lol, well said

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, March 26th, 2013 9:24am PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

Ha, awesome XKCD reference (for the 2 people watching this that didn't already know that)

Also, happy birthday professor!

But if I pray hard enough, my rocket will fly too..

The problem we have now is that science has advanced so far that the average person just doesn't understand it. Science is progressing faster than our education of science, so we're running into Arthur C. Clark's third law that any science sufficiently advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic.

There is a scientific pathway that takes you from Newton's apple all the way to the most advanced computers and medical knowledge. The problem is, you can't fit that pathway into one easy to read book. You can't explain complex things in sound bites. We're talking the cumulative efforts and trial and error of human beings over the course of thousands of years that takes us from the discovery of fire to the interwebs.

You can't summarize that shit into a few simplistic parables and stories.

It's hard to understand. It takes time to understand. Not everyone *will* understand it. Not everyone wants to understand it. More XKCD goodness: http://xkcd.com/154/

but it happens whether or not you believe in it or understand it. Because someone else DID do the work.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by xxovercastxx.

I'll bother justifying why one should believe in science the day that the morons manage to record their antics into videos and place them on youtube through the use of prayer, rather than video cameras and computers.

I think teaching students basic scientific method when they are young can prevent willful rejection of science, due to ignorance, later in life. Non-scientists can't possibly know everything, yet, if they are sufficiently enlightened in scientific method, they can comfortably accept truths that are revealed using scientific method. Additionally, scientists needn't require proof for knowledge widely accepted by the scientific communities outside their particular areas of expertise.

Specialization also eliminates the need to know everything. Scientists know they stand on the shoulders of giants, that there was much to discover and learn long before they arrived in the world. But they don't have to know everything. It's like Sean Carroll discusses (kind of) in this video. You can be a physicist and know little of geology.


Edited: clumsy, nonsensical sentences

Even though I agree with him, I'm not quite satisfied with his answer.

There must be better ways to "justify" (whatever that means) the scientific method other than for its pragmatism.

Nope. The scientific method is the epitome of pragmatism. It does not claim to find "The Truth", it claims to find "the model that most reliably predicts measurable results."

It neither pretends, nor needs, to be more.

[edit to standardize the tenses]

@Stormsinger well, I can't argue with "Nope."!

It definitely sounds like he says, "if you base medicine on science you kill people.." and the captions agree.. =P

I apologize, I did kinda neglect my point. My point was that I understand why people believe in a god. it's easy, you don't have to think about it too much. God did it because god did it because I believe in it because I want to believe it. Obedience is all that is required. Obedience is easy.

Learning is hard. Understanding is hard. It's taken us thousands of years for us to get this far and even more for us to even be sentient. It takes a questioning mind, it takes investigation, it takes hard work and long study. Virtually every one who has been serious about learning things has one of those moments where they think X, but are presented with evidence that X actually isn't true, Y is, and here's why. You're pissed because you were certain X was right and your ego is bruised. but either someone explains it to you or you go through the evidence yourself and you eventually see where your error was. Guess what...you LEARNED something!

All science is is someone asking a question, creating an explanation to answer that question. creating an experiment that tests that explanation, perform that experiment and record your results so other people can do the same experiment and see if their results match yours.

Does it take faith to ask a question? Nope.
Does it take faith to come up with an explanation to that question? Nope
Does it take faith to come up with an experiment to test that explanation? Nope.
Does it take faith to perform an experiment? Nope.
Does it take faith to record the results of your experiment? Nope
Does it take faith to have someone else repeat your experiment? Nope.

Dawkins did not justify the scientific method in this clip. "It works" is an inductive argument (as Stephen Law affirms at :52) which faces the problem of induction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

It works the last time you checked, but why should it continue to work? To justify it you have to presuppose that the future will be like the past. What is the evidence that the future will be like the past? It's in the past, and thus the presupposition is based upon circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

I was hoping you would quote from the How To Book.

Truth can be defined as correct prediction.

No, the argument would be that if I follow Jesus' example and live by his words then it works--peace and some such nonsense. Huehue.

science is self correcting... its not a logical fallacy to say "it works", because producing results is what science is concerned with... and testing hypotheses, which is NEVER ENDING... something inherently without end and self referencing surely is confusing, but the scientific method builds on observation... so what? Well, maybe this will put it in terms one can understand:

"Adopt a view -- model-dependent realism -- the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If two models agree with observation, neither one can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration."


you will run into limits with a faith based system which the scientific method will accelerate by due to use of logic and model-dependent realism.

simple, no??? what do i win?? eternal torment in this form by having to exist with ignorant animals who deny their true existence?? Cool... somedays i wish i hadnt bit that apple, but it is done... and i take some comfort knowing that reincarnation is literally true for the physical world, but this planet is getting a little crowded ill never see the end or the start all i am is a middle... when can i sleep eternal...

http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/03/30/1857216/does-scientific-literacy-make-people-more-ethical

course you have to accept science into your life first...

You're making a straw man argument.

The "evidence" that the future will be like the past is the past itself. It's not proof. The seasons changing every year for all of recorded history doesn't prove that they will continue to do so, but any person planning a ski trip would be wise to make it in the winter. There is no presupposition whatsoever that nothing will change in the future, just an expectation based on the past that it probably won't, as with the seasons.

