening up Al Capone's safe?

Well, at least it's better than the original Holy Grail, which they never found, meaning it had a certainly level of only 1 sigma.

This whole thing is just the most recent example of the media going into a swoon over the latest pronouncement of what they implicitly view as the equivalent of a religious declaration. The only question involved here is whether the announcement of the quasi-discovery of the Higgs Boson particle is like, say, a Papal bull (which, would be, what? a 4 sigma?) or an ex cathedra Papal directive--definitely a 5 sigma.

I will stop just shy of saying outright that white laboratory smocks are the modern equivalent of horse hair robes. I think I have gathered enough evidence that men in materialist mitres now tell us things the vast majority of us have no way of confirming beyond just trusting them. The characteristics of science look a lot like what many of the people who practice it call "superstition." Science is now practically indistinguishable from magic, and mathematicians are our new magicians.

And I say this with 99.9994 percent certainty.

66 comments:

Daniel said...

Singring,

Since you're the science man here, can you try explaining to me what it is that Martin is mocking? (Full disclosure: my understanding of physics is nil. I'd like to change that, but don't really know where to start.)

Sincerely,
Daniel

Anonymous said...

I wonder why no one takes Martin seriously.

Martin Cothran said...

I wonder what sigma level the statement "No one takes Martin seriously" would be.

Art said...

As if we need another reminder of Martin's rank incompetence when it comes to mathematics.

I guess when you cannot distinguish between 6000 and 4,500,000,000, this is to be expected.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

This sounds to me like a 1 sigma statement.

Singring said...

Daniel,

I think Martin is trying (and I emphasize trying) to mock two things here:

1.) That scientists are not certain of their discoveries and can only make probability statements within a certain limit of statistical probability based on the evidence they have gathered and

2.) that the media is excited by this development and every major media outlet is carrying the story.

If I may be so bold, I will take a shot at describing my suspicions, based on Martin's previous statements here, as to why he is attempting this mockery:

1.) Martin is a man of metaphysics. He doesn't like uncertainty. He doesn't even like empirical evidence! (he will tell you in a moment that in fact he loves 'evidence', but what he understands as 'evidence' is quite different as to what your regular scientist understands).

Martin likes to use pure logic and derive his conclusions from premises that he just comes up with and then declares to be 'self-evident' or 'the nature of things' or what have you. He has, for example, told us that he knows all men are mortal because 'that is their nature' - a metaphysical statement wholly removed from empiricism and as reliable as my counter-claim 'all men are immortal'. The way we check which is actually true is that we go out and make empirical observations (and of course we find that men die and thus are indeed mortal).

Yes, Martin has previously made attempts at deriving his arbitrary truth claims from empirical evidence - he has gone so far as to proclaim that the reason he knows the nature of a penis is to be used only for vaginal intercourse is because 'he's looked at it and that's what it does'. Now if you were a scientist anywhere - let alone at CERN - and wrote that in a scientific paper to describe your methodology, you would not be laughed at, you would be pitied.

So Martin, in love with his metaphysics, thinks very little of the scientific method (what he understands of it anyway, which is not much) and tries to mock it. He tries to mock it because it doesn't deliver him with the nicely wrapped up, tidy and absolute conclusions, the simple truths he wants, the metaphysical certainty that whatever his 'intuition' tells him is true is in fact true.

Scientists think differently. They look at empirical evidence (not 'intuitions', 'looks' or 'self-evident facts) and they see which hypothesis it supports. It's that simple.

The scientists at CERN carefully, fastidiously collected empirical evidence for many months in repeated experiments until they were confident to a very high level of statistical certainty (Martin mocks this with his rant about sigma levels, even though statistics are a branch of the epitome of logic: mathematics) that they had actually found the Higgs boson. It strikes me as rather ironic that he who hecters constantly about scientist's supposed ignorance in philosophy whines about statistics because he doesn't understand what they mean.

It is the response of someone who is scared of uncertainty, of tentative conclusions, of non-absolute truths.

Singring said...

On to number 2.):

Martin must be very frustrated with the amount of attention this news is receiving. People are leaving his precious church in droves, no-one really cares what the Pope says anymore (not even catholics themselves), yet when science makes the news it gets big headlines (never mind that it actually deserves them).

What Martin seems to forget is that philosophy and theology don't make the headlines because they don't do anything useful - they just produce hot air. When is the last time philosophy or theology cured a disease, invented a new material, increased crop yields? When is the last time philosophy came up with a truth that it can show is in fact true with a reliable, sturdy and transparent methodology?

That's right.

And that's why science makes the news - it tells us things about the world that we want to know and it can tell us that these things are true with a very high level of certainty (more than 99 % in this case, apparently).

I will say one thing though: I am, like Martin, annoyed with the use of the term 'God particle' by the media. It conflates science with theology, which in this context is nonsense.

Art said...

I rest my case.

Art said...

In case you're wondering, Martin, you've as much as said that there is a 2/3 chance that the statement "Martin believes 6000 = 4,500,000,000" is true.

