Empirical Evidence
In another thread there has been some talk of empirical evidence. Surely there has to be a stage where something is not provable, maybe there is not the tech to prove it, but you must believe it there other wise you wouldn’t want to find proof. Am I making myself clear? I get hay fever. How long was it before we could prove that pollen is the culprit?
Comments
Ah, postmodernism emerges again!
I'm not really following. As far as I'm concerned the accumulation of knowledge doesn't really work like this.
Nobody looked at cholera epidemics and immediately leaped to the idea that there must be a microscopic organism causing the disease.
It was more of a stepwise process. For example John Snow suspected the Broad Street epidemic was caused by the water rather than bad air, and used mapping of the victims to give a level of evidence. He then removed a pump handle and saw an impact on the outbreak.
He could have been wrong and he could have misinterpreted the available evidence, but in fact each piece of information he gathered was able to strengthen his understanding of the topic and narrow down the direction he should be looking for the causes and treatment of cholera.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak
I'm beyond that.
I understand that. But it strikes me that if we rely on only what is observable then we don’t move forward. It is, as here taking risk that leads to forward movement. Following a hunch that something is at work that we cannot see. That may lead to empirical evidence but is not.
Wow. You must be in a bad way. What follows post modernism in your thought world? Despair? Or a return to pre modernism?
Basically I’m still a modernist, though a bit refined by the justifiable observations of post modernism. I’m not naive about the potential capture of scientific investigation or historical criticism by academic power brokers. But once you see the risks, it’s possible to avoid them. You just need a decent moral compass.
No. It's about proposing a hypothesis and finding ways to falsify it. If the hypothesis is not falsified then that's evidence that the hypothesis is valid and it may become part of a wider corpus of understanding or knowledge.
One of the banes of public understanding of science is failure to understand what theory in science is. Theory in science is like Driving Theory or Theory of Music - it's the intellectual underpinning of our model of a part of reality. It's not a mere hypothesis, and it's not a "hunch" either. It's all the stuff you learn about why you observe what you observe.
This is where professional creationists deceive their followers with phrases like "evolution is only a theory".
Big theory science is usually a reaction to normal science unearthing problems.
The problem is that religion tends to promote hypothesis (or "hunch") to a status equivalent to scientific theory (i.e. taught in the science classroom/pulpit as "what we think is the case") without that experimental process to test it. What I think I and a lot of other people are asking is what religion's equivalent testing process is, and how do we know it gives reliable results? How does it self-correct?
This isn't to demand religion work like science, but it is reasonable to ask what the analogues are, to give rise to its truth claims.
We call it hypothesis but yes. The really important bit is subjecting it to the scientific method. It's not perfect but it has a good long term track record.
Mmm. But then if we look at John Snow's work on cholera and arguably many other scientists who have considered many things, they've spent a long time mapping, observing and explaining phenomena.
Another example is Florence Nightingale, who was a pioneer in Data Visualisation and statistics.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-florence-nightingale-changed-data-visualization-forever/
Not all scientific knowledge (or in fact knowledge in total) requires a test of falsifiability.
Another example happened during the COVID-19 pandemic; professors of clinical medicine fought pitched battles with (amazingly) professors of aerosol science. The former insisted that nothing could be known about facemasks without a full clinical trial. The latter, coming from engineering training, insisted that clinical trials were not necessary because there was existing data about the behaviour of aerosols and the effectiveness of barriers with different sized holes.
There's no "deceit" here. Statistics and visualisation are both tools of science, whether or not there is a formal test. Similarly, it is possible to learn from previous results and apply knowledge to consider likely results.
Most knowledge isn't like that. Most things we know are not formally proven in a scientific sense.
I know my wife loves me. I don't propose attempting a double-blind trial to find out if this is true. I have plenty of evidence (that might not meet the standards of a scientific trial) that this is true.
If I ever had a pulpit, I could talk about it. I could possibly even produce statistics and show evidence. But it isn't something that is even possible to interrogate with a scientific trial.
None of that really relates to my point that the proposals that are brought to the table are called hypotheses, and that Creationists deceive their followers by playing on a misunderstanding of what "theory" means in science.
