OT: Superman and Stemcells

[alexti]

Arryn said:
Desthai, religion fails the "reasonable doubt" test, nevermind the "shadow of a doubt" degree of proof. I had to say that first to get it out of my system.

Shall it be understood that you have a test *any* religion will fail? Or shall it be understood that you have knowledge of *all* religions and ready to present separate tests for each religion?

Arryn said:
Do you drive a car, or fly in airplanes? If so, you are placing an enormous amount of trust (enormous as in your life) in science, as well as in the skill of other drivers and mechanics. The reason you can get away with this is because the engineering these objects are based on is backed by meticulously-tested science

Probably by large, their engineering is based on practical experiments. And while you're at that, maybe you can explain the reason for lack of roll-cage in most cars? In particular, in the cars of individuals who place enormous value n their lives?

[Skolem]

Hi, I just beginn to read this post, but the topic is so near to my occupation, that I have to reply.
Arryn, are you trying to state, that "hard science (physic, chemistry and biology)" are more thrustworthy than religion, because they have hard proof of what they say?
IIRC this science are experimental, they state things, and prove them by testing them. How can you say that if something was thousand times observed it will function that way?
Actually I believe science wouldn't pass your religion test, as you believe in them having no proof for their truth, as did people believes in other religion.
Well will you say, but there is still mathematics, they don't rely on experiments, they are pure logic!
First, who say that the logical assumpitions we made are correct?
For exemple tertium non datur is highly debatable, as are other logical assumptions. And Last but not least, there is still the good, old, mighty Gödel argument, If you can prove me the consistency (that is the fact that a theory can not produce contradiction) of a theory, that can do simple arithmetic (you really dont need a lot, only something like non commutative additions of natural numbers) then I can prove you that your theory is inconsistent. What does this mean, it means that at best mathematicians can only know that they haven't any contradiction now, but they can never be sure that one can not arrive.
So you are saying you believe in something, who can prove , that it can't prove that it is correct. Well to believe in this (every mathematician does it), is for me the very same kind of faith act as to believe in a given religion, that is why so many Mathematician, and to a further extend Physician, believes in God (He has to make maths correct...!!!)
Skolem

[deccan]

Ahem, *cough*, let me duck beneath J.O. and Arryn and post in reply to this here:

Skolem said:
First, who say that the logical assumpitions we made are correct?

That's a valid line of philosophical inquiry and one could extend it in all sorts of weird directions, from Hume's skepticism of the validity of induction and the principle of causality to questions as to whether or not the axioms that comprise "classical" logic are in fact "true".

My own philosophical view dodges this problem by accepting that my personal motives / values etc. aren't in fact "logically justified", they simply "are". I wouldn't like to say that this is based on "faith". I regard them as not having a truth value at all.

From there, I can rationally proceed. How can I know that the law of induction is "true". I can't, but I can "know" that it has worked for me in the past (i.e. advanced my values / motives), and so I continue to employ it. Of course, past success does not logically guarantee future success, but what else do I have? Would it be more rational to not employ it?

How can I know that there is no "deceiving demon" constantly manipulating my sensory input and even memories "behind the scenes" of my consciousness? I cannot so far as the illusion is perfect. But if the illusion is perfect, then it is the "truth" as far as I am concerned.

The idea here is not to aim for a sort of "God's eye view" of the "truth", but for a personal, individual kind of truth. My contention is that this doesn't require the kind of "faith" that is commonly associated with religion.

As for mathematics, I think your comments are valid only if you have a view of mathematics, one not uncommon amongst mathematicians, that it has some sort of ideal existence independent of the physical universe. If you are willing to tie the existence of mathematics purely to a physical universe, then those problems ought to go away.

[Arryn]

Deccan, I just wanted to say that your grasp of philosophy is quite impressive, and your ability to express what you understand is even more so. Kudos. And after visiting your homepage just now I can see why.

Do you teach? If not, you should. I think you'd be very good at it.

[alexti]

Skolem said:
So you are saying you believe in something, who can prove , that it can't prove that it is correct. Well to believe in this (every mathematician does it), is for me the very same kind of faith act as to believe in a given religion, that is why so many Mathematician, and to a further extend Physician, believes in God (He has to make maths correct...!!!)
Skolem

That's not surprising. Most people can choose whether to believe in God or in science, considering that they have no means of validating (or even understanding either). Mathematician, physicist and other scientists often know enough of science to realize that they still need something to explain something unexplicable from the point of view of the science. Thus believe in God (often, rather abstract god, unlike ones in mainstream religions).