A clever way to agree with my original assessment of your abilities in math, but not very helpful when it comes to the point you are trying to make.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

I'm really concerned with your sigma levels on this thread. I'm getting a very low reading on your posts. You refer to a "case," which you say you have "rested." But when I look at your posts, I don't see a "case," but only an inaccurate statement.

Are you resting on Singring's case?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Good try! But, as with Art, I'm getting a low sigma reading on your posts.

First of all, I was making no assertions whatsoever about the certainly level of scientists themselves, who are simply going about their business, a business that involves a level of expertise
in a specialized area that few outside it even understand, but which is reported by people who make it their business to sound like they know what they're talking about even when, in most cases, they don't.

These reports are read by people who know even less about it, and who trust these scientific experts purely on the basis of authority, the kind of authority that is, practically speaking, indistinguishable from that which was once conferred on religious officials.

The fact that the particle in question is even being called the "God particle" and the "Holy Grail" of physics is just the most blatant indication of this. I imagine that the physicists that are actually working on this cringe when they hear that.

I made no assertions (even jokingly) to the intellectual competence of scientists in this area. I'm sure they quite competent. I was making a purely sociological, not scientific, point.

The average person reading these stories is about as critical of the statements attributed to "science" as a medieval person was of an astrologer.

But I am impressed that you came to these mistaken conclusions partly, at least in the second case, by guessing at my motives. How you advocates of scientism are able to do negotiate this magical procedure of divining motive is really amazing. Do you own a dowsing rod too?

It doesn't bother me at all to read such stories as this one about the Higgs Boson. It allows me to make this point about those who are not experts in this area who uncritically read these stories and and simply conclude that "science has spoken," as if their conclusions had just come down from Sinai.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring says:

Martin is a man of metaphysics. He doesn't like uncertainty. He doesn't even like empirical evidence! (he will tell you in a moment that in fact he loves 'evidence', but what he understands as 'evidence' is quite different as to what your regular scientist understands).

This is just one more statement betraying his lack of awareness of the distinction between the scientific and the non-scientific. There is a method appropriate for each intellectual discipline. Singring takes the naive view that scientific methodologies are somehow universal: that they apply in all intellectual disciplines, even though no competent academic would ever say that.

You don't employ the same methodologies in, say, history, as you do in mathematics. In fact, you don't employ the same methodologies in the natural sciences as you do in particle physics. And you certainly don't employ the same methodologies in philosophy as you do in, say, biology.

Different disciplines are trying to answer different kinds of questions. Singring has constantly voiced his opinion that every question, even if it is a completely non-scientific question, has a scientific answer.

He has never demonstrated this belief (certainly he has never demonstrated it scientifically), but he clings to it like a drowning man to a life-preserver.

He also likes to simply pretend that scientific disciplines have no metaphysical assumptions behind them at all. These assumptions are just there, and no questions are to be asked.

Let's all just avert our gaze from them so we can continue to feel smug.

Anonymous said...

Martin,
Thanks for bringing a glimmer of reality to this farce. For what it's worth I think you are spot on. Science absolutely is the new religion and this is a prime example of it. As you rightly say, even the so-called "discoverers" of this apparent particle cannot even claim that they have actually found it. Instead, the media jump on it with every implication that the "find" is real, but without actually saying so. Brilliant, let's all pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves on how wonderful we are, even though practically nobody on earth can actually vouch for the reality of this. Personally, I think this has much more to do with justifying the ludicrous cost of the CERN installation and the roles of these "scientists".
Cheers.

Art said...

Martin,

You plainly haven't a clue about the term "sigma" and its meaning or usage. Because of this, your blurb reads like a farce. Add to this some of your comments (about how readers rely on authority) and the irony fairly jumps off the screen.

The problem is, you are not trying for farce. You take your own comedy much too seriously, and expect the uninformed in your audience to do likewise.

The good news - you are more forthcoming in the comments than you have ever been about your opinion of the age of the earth. Have you always been about 2/3 sure that the age of the earth is 6000 years, or is this a recent development? Are you becoming more or less sure? Enquiring minds want to know.

Daniel said...

Martin,

I owe you an apology (as I think I misread your post). I understood it to be concerned with the value of science itself, rather than with popular reactions to science. My bad.

Peace.

Sincerely,
Daniel

Daniel said...

Singring,

"When is the last time philosophy came up with a truth that it can show is in fact true with a reliable, sturdy and transparent methodology?"

What would you consider a sturdy and transparent methodology?

Sincerely,
Daniel

Art said...

What would you consider a sturdy and transparent methodology?


Hypothesize, test using controlled and repeatable experiments, conclude/revise.

Martin Cothran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin Cothran said...

Art,

The whole point of the post (which I explained further in the comments section for the hard-of-hearing) was that the public (and the media) is almost wholly ignorant about what these kinds of scientific announcements even mean, and yet they swallow them whole without a shred of critical thought.

The term "sigma" is a case in point. Almost no one reading these stories knows what the term means--and probably very few of the journalists who just pass on the term. They repeat it like some sort of incantation that magically produces knowledge.

