No. Not 'believed to be true'.
'Have a working model for until such time as the working model is either shown to be wrong or supplanted with a better model.'
We have a working model of how the curvature of spacetime manifests as gravity. It allows us to build GPS satellites with a high degree of precision.
It does not require belief in it - no one doubts that it will eventually be subsumed by a more universal model.
We use it because it works.
How so?
I'm basically arguing that
All organized bodies of ideas held to be true are belief systems (by definition)
Science is an organized body of ideas held to be true (observed to be so)
Hence Science is a belief system
Seems perfectly valid to me.
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Hence Socrates is mortal.
The second part of what you quoted addressed the possible objection that "belief" is being used to mean ideas that are held to be true but aren't suitably justified. My observation about the rather opaque logic of science was meant to suggest that science continues to qualify as a belief system (an organized system of in this case poorly justified beliefs) even if we give the word 'belief' this stronger definition. I think that this stronger definition is an incorrect understanding of the word 'belief', but I want to show that adopting it doesn't really impact my argument.
And after all, the objections to my observation that science is a belief system (a rather innocuous comment) are seemingly motivated by understanding the word 'belief' in this stronger way.
Your claim is invalid.
I can't really object to that, but I think it misses the point. Not all belief systems, as you define them, are equally valid.I'm basically arguing that
All organized bodies of ideas held to be true are belief systems (by definition)
Science is an organized body of ideas held to be true (observed to be so)
Hence Science is a belief system
It seems obtuse to me for you to try to argue that widely-accepted scientific findings are "poorly justified". It is a hallmark of science to test theories against facts, in contrast to some other kinds of "belief systems".The second part of what you quoted addressed the possible objection that "belief" is being used to mean ideas that are held to be true but aren't suitably justified. My observation about the rather opaque logic of science was meant to suggest that science continues to qualify as a belief system (an organized system of in this case poorly justified beliefs) even if we give the word 'belief' this stronger definition. I think that this stronger definition is an incorrect understanding of the word 'belief', but I want to show that adopting it doesn't really impact my argument.
I disagree with you that the philosophical underpinnings of science have not been "fully revealed, explained or justified". I am aware of quite an extensive literature on the topic. In fact, "philosophy of science" is a well-established field of study at all good universities.The truth of scientific propositions and the suitability of scientific procedures is justified by belief in the existence of "scientific methodology" (singular or plural). Apparently based on some poorly formed ideas about evidence having some sort of bearing on the truth of conclusions and that whatever "methodology" it is that connects them is in fact truth-functional. Put another way, there's a whole lot of logic implicit in what's being asserted about science that is never fully revealed, explained and justified and seemingly is just being taken on faith. Once again, a belief system.
Yazata,
I can't really object to that
but I think it misses the point. Not all belief systems, as you define them, are equally valid.
Beliefs are subjective. They are all about what an individual does or does not find convincing, for whatever reason. That's a different matter from what is or isn't true.
To put it more starkly: plenty of people hold bodies of ideas to be true that are demonstrably not true.
That tells us that not all belief systems are created equal.
It seems obtuse to me for you to try to argue that widely-accepted scientific findings are "poorly justified". It is a hallmark of science to test theories against facts, in contrast to some other kinds of "belief systems".
I agree with you that justification - good or bad - is not necessary for somebody to hold a belief (or a system of beliefs). But here it seems you want to contrast science's justifications with some other, as yet unspecified, method or system that has a better justification? Do you think there's a better justified system of beliefs to be had?
I disagree with you that the philosophical underpinnings of science have not been "fully revealed, explained or justified". I am aware of quite an extensive literature on the topic. In fact, "philosophy of science" is a well-established field of study at all good universities.
It sounds like you don't personally believe in the existence of "scientific methodology".
That merely tells me that you have some kind of alternate "belief system" that you adhere to in preference to belief in science, fact and the like. What is it, and what features of your system make it superior to those of science?
It also sounds like you're trying to make an argument that evidence has no bearing on the truth of conclusions
There's a reason I chose the word "valid" there. Plausibility is subjective, just like belief. What you find plausible, I may not. Validity suggests a more objective standard. We talk about validity in the context of logical arguments because, in principle, everybody should be able to agree that a certain logical argument is or is not valid. The only prerequisite to that is to accept a small number of "obviously sensible" axioms. It is possible to imagine a situation where those basics aren't automatically accepted (e.g. instead of an axiom of identity we might consider whether "a thing can sometimes be other than itself"), but without them reasoning itself (as we know it) breaks down and there's no way to progress towards knowledge.I never said that all belief systems are equally plausible (note the change in wording).
The obvious difference between science and philosophy, if you ask me, is that science must always maintain a connection with the physical world that we observe, whereas philosophy isn't restricted in that way. Philosophical arguments can be logically valid but nevertheless fail to accurately represent anything that is actually observed in the physical world. Science, on the other hand, is constantly striving for a more and more accurate match.What (if anything) makes scientific arguments more valid than other sorts of cognition? Particularly when those scientific arguments aren't deductive? (Hence when logical validity doesn't apply.) Induction and abduction arise there, as do the foundations of logic and mathematics.
Personally I think that's one of the dangers of disappearing down the rabbit hole of ontology, disconnecting from the physical world in the process. If you try to live in a universe of ideas, there's nothing really firm to get a grip on.I am inclined to think that if we inquire into the foundations of even the ideas that we believe are most solid, that those foundations will be found to be murky at best.
