Blog – dadd

The mysterious is the most wonderful experience we can have. True art and true science have their roots in this primordial emotion.

The World as I See it, 1931,

Albert Einstein

Realist and anti-realist arguments have been at odds for at least a century. Do scientific ideas accurately reflect reality, or are they simply true within a specific conceptual framework? Is science merely useful or adequate from an empirical standpoint, or is there more to it?

The mythical contemporary perception of scientific inquiry is as follows:

Given limitless time and resources, one can produce every imaginable theory without turning to reality. There must be one of these theories that is “true.” Scientists carry out experiments and compare the outcomes to the theories’ predictions in order to choose one or the other. When one or more of a theory’s predictions come true, it is said to be false. A theory cannot be “proved right” by any number of favorable outcomes, i.e., outcomes that support the predictions of the theory. Only reality, that great arbitrator, can disprove a theory.

Jose Ortega y Gasset said (in an unrelated exchange) that all ideas stem from pre-rational beliefs. William James concurred by saying that accepting a truth often requires an act of will which goes beyond facts and into the realm of feelings. Maybe so, but there is little doubt today that beliefs are somehow involved in the formation of many scientific ideas, if not of the very endeavor of Science. After all, Science is a human activity and humans always believe that things exist (=are true) or could be true.

It is customary to distinguish between thinking that something exists, is true, or has value or appropriateness (this is as it should be) and believing that it does. The latter is a propositional attitude, in which we think, wish, feel, and believe that which is being proposed. A belief in A is distinct from a belief in A.

Science places restrictions on itself and holds that only specific entities interact inside clearly defined conceptual frameworks (called theories). Not all things have the capacity to be interconnected. According to the kinds of relationships that entities establish with one another, worldviews categorize, classify, differentiate, and integrate them.

The cycle of formulation, prediction and falsification (or proof) is the core of the human scientific activity. Alleged connections that cannot be captured in these nets of reasoning are cast out either as “hypothetical” or as “false”. In other words: Science defines “relations between entities” as “relations between entities which have been established and tested using the scientific apparatus and arsenal of tools”. This, admittedly, is a very cyclical argument, as close to tautology as it gets.

Everything is connected to everything in ways that we are unaware of, which makes superstition a lot easier concept to grasp. We can only see the effects of these underground currents and infer their existence from the flotsam that can be seen. The planets have an impact on our lives, dry coffee sediments predict the future, black cats herald tragedies, some dates are auspicious, and other numbers should be avoided. The world is dangerous because it is unfathomable. However, the fact that we are unable to discover a hidden link due to our limitations should not be taken to mean that one does not exist.

According to science, there are two types of relationships between entities (physical and abstract alike). Direct links go under the first type, whereas links that go through a third party fall under the second. A and B are evidently connected in the first scenario. In the second example, there doesn’t seem to be a connection between A and B, but C, a third party, might be able to offer one (for instance, if A and B are parts of C or are separately, but concurrently somehow influenced by it).

There are three subcategories within each of these two groups: correlative relationships, functional relationships, and causal relationships.

A and B are said to be causally associated if A always comes first, B never happens without A, and B always happens after A. This appears to be a relationship of correlation (“whenever A happens, B happens”) to the astute eye, and this is accurate. The 1.0 correlation relationship category includes causality. It is a specific instance of the correlation case, which is a more generic situation.

#nature #universe #quantum #science #superstition

There are numerous varieties of tales and structuring ideas. Experiment data, the debunking of established ideas, and the development of newer, asymptotically truer ones are what propel science forward. Other systems are based on individual experiences, such as religion, nationalism, paranoia, or the arts (faith, inspiration, paranoia, etc.).

Both evidentiary and experiential narratives can and do interact with one another.

For instance, some scientists who view science as a way to “peek at God’s cards” and get closer to Him are motivated by their faith in God. Another illustration is the pursuit of scientific efforts, which is inspired by and boosts one’s sense of national pride. Science is frequently distorted to support racist and nationalistic ideas.

All narratives’ fundamental building blocks can be identified by how they affect the environment. In this perspective, electrons, quarks, and black holes are all analogous to God. All four constructions are imperceptible, yet their impacts provide evidence of their reality.

It is true that only in the social and psychological (or psychopathological) spheres can one see the effects of God. But He remains “real” despite the observed restriction. The proposed existence of God satisfies the criteria for the creation of scientific theories since it parsimoniously explains a wide range of obviously unconnected occurrences.

The believers’ minds are the sole and obvious location of God’s hypothesized existence. But once more, this does not diminish His reality. Our thoughts are just as real as anything else “out there.” In actuality, it is difficult to distinguish between ontology and epistemology.

But is God’s existence “real” or is He merely a product of our desperation and fantasy?

The degree to which our models can accurately predict and describe phenomena is measured by the truth. In people’s perceptions, God’s existence is successful in accomplishing both. Assuming, for example, that God exists, we may foresee many of the actions of those who profess to believe in Him. That being the case, there is no doubt that God exists (in this formal and strict sense).

But is there a God who is independent of human thought? Is He a factual being unaffected by what others may or may not think of Him? After all, the Sun would still be there, spinning as it has from the beginning of time, even if all sentient beings perished in a terrible catastrophe.

Would God still exist if a terrible catastrophe killed off all living things? Would God live if all sentient beings, including all humans, stopped believing that He exists? Does the idea of God “out there” encourage religious people to believe in him?

Observers are not necessary for the existence of known things (although the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics disputes this). The existence of believers is necessary for something to be believed.

The Sun is real, we know that. We have no proof that God is real. We have faith in God, but we cannot and do not know him in a way that is consistent with science.

Experiments that disprove the existence of electrons, quarks, and black holes can be created (and, thus, if all these experiments fail, prove that electrons, quarks, and black holes exist). Experiments can be created to demonstrate the existence of electrons, quarks, and black holes.

However, we are unable to create even one experiment to disprove the existence of a deity that exists independently of human belief (and, if the experiment is unsuccessful, to demonstrate that God exists “out there”). Furthermore, we are unable to create even a single experiment to demonstrate the existence of God to people who are not believers.

How does the “argument from design” stand up? Given how intricate and varied the cosmos is, it must have been designed and created by a superior intelligence, sometimes referred to as “God.” On the other hand, modern scientific theories like evolution and the big bang may adequately explain the world’s diversity and richness. God need not be a factor in the calculations.

Even so, it’s possible that God is behind everything. The issue is that we are unable to create even one experiment to disprove the idea that God created the universe (and, in the event that the experiment is unsuccessful, to demonstrate that God is, in fact, the world’s originator). Furthermore, we are unable to conduct even a single experiment to demonstrate that God created the world.

However, we can create a lot of experiments to disprove the scientific theories that explain how the universe was created (and, thus, if these experiments fail, lend these theories substantial support). Experiments can be created to support the scientific ideas that account for the origin of the universe.

This does not imply that these theories are unquestionably accurate and unchangeable. Not at all. Our current scientific theories are only partially accurate and will inevitably alter as fresh information from experiments is discovered. Newer, more accurate hypotheses will take the place of our current scientific ones. But all theories in the future of science will be able to be tested and refuted.

Belief and knowledge go together like oil and water. They cannot combine. Belief does not produce knowledge, and knowledge does not produce belief. Conviction or deeply held opinions can result from belief. But knowledge cannot come from belief.

Nevertheless, both verified and unproven claims are true. The former are “out there,” whilst the latter are merely “in our imaginations.” But despite that, they remain true.

god,minds,prove,scientific,theories philosophy

Science of superstition

Religion and Science