I used the term in this exact way to underscore the point. I realize it just went over your head, but that's not my problem.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

Have you always been about 2/3 sure that the age of the earth is 6000 years, or is this a recent development? Are you becoming more or less sure?

I'm guessing that your comment here is further evidence that you didn't even get the sarcasm in my blatantly sarcastic use of the term "sigma"?

I'm warning you, your sigma levels are reaching dangerously low levels. I suggest finding professional help.

Singring said...

Martin

'First of all, I was making no assertions whatsoever about the certainly level of scientists themselves, who are simply going about their business, a business that involves a level of expertise
in a specialized area that few outside it even understand,...'

Well, I could have sworn you said this in your post:

'The characteristics of science look a lot like what many of the people who practice it call "superstition." Science is now practically indistinguishable from magic, and mathematicians are our new magicians.'

Are you now pretending that this is not a direct assault on the veracity and methodology of scientific research?

'...but which is reported by people who make it their business to sound like they know what they're talking about even when, in most cases, they don't.'

I presume the NYT article you have been blogging about here is this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-discovered-higgs-boson-particle.html?_r=1&hp

It was written by dennis Overbye, who:

'...graduated from M.I.T. with a physics degree.'

So, frankly, I take his reporting on what the CERN found over your whining about what it supposedly didn't.

'The fact that the particle in question is even being called the "God particle" and the "Holy Grail" of physics is just the most blatant indication of this.'

Leon Lederman, a Nobel Physicist gave the Higgs boson that nickname, not a journalist. One second on Wikipedia might have rectified that misconcenption. Scientists like to give things nicknames. In this case, the choice was rather poor in my opinion.

'The average person reading these stories is about as critical of the statements attributed to "science" as a medieval person was of an astrologer.'

I agree. But that's not teh fault of the supremely intelligent and well-edicucated physicists, is it? It's the fault of poor science education, which is why we need better science education. Meanwhile, you are advocating for ID and criticizing science and scientists left right and centre, so I find it a bit unfair to criticize the ublic for their lack of scientific knowledge when you are actively campaigning tto undermine it.

'It allows me to make this point about those who are not experts in this area who uncritically read these stories and and simply conclude that "science has spoken," as if their conclusions had just come down from Sinai.'

Again, all I have to do to show this statement up for the nonsense it is, is quote the article you blogged about in the first place:

'Both groups said that the likelihood that their signal was a result of a chance fluctuation was less than one chance in 3.5 million, “five sigma,” which is the gold standard in physics for a discovery. '

In very simple terms, the article explains what the sigma level means and why the scientists are so confident about their discovery. What is there not to undertand about this? Reading that, anyone with a basic understanding of probabilities can make up their own mind if they want to think that the results indicate the Higgs boson or if they want to think that it was a 1 in 35 million fluke? I really am puzzled as to your obtuseness at this point.

Singring said...

'Singring takes the naive view that scientific methodologies are somehow universal: that they apply in all intellectual disciplines, even though no competent academic would ever say that.'

Of course I never said that. I just said that philosophy and theology have no reliable methodology at all and that they have consequently not produced any discovery of vale for the past few hundred years, whereas there are hundreds of scientific journals providing fairly reliable truths every day. A pretty clear record.

'You don't employ the same methodologies in, say, history, as you do in mathematics.'

I know. But mathematics in and of itself can't produce truths - you need to verify its calculations against physical reality using empirical evidence.

Just because I can mathematically prove that if I put two apples into a box that contains two aples I have four apples in the box doesn't mean that there actually are four apples in the box at the end. For example, I have to open the box an empirically verify that there were two apples in there to begin with.

'Singring has constantly voiced his opinion that every question, even if it is a completely non-scientific question, has a scientific answer. '

Nope.

'He also likes to simply pretend that scientific disciplines have no metaphysical assumptions behind them at all. These assumptions are just there, and no questions are to be asked.'

Never did. I would love to elaborate, but I'm off to a forest to collect empirical evidence for a scientific study, so I gotta go.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"I think I have gathered enough evidence that men in materialist mitres now tell us things the vast majority of us have no way of confirming beyond just trusting them. The characteristics of science look a lot like what many of the people who practice it call 'superstition.'"

One big difference between science and superstition is that superstition involves the process of making stuff up. And I don't trust scientists because they are humans like the rest of us and just as likely to fudge or outright lie as anyone else. Its the process that is trustworthy, because scientists make their bones by eviscerating each other's work. When NASA scientists announced they found fossilized evidence of martian life, one of the scientists who debunked the claim was the brother of one of the scientists who made it.
In contrast, theologians merely argue about whose sacred text is "true" and what that text really means, and lack a method to resolve such conflicts short of coercive, sometimes violent supression of "heresy." When someone claims that God told them the "truth", how do you falsify that? That's why Christianity has splintered into so many sects over the millenia, each one claiming to have the "truth."
While scientists often disagree with each other quite vociferously, sooner or later the data comes down one way or another and the question is resolved. In the 20th Century, there were heated debates about whether, for example, the universe existed in a steady state or if there was a "Big Bang", and whether the continents were fixed in place or drifted across the globe. But now that the evidence has established that there was a Big Bang, and continents do drift on giant plates, these once controversial theories were universally accepted.