As far as justification goes, I think I'm probably a pragmatist. Science, for instance, tends to produce visible results, most obviously in terms of the technologies that spin off from it. Religion has never delivered in the same way.I'm basically an adherent of the 'justified true belief' account of knowledge, so that knowledge (including scientific knowledge) is in my view a subset of belief, namely those beliefs that are indeed true and satisfactorily justified by whatever the standard is. (Which raises new problems right there.)
I agree with you that some knowledge of the philosophy of science is useful (all knowledge tends to be useful). Certainly it is naive to think that science has no limits, or that it is capable of finding all truths.Which it might do many Sciforums participants some good to study.
I agree that there are many different methodologies. I also think that the philosophy of science is a field of study that could do with more input from actual scientists, since it tends to be the province of the kinds of liberal arts types who tend to study philosophy. They aren't always best placed to understand what it is that scientists actually do, or why they do it that way. From what I've seen, they tend to bring their own assumptions and preconceptions to the table rather too often.I believe in the existence of many different scientific methodologies, rather than one single master methodology that supposedly raises science above everything else.
True, but there are common denominators.A big part of learning to be a scientist is not only learning the methods appropriate to one's science, bt also developing a feeling for what kind of method is appropriate when. It's largely a matter of circumstance.
These days "skeptic" is used in different ways in different contexts. The classical Socratic Skeptic is the kind of skeptic you're referring to, I think. The modern skeptical movement, on the other hand, is based on critical thinking informed by science, for the most part. Modern skeptics tend to emphasise critical thinking and scientific evidence-based methods for getting to the truth of things.I'm something that most of Sciforums will probably never understand: A Skeptic. Which is something very different than the sort of debunker who goes by that name here on Sciforums. A true skeptic is somebody who asks "Why?" to every proposition that they are being expected to believe, not just those that are inconsistent with whatever the debunker's own belief system is, which remains unchallenged.
I would suggest that, as a bear minimum, for any sensible discourse to occur between people, there needs to be some element of a shared reality. The most obvious common element would appear to me to be the physical world. Evidence is important because it comes from the physical world, and most of us (the ones who we generally label as "sane") tend to agree on certain physical facts.I'm not saying that at all. In my own thinking, I'm fully convinced the evidence does have bearing on truth. But I can't really explain what that connection is. The belief is a basic principle that just kind of floats, based on something very much like faith I guess.
A true skeptic is somebody who asks "Why?
I am not sure that Descartes' God is of a spiritual nature. Descartes' God may well be of a mathematical nature.It is always open to anybody to follow Descartes, say, and to doubt even the existence of physical reality itself. But look where that led Descartes. It led him to God, which is to say that it led him to fall back on his previously-held assumptions, having found nothing better to go with.
Well and succinctly said, pluto.Science and religion use completely different epistemologies so no science cannot be a religion.
If I remember correctly, Descartes identified his god as the Christian one.I am not sure that Descartes' God is of a spiritual nature. Descartes' God may well be of a mathematical nature.
Thanks for making me research the issue. This may be of interest to other readers;If I remember correctly, Descartes identified his god as the Christian one.
Despite similarities, Descartes’ version of the argument differs from Anselm’s in important ways. The latter’s version is thought to proceed from the meaning of the word “God,” by definition, God is a being a greater than which cannot be conceived.
Descartes’ argument, in contrast, is grounded in two central tenets of his philosophy — the theory of innate ideas and the doctrine of clear and distinct perception. He purports to rely not on an arbitrary definition of God but rather on an innate idea whose content is “given.” Descartes’ version is also extremely simple.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/God’s existence is inferred directly from the fact that necessary existence is contained in the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being. Indeed, on some occasions he suggests that the so-called ontological “argument” is not a formal proof at all but a self-evident axiom grasped intuitively by a mind free of philosophical prejudice.
Thanks for making me research the issue. This may be of interest to other readers;
Although he claims not to be familiar with Anselm’s version of the proof, Descartes appears to craft his own argument so as to block traditional objections.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/
My personal question is if the Universe is indeed a supremely perfect being. What does that even mean?
If it still has things to learn then it's not "supreme" (since there's always a chance that someone/ being knows something(s) this "supreme being" doesn't. Which would make the "supreme being" inferior in knowledge to that creature).To your last statement
Nothing . Because a Supreme Being never stops absorbing knowledge . Learning .
Therefore isn't really supreme.Therefore is never " supremely perfect " .
Really? How do you know?And has a Psychology as well .
↑
To your last statement
Nothing . Because a Supreme Being never stops absorbing knowledge . Learning .
If it still has things to learn then it's not "supreme" (since there's always a chance that someone/ being knows something(s) this "supreme being" doesn't. Which would make the "supreme being" inferior in knowledge to that creature).
And has a Psychology as well .
Really? How do you know?
In other words a supreme being isn't a supreme being?Exactly .
In other words a supreme being isn't a supreme being?
Couldn't you have simply said that?
I may be mistaken, but I believe there is a mathematical equation that rests on probability;I think that biological evolution by natural selection is probably true, even if I can't really justify that "probably" in formal terms. It's more of an informal intuition
In the theory of evolution and natural selection, the Price equation (also known as Price's equation or Price's theorem) describes how a trait or allele changes in frequency over time.
The equation uses a covariance between a trait and fitness, to give a mathematical description of evolution and natural selection. It provides a way to understand the effects that gene transmission and natural selection have on the frequency of alleles within each new generation of a population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation#The Price equation was derived by George R. Price, working in London to re-derive W.D. Hamilton's work on kin selection. Examples of the Price equation have been constructed for various evolutionary cases. The Price equation also has applications in economics.[1] ........more