Data analysis and observation are part of falsification. If my hypothesis predicts I should see pattern A in the data and I don't, then that may falsify the hypothesis (in principle; in practice It's A Bit More Complicated Than That)
(Also from a psychological standpoint it's more counterintuitive so you have to emphasise it to encourage doing it.)
Ok well I know a bit about data visualisation and we typically do not do that. It's entirely valid to do analysis and discuss what is seen in the visualisation.
a)
b) I'm trying to get the balance right on despair, yes. In folk postmodernist folk I've repeatedly encountered the inability to face the greatest single fact of all, especially on SoF, but among other friends. Infinity.
c) Science and history are at risk very mainly in America, in the 'free' world, from conservative 'Christians' and the cynical politicians, with no true moral compass, who feed on them.
She was worried about their lack of concern, or ability to process a logical argument. Wasn't quite sure which it was.
For my money, Martin, there is less respect for the value of a good argument these days. A kind of emerging barbarism. But I try not to let it get to me.
Good luck mate. We all go through times of change.
Aye, postmodernism is its own nemesis. Much like the inanity of 'you can't prove a negative'. People have stopped using that round here since I pointed that out. But they still believe it.
I'm astounded by how we turn our heads to make sure the elephant in the room is in our blindspot, or behind us, or above our heads between our knees. That infinity doesn't exist.
I'd welcome correction.
Maybe, but at some point guesswork happens.
What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?
Fear (of the unknown)?
You're not wrong.
Well, quite a while ago I became tired of being told that I'd go to Hell, and burn forever, if I disobeyed God's Laws™.
Somehow, looking at the Holy Priest™ who said this, I lost my fear...
The question "Why?" ?
Was this after the C17th?
I've heard such insane filth, very thinly veiled, from the same period. From an Anglican lectern. Just repeating the insane C1st filth of Rev. 22:15 which condemned about half his audience.
Or perhaps when no answer to *why?* is vouchsafed...
I appreciate this, @KarlLB, and will add it to the repertoire of ways I've heard the word "theory" clarified re: Science vs. a general usage of "theory" to mean 'unproven,' often in attempts to disparage Science.
It's closely filed in my mind near the idea of the field of History (& the more true the farther back we're talking) as an attempt to reveal probabilities, and not necessarily absolute facts.
Only half?
Joking aside, I'm not saying the Orthodox are 'better' than anyone else, but there us a reason why Revelation isn't used liturgically and why some Eastern churches were the last to accept it as canonical.
It is cited in books, articles and commentary of course. I'm not sure I've heard it referenced in an Orthodox sermon. I did once observe an Orthodox and Presbyterian scholar spontaneously join forces at a conference to roundly trounce the eschatological loopiness of a bunch of fundamentalist evangelicals who'd attended and who touting all their Dispensationalist guff.
That's not to say you won't find Orthodox who aren't 'damnationists' as you'd put it but I can't say I've found a big emphasis on it. Nor, these days, with a few exceptions, have I come across many evangelical or other Protestants tub-thumping about it either. That isn't to say it's not out there but it certainly doesn't seem fashionable.
However, not all interpretations are equal. We prioritise the interpretations of those who best understand the material. Such as, in this case, climatologists. And then, interestingly, the data becomes considerably less open to varying interpretations.
This is true; however it is also true that climatology is essentially advanced data collection, visualisation and modelling. It's not generally something that is falsifiable.
Still an important piece of science, of course.
But that's not the same as a double blind trial. Or the usual 'gold standards' which are usually in play when we talk about science. Because it isn't that kind of thing.
Exactly. There are no why questions.
@Gamma Gamaliel Among protestants in the US, I think it is the norm. Mainline ("liberal") protestant churches are dying here, at least according to statistical reports. The churches that are thriving or growing fall under the "evangelical" (whatever that means anymore - John Piper to Benny Hinn) umbrella preach eternal judgement. Hell fire is not the main sermon topic, but it is in the doctrinal statements.
So what does reveal absolute facts? Or is the set of absolute facts just very small and entirely outside the remit of science?
I'd also note that virtually all methods of inquiry begin from observation. 21st century science doesn't have a special claim to this, despite its bellowing.
There certainly are.
Not about non-intentional reality there aren't.