Old Rebel said...

"One of the things about being a 'God particle' is that you have to go to mass."

That hurt!

Daniel said...

Singring,

"I just said that philosophy and theology have no reliable methodology at all and that they have consequently not produced any discovery of vale for the past few hundred years"

Did philosophers prior to "the past few hundred years" have (in your view) valuable things to say?

"I would love to elaborate, but I'm off to a forest to collect empirical evidence for a scientific study, so I gotta go."

When you're back from forest, would you be willing to elaborate?

Sincerely,
Daniel

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Are you now pretending that this is not a direct assault on the veracity and methodology of scientific research?

One of the things one does when critically reading, is to read them in context. It's one of those things you learn in those silly humanities disciplines, but it's pretty helpful. Trust me.

And the context in this case was pretty clearly indicated by the statement: "This whole thing is just the most recent example of the media going into a swoon over the latest pronouncement of what they implicitly view as the equivalent of a religious declaration."

Did you just miss that?

I really have no interest in debating what I meant. I'm fairly clear on what I meant and the post is fairly clear on it as well. Let's talk about something else now.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

'The average person reading these stories is about as critical of the statements attributed to "science" as a medieval person was of an astrologer.'

I agree. But that's not the fault of the supremely intelligent and well-edicucated physicists, is it?


Never said it was.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Meanwhile, you are advocating for ID and criticizing science and scientists left right and centre, so I find it a bit unfair to criticize the ublic for their lack of scientific knowledge when you are actively campaigning tto undermine it.

Oh, c'mon. Now you've gone off the deep end. You've gone from misinterpretation to blatant falsehood.

Where have I "advocated for ID"? Give me the quote.

And I have never been critical of competent science or scientific research. That is why I use the term "scientism." That's what I have criticized elsewhere and that's what I have criticized here.

You don't want to deal with my actual argument, which is that science operates culturally like a religion, with phrases like "a study has found that ..." being used in ways that make real scientists cringe, and so you keep dancing around it.

Why don't you address the real point of my post? The fact that you aren't is really lowering your sigma levels.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I really am puzzled as to your obtuseness at this point. [about the actual likelihood that such a particle was found]

Maybe that's because it's completely irrelevant to my larger point. I made as to the likelihood of such a thing beyond quoting obtuse media stories.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

philosophy and theology have no reliable methodology at all and that they have consequently not produced any discovery of vale for the past few hundred years

Maybe you could tell us about your careful study of philosophy over the past few hundred years.

The irony of your remarks here is that you're employing them in a discussion in which you are charging me with making sweeping and inaccurate generalizations.

Which methodologies do you think are not reliable? Deduction? Dialectic? Inference to the best explanation? Textual analysis?

I'd also love you hear what it is (as someone else has asked) that they did before a couple hundred years ago that they are not doing now so we could identify precisely what you think may be wrong here.

Singring said...

Daniel,

'Did philosophers prior to "the past few hundred years" have (in your view) valuable things to say?'

Sure they did - on subjects other than philosophy and theology, that is. Aristotle and other Greek philosophers made some astute and accurate observations of the natural world. By and large though, they produced a sizeable amount of nonsense, especially in the realm of metaphysics. That's just my opinion. Maybe you disagree. If you do, I'd be really curious to know what you think philosophy has contributed to our knowledge of the universe in terms of 'truths' it has discovered? And if so, what is the applied value of these 'truths'?

'When you're back from forest, would you be willing to elaborate?'

I'll do my best, though I only just came back from the forest and am off again in a few minutes. See below.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'Where have I "advocated for ID"? Give me the quote.'

Oh, I admit that you very rarely (if ever) come out openly and say you support it. But you have written a slew of posts defending its proponents and attacking its detractors, as anyone who searches your blog for 'Intelligent design' can find out quite easily. but if I am mistaken, let's just settle the issue once and for all by answering this simple question:

Do you or do you not believe that intelligent Design should be taught alongside or in place of evolution in public and/or private schools?

'And I have never been critical of competent science or scientific research.'

Ah yes, but then you play very fast and loose with what you deem and don't deem 'competent science'. I remember a choice little post in which you proudly linked to a graph to tell us that humans are not responsible for climate change that was scientifically so horrendously false it wasn't even funny.

'Maybe that's because it's completely irrelevant to my larger point.'

No it certainly isn't. You claimed many times in your post that the scientists and/or journalists were not being clear in communicating their results and conclusions and people were thus simply left to accept them by fiat. You stated it most clearly here:

'I think I have gathered enough evidence that men in materialist mitres now tell us things the vast majority of us have no way of confirming beyond just trusting them. '

The article *clearly* expresses how confident we can be in the findings of these scientists and if you want to challenge their methodology and data, all you have to do is read their paper and see what you think of it - maybe repeat the experiments to see if you get the same results.

'Maybe you could tell us about your careful study of philosophy over the past few hundred years.'

Name one philosophical or theological truth that has been discovered in the past, oh, 500 years and by what methodology it was arrived at. I asked you this before and you came up with nothing, but I'm really hopeful this time around as you seem so confident. Let's hear it.

'Which methodologies do you think are not reliable? Deduction? Dialectic? Inference to the best explanation? Textual analysis?'

Textual analysis as a way of discovering a truth about the universe? LOL.

As to deduction, dialectic and inference to the best explanation - those are all tied to premises that we need to verify empirically if we even want to start to get at any truth.

Or how would you argue against my 'inference to the best explanation' that invisible fairies pollinate flowers?

'I'd also love you hear what it is (as someone else has asked) that they did before a couple hundred years ago that they are not doing now so we could identify precisely what you think may be wrong here.'

I was referring to the long, arduous road to empiricism that took a real turn for the better with Hume and his successors. It is the only thing I can bring myself to credit 'philosophy' with, figuring out that you actually have to observe occurrences in the universe to discover truths about it.

Anyway, got to go!

Daniel said...

Singring,

Any particular works by Hume you'd recommend as good places to start?

Sincerely,
Daniel

Singring said...

'Any particular works by Hume you'd recommend as good places to start?'

I suggest you consult a philosopher when it come to which books on philosophy to read.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Aristotle and other Greek philosophers made some astute and accurate observations of the natural world. By and large though, they produced a sizeable amount of nonsense, especially in the realm of metaphysics.

Which books of Plato and Aristotle have you read? And which aspect of their metaphysics is problematic?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I was referring to the long, arduous road to empiricism that took a real turn for the better with Hume and his successors.

What is it about Hume you like? His case for the non-rational nature of our belief in cause and effect? His belief that inductive inference cannot be rationally justified?

I'd love to know which of these or his similar beliefs you think contributes to a notion of a rational modern science.

Singring said...

'Which books of Plato and Aristotle have you read? And which aspect of their metaphysics is problematic?'

I have never read any books by Plator or Aristotle. My knowledge of their biological observations come from biological literature and lectures that will occasionally make mention of some of their more accurate observations in a historical context.

As to their metaphysics, you know perfectly well which aspects of them I find problematic, we have discussed Aristotle's four causes and his conept of causation here plenty of times and my objections are on the record for anyone to read.

It's kind of cute that you and Daniel are now tag-teaming trying to highlight my ignorance of philosphy.

We have had this before also, Martin: I have never claimed to be even moderately well-read in philosophy and I will happily admit that my knowledge of philosophy is rudimentary at best.

How does that address any of the issues I have raised? Why are these not being addressed? It should be oh so easy to do if I'm this clueless, right?

I have asked very clearly and openly: can you name one single 'truth' that philosophy has come up with in the past few hundred years and the methodology by which it has established this 'truth'?

Do that and you can really show me up for the fool I am.

The goal is empty, all you have to do is tap in the ball. Go for it, the two of you.

'I'd love to know which of these or his similar beliefs you think contributes to a notion of a rational modern science.'

Again, very cute indeed.

I would have said it was his belief that our knowledge of reality comes from our observations of the natural world and direct experience - empiricism, just like I said earlier.

Lee said...

Can the validity of empiricism be empirically proven?

Singring said...

'Can the validity of empiricism be empirically proven?'

Why oh why do you need everything to be *proven*, Lee? Can you *prove* to me that you're not going to choke to death the next time you eat? No? Then why do you still partake in food?

Empiricism has an amazing track record that any human ignores at their own peril. You use empiricism every waking moment. You used it to post this message. Are you now going to tell me you honestly it isn't reliable?

Daniel said...

Singring,
"It's kind of cute that you and Daniel are now tag-teaming trying to highlight my ignorance of philosophy."

Let us be absolutely clear: I'm not trying to show you up as *anything*. Please don’t make assumptions about my motives. Thank you. :)

As for ignorance of philosophy they really don't come much more ignorant than me (I've read the tiniest smidgen of Nietzsche and almost nothing else----no Plato or Aristotle for example).

I'm trying to meet you on your own terms. If those come from biology rather than philosophy, then great. I can work with that.

You believe that much of philosophy (and all of theology) is worthless. The question I’m asking is simple: why are they worthless?

I’ll be out of town from tomorrow morning through the 16th, so I wish you the best till then.

Sincerely,
Daniel

Singring said...

'Let us be absolutely clear: I'm not trying to show you up as *anything*. Please don’t make assumptions about my motives. Thank you. :)'

My sincere apologies. Unfortunately I have become so accustomed to the deflecting questions Martin and Lee constantly throw up that I have developed a knee-jerk reaction to similar posts. I shoould know better, sorry about that.

As to your question regarding philosophy and theology, I will try to briefly outline the main reason I deem them worthless, to use your term:

They provide us with no truth about the universe we inhabit (at least as far as I can tell). This is a bold claim, so let me justify it: so far, I have yet to see any truths emerge from either discipline, bar the role of philosophy in coming (after centuries of agonizing debate) finally to the conclusion that the best way of learning truths about the world is to actually go out and study it empirically - that is to investiagte it using our senses or their proxies (experimental instruments and such). Since this discovery was mainly the result of trial and error rather than any stringent methodological approach, I am hesitant to credit philosophy with even that. 'Philosophers' (today we call them scientists) who relied on empirical data and experimentation rather than on metaphysical thought bubbles, simply won the argument by default: they could make predictions about the natural world that turned out to actually manifest and they could use the knowledge thus found to reliably improve our lives in ways philosophers or theologians were simply never able to do in their discipines.

Now, these are all just my opinions of course, opinions of someone with an admittedly very poor background in both philosophy and theology.

Any philosopher or theologian who disagrees with me on this is free to do so, Martin especially. But disagreements must be reinforced by arguments. The easiest way to refute my allegations (which seem to be borne out by history), is to provide an example of a truth that philosoophy, say, has uncovered and the reliable methodology by which it was discovered and that can be thus used to check it by anyone similarly inclined. It is no good if this truth is just built on intuitions or inferrences to the best explanation on a purely metaphysical plane, because then anyone could intuit or infer anything they wanted. In a plane of discussion wholly removed from actual, physical reality, there is nothing to stop me from saying that invisible fairies pollinate flowers annd there is nothing to stop you from claiming that this is not true. How do we figure out which claim is true on the metaphysical plane where epirical evidence about actual flowers and insects etc. never enters the equation? There is no way to sort the true from the fanciful as there is in empirical science.

That doesn't mean that science can be used to answer metaphysical questions - something Martin has claimed I am trying to argue. It just means that metaphysical claims are a dime a dozen and cimply cannot be weeded out for nonsense. Metaphysics so becomes a grab-bag of whatever you would like to be true, rather than a tool to find out what actually is true.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I would love to respond to you using arguments, but I am having trouble doing that now since, in order to do it, I have to use logic, a philosophical discipline discovered and formulated by a thinker you say "produced a sizable amount of nonsense."

Daniel said...

Singring,

Thanks for the civil response :) (I was expecting the rhetorical equivalent of boiling in oil, so seriously, thank you.)

I'll give your post some thought, and get back to you when I return from my weeklong time away (I'm headed into a week of Macbeth on steroids, culminating in a performance--I'm the Porter & Ross *is totally psyched*)

Peace.

Sincerely,
Daniel

Lee said...

> Why oh why do you need everything to be *proven*, Lee? Can you *prove* to me that you're not going to choke to death the next time you eat? No? Then why do you still partake in food?

Can I take that as a 'no'?

Singring said...

'Can I take that as a 'no'?'

Of course that's a no.

So does that mean you deny that empiricism provides you with truth?

Lee said...

> So does that mean you deny that empiricism provides you with truth?

Not at all. But I don't claim that empiricism is the sole arbiter of truth.

Singring said...

'Not at all. But I don't claim that empiricism is the sole arbiter of truth.'

Then I'm curious to know what truth you discovered without relying on empricism and the methodology by which you arrived at it.

Lee said...

> Then I'm curious to know what truth you discovered without relying on empricism and the methodology by which you arrived at it.

Well, we already know the truth that you have discovered without relying on empiricism, don't we? Namely, empiricism.

If you can do it, why can't I?

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

How do you empirically know that the Higgs Boson particle is a reality?

Lee said...

Perhaps I can help just a little bit. Or perhaps not. I'm certainly no philosopher. But here goes:

It seems to me that empiricism is dependent on inductive reasoning. To gain knowledge from an experience requires knowing how to evaluate the experiece.

Hypothetical: if every time a blizzard strikes my wife gets pregnant, without the proper analytic tools I might be tempted to believe that blizzards cause babies. That would certainly be my experience.

But correlation is not the same thing as causation.

And that's an analytical statement.

Therefore analytical tools such as logic and induction are necessary before empiricism can even take flight.

Otherwise, you're left with statements such as, "Except for the statement that the only things we can truly know are learned through experience, the only things we can truly know are learned through experience."

Experience tells me you will disagree with my line of thought here. I'm more interested in whether Martin would, too.

Singring said...

'Well, we already know the truth that you have discovered without relying on empiricism, don't we? Namely, empiricism.'

I wouldn't really say anyone 'discovered' empiricism. It's is literally a default position - if you don't accept it, you probably win't survive the next 24 hours.

'How do you empirically know that the Higgs Boson particle is a reality?'

I don't 'know' anything, Martin. I currently have a tentative reason to think the Higg's boson is real - and that is based on the recent anouncement by the CERN team. It is tentative because this is the first report, the data will be vetted intensively by physicists in the coming months and then, especially if the experiments can be recreated, I can move to a position of being confident in the reality of the Higgs boson.

Of course, I don't have personal, direct evidence of the Higgs boson - but I have direct, empirical evidence of measuring devices, I have good, empirical evidence that CERN has equipment that can measure the kind of data required to confirm the presence of the Higgs boson, so by extension I accept their empirical evidence to this effect. Does that answer your question?

Then maybe you could answer me this question: Here is a logical argument. Pure, unadulterated logic:

All men are immortal,
Socrates is a man,
therefore, Socrates is immortal.

Now I'm getting the impression that you want to claim that logic - in and of itself- can provide us with truth. So I'd like you to shopw me how - using only logic - you can show me that the above conclusion is true or false, whatever the case may be.

'It seems to me that empiricism is dependent on inductive reasoning. '

I don't think it is. You can have bare, naked empiricism, just accepting the way physical reality is, without making any inductive arguments.

'Hypothetical: if every time a blizzard strikes my wife gets pregnant, without the proper analytic tools I might be tempted to believe that blizzards cause babies.'

You already provide a caveat in your own argument: you need the proper analytic tools.

'But correlation is not the same thing as causation.

And that's an analytical statement.'

That's semantics. How did we find out that correlation and causation are not the same? In your example, how would you find out if blizzards struck your wife preganant or something else did? What tools would you employ to do so and would those tools be wholly removed from empirical evidence?

'Therefore analytical tools such as logic and induction are necessary before empiricism can even take flight.'

Not at all. Like I said, all that basic empricism entails is that your experience provides you with a true representation of the natural world. Its only when you get to trying to make statements about the interrelationship and interactions in the world and how they came/come about that you start to require tools like logic *in addition* to empricism.

So while these tools are very useful and have proven very successful when used *together with* empirical data to support premises and check conclusions, on their own - i.e. removed from empirical data - they have no value at all.

Just because, in a logical sense, 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples doesn't automatically mean that I have four apples, does it?

So quite the contraray to your claim, I submit that we need empricism for logic and induction to take flight.

Martin Cothran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I'm getting the impression that you want to claim that logic - in and of itself- can provide us with truth.

Where did I say that? I hope your impression are more accurate when it comes to science.

Martin Cothran said...

Of course, I don't have personal, direct evidence of the Higgs boson - but I have direct, empirical evidence of measuring devices, I have good, empirical evidence that CERN has equipment that can measure the kind of data required to confirm the presence of the Higgs boson, so by extension I accept their empirical evidence to this effect. Does that answer your question?

So you're making deductive inferences on the basis of things you have seen empirically to things you have not seen empirically? Have you seen any of the actual machines or any of the actual data that these scientists have used in this particular experiment?

Lee said...

> You already provide a caveat in your own argument: you need the proper analytic tools.

You seem confused about which one of us is the one who won't admit that there is something that comes before empiricism.

That someone is you, not me. It doesn't contradict my position that the analytice tools must come first.

> Like I said, all that basic empricism entails is that your experience provides you with a true representation of the natural world.

Don't you have settle on a positive answer to the question of whether truth exists *before* you can then go on to learn that you can acquire truth, or at least some part of it, through empiricism?

Martin Cothran said...

I also find it amusing that, despite the fact that, by his own admission, Singring has not had any empirical exposure to philosophy, he somehow felt justified in making broad, sweeping generalizations about it.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I have good, empirical evidence that CERN has equipment that can measure the kind of data required to confirm the presence of the Higgs boson

And what form does that take? Have you inspected the Large Hadron Collider personally? If not, upon what basis can you say with any confidence that it does what it is purported to do?

Singring said...

'So you're making deductive inferences on the basis of things you have seen empirically to things you have not seen empirically?'

Precisely.

'Have you seen any of the actual machines or any of the actual data that these scientists have used in this particular experiment?'

Nope. But as I said, I have have good empirical data to support the hypothesis that these machines, the scientists and the data they have produced do actually exist.

Unless you have personally inspected and translated the old and new testament manuscripts yourself, you are relying on the same kind of data whenever you open an English Bible and rely on it to be an accurate transcription of those original documents.

But it all starts with empirical data and - if we chose to go and actually verify our conlusions, for example by visiting CERN - ends with empirical data.

'You seem confused about which one of us is the one who won't admit that there is something that comes before empiricism.'

I have stated before, Lee - that 'something that comes before empiricism is the default human position. A child that flatly rejects empiricism has about the same chances of suvivall as a snowball in hell.

'Don't you have settle on a positive answer to the question of whether truth exists *before* you can then go on to learn that you can acquire truth, or at least some part of it, through empiricism?'

I don't even know how you would go about answering the question of whether 'truth' exists without accepting that there is a reality about which we can make true or untrue statements. You first need a subject you can refer to when you say 'this or that is true'. If you don't have that, the word 'truth' is meaningless.

'I also find it amusing that, despite the fact that, by his own admission, Singring has not had any empirical exposure to philosophy...'

Empirical exposure to philosophy? Wow, Martin, that sounds awesome - where in the world can I go to get 'empirical exposure' to philosophy??? Is there a lab somewhere conducting philosophy using empirical data? Are they doing experiments on Aristotle's causes?

'And what form does that take? Have you inspected the Large Hadron Collider personally? If not, upon what basis can you say with any confidence that it does what it is purported to do?'

See above.

Lee said...

> I have stated before, Lee - that 'something that comes before empiricism is the default human position. A child that flatly rejects empiricism has about the same chances of suvivall as a snowball in hell.

We're all headed for what the materialists view as the nothingness of death. So your hypothetical child dies a few years before you do. He ends up at the same place you do. We're born, we struggle, we die. All he did was skip the struggle part. None of this has any bearing on whether his world view, or yours, maps to reality more accurately.

The only that follows from your position is that you prefer your take on reality to his.

Singring said...

''None of this has any bearing on whether his world view, or yours, maps to reality more accurately.'

That is the crux with *any* basic assumption you make to work from. We all have to start somewhere, of course -- and this is where every human being (at least every sane human being I have ever known of) starts: with the assumption that empiricism gives access to truth.

'The only that follows from your position is that you prefer your take on reality to his.'

And so do you! We *all* tacitly accept that empiricism provides us with truth about the physical world. You do it when you unscrew a bottle of juice, you do it when you get in your car, you do it when you step out of bed in the morning. You, me, we all do it all the time.

So we all accept that empiricism gives us access to truth - otherwise the meaning of the word would be reduced to absurdity.

What I am asking you and Martin is for any good reason to think that there is any *other*, *additional* avenue to find truth - whether it be truth that applies to physical reality or to some other abstract realm (though personally I wouldn't see any way of verifying the latter). An avenue that is removed from empirical evidence and empirical data, but that none the less can bring us to conclusions about the universe that we can be confident are true.

Lee said...

> That is the crux with *any* basic assumption you make to work from. We all have to start somewhere, of course -- and this is where every human being (at least every sane human being I have ever known of) starts: with the assumption that empiricism gives access to truth.

Starting with a set of assumptions is what we all do, granted. But if your assumption set starts with the notion that empiricism, and nothing else, reveals truth, all you have done is place it outside the realm of argument.

My understanding is that many philosophers, sane or not, have indeed questioned that very thing. I don't think sanity is a requirement here. If you're seeking truth, you go where your thought processes and the evidence take you, sanity be damned (if necessary).

So if the insane may be permitted a voice, they could very well ask, what need do we have for this "truth" hypothesis? And why must I make sacrifices for it?

And what if the truth, having been arrived at (through whatever mechanism someone deems worthy), makes you unhappy?

I have already disclaimed any philosophical expertise, but my understanding is that the postmodernists have done exactly the sort of thing that someone like you should be disgusted with: they have rejected rationality and in its place embraced hope. Because rationality led them to hopelessness. Things have meaning if you want them to.

Since we only have one life to live (or so the materialists think), does it make sense to search for truth or happiness?

Singring said...

'Since we only have one life to live (or so the materialists think), does it make sense to search for truth or happiness?'

In my opinion, it's truth. Otherwise I would believe in 'happy love God X' who would make me live on after death for as long as I wanted and grant me any wish I wanted in the afterlife.

'My understanding is that many philosophers, sane or not, have indeed questioned that very thing.'

Maybe they have. But I doubt they operated under those assumptions.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I have have good empirical data to support the hypothesis that these machines, the scientists and the data they have produced do actually exist.

Well, the question is not only whether the machines and scientists exist, but whether the machines operate properly and whether the scientists were operating them properly and whole bunch of other things which you cannot possibly know simply by “good empirical data.”

I would love to know how you yourself have determined that the Large Hadron Collider is accurate, other than simply accepting it on authority--or, for that matter anything else of substance in regard to the discovery of the Higgs Boson.

The only people have know these things empirically are the scientists who actually did the work. Anyone outside it only knows these things on the basis of what these scientists have told them; that is, on the basis of authority.

So go ahead: give me the empirical data you have on the Higgs Boson findings that is not based on authority.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

What I am asking you and Martin is for any good reason to think that there is any *other*, *additional* avenue to find truth - whether it be truth that applies to physical reality or to some other abstract realm (though personally I wouldn't see any way of verifying the latter).

The question isn't whether knowledge begins in experience. Aristotle agrees with that. The question is whether experience alone is sufficient for knowledge--or, ultimately for science.

Simple sense perception does not contain in itself all that we need to know anything. In fact, even the process of coming to an idea involves a process which our mind performs (abstraction), which cannot be explained by taking only sense perception into account.

And when you reach the process of forming judgments in our mind (affirmation or denial), you are even further away from any justification in sense perception, since sense perceptions do not, of themselves, contain within them what is necessary to yield a judgment.

And then, of course, there is logical inference itself, which is not empirical, and yet it is necessary in order to derive truths from our concepts and judgments.

Conceptualization, judgment, and inference do not come from experience; they are metaphysical procedures we bring to experience. They are all necessary for scientific investigation (or philosophical and theological investigation, for that matter), and they are metaphysical from top to bottom.

Therefore, to say that empiricism is sufficient to know anything is not only overly simplistic: it is simply wrong. And when it comes to scientific inquiry itself, very little of what goes on is purely empirical. In fact, almost every aspect of science either presupposes metaphysical assumptions or employs metaphysical procedures.

The people who say science can operate outside of metaphysical considerations are speaking from ignorance, usually self-imposed.