If any model has consistently made accurate predictions about the future, it is reasonable to assume that it will continue doing so. This is not an absolute statement that science is right, but rather an absolute statement that the scientific method has proven useful for explaining nature to such an astonishing degree that you're wiser to question whether the summer will come than whether the scientific method will continue to prove itself correct.

Is that true?

science is self correcting... its not a logical fallacy to say "it works", because producing results is what science is concerned with... and testing hypotheses, which is NEVER ENDING...

If two models agree with observation, neither one can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration."

All of science assumes there is such a thing as uniformity in nature. If tomorrow the laws of physics stopped working science couldn't self-correct that..it would become useless. The question was, what justifies the scientific method..and pragmatism doesn't justify it. You have to be able to answer why it will continue to work without using a logical fallacy to justify it.

you will run into limits with a faith based system which the scientific method will accelerate by due to use of logic and model-dependent realism.

In the case of Christianity, there aren't any limits. It was because of the Christian assumption that there is a Lawgiver who created an orderly Universe based on laws which helped birth the scientific method in the first place. Now science still operates with the assumption of an orderly Universe based on laws, but it denies the Lawgiver that created them without explaining why they should exist in the first place.

simple, no??? what do i win?? eternal torment in this form by having to exist with ignorant animals who deny their true existence?? Cool... somedays i wish i hadnt bit that apple, but it is done... and i take some comfort knowing that reincarnation is literally true for the physical world, but this planet is getting a little crowded ill never see the end or the start all i am is a middle... when can i sleep eternal...

Are you of the Hindu faith? Why do you believe in reincarnation?

I'm not sure what straw man you're seeing in my argument..could you point it out to me?

The question the man asked was how do you justify the scientific method..or, as dawkins said at :38 "how do justify your faith that science will give you the truth"

Here is the essential question: why is there uniformity in nature? Or, why are the laws of nature constant? This is the fundamental assumption that is made in every scientific test, which is that the laws of nature will continue to be constant in the future. Without that assumption science would not be possible.

Dawkins response to his question is pragmatism; it's justified because it works. Well, that doesn't provide any basis for justification. It works now, but why should it work in the future?

What you've appealed to in your reply is probability. You're saying it's more probable that the laws will remain constant because of the vast record we have of unchanging constancy. The problem is that it's still begging the question..what is the reason that probability will tell us what the future will be like? The best you could say is that it always has in the past, but you couldn't tell me why it should continue to do so in the future.

The straw man argument is that you claim/imply that someone claims that the laws of nature will always be the same, and so forth, then you say that that's not a possible claim to make. But nobody claims any such thing.

If the underlying intent behind the question is: "Why should I care about what science tells us about nature?", then "Because it works," is the best possible answer (even without the "bitches").

If the underlying intent behind the question is: "Why should I accept that science will always work?", then the only correct answer is, "You shouldn't accept that kind of claim from a scientist or anyone."

If the underlying intent behind the question is: "How is it reasonable to move from a probability to an absolute certainty?", then again, the only correct answer is, "It isn't reasonable at all, and when we talk of scientific "truths", that's a shorthand way of saying, "based on past observations, the calculated odds of such-and-such being true are so high that we feel confident saying it's true, but are open to the possibility that it's false." "

Nobody in that room or this asked why there is uniformity in nature, or why certain properties of nature have appeared constant as long as we've been observing them, so that's not "the essential question". We don't know the answer, and as far as I know, science has little or nothing to say on the matter of why they are consistent. It is only our consistent observation that no matter how we have tested things, there are certain properties that have never ever changed, like the speed of a photon, the charge of an electron, or the pull of gravity.

Science has worked incredibly well so far within its domain, so I'm curious why you think there's any reason to even raise the possibility it won't continue to work in the future.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Sift of the week!

The straw man argument is that you claim/imply that someone claims that the laws of nature will always be the same, and so forth, then you say that that's not a possible claim to make. But nobody claims any such thing.

I didn't claim or imply anyone did..I was pointing out that Dawkins failed to justify the scientific method because he did not overcome the problem of induction. I then further elucidated the argument by pointing out what the problem of induction is, and why pragmatism could not be justified in light of it.

If the underlying intent behind the question is: "

Listen carefully to what the man is asking and the responses; they're speaking in philosophical terms. The questioner is asking about justification, and Dawkins understood exactly what he meant when he framed the question as "what justifies the faith that science will give us the truth?" This is exactly the intent behind the question. It's a philosophical question, and Dawkins gave an inductive argument as an answer.."it works", but the inductive argument has its own issues which I have already pointed out.

Science has worked incredibly well so far within its domain, so I'm curious why you think there's any reason to even raise the possibility it won't continue to work in the future.

I believe that science will continue to work until the end of time, because there is a God who upholds His lawfully ordered Universe. This isn't really about whether science will work in the future; it's more about the nature and basis for truth claims. Empiricists claim, for instance, that knowledge only comes from sense experience. Empiricism is of course the cornerstone of the scientific method. Because most atheists trust in science to explain the world to them, they are empiricists by default and they think empirical evidence is the measure of everything that is true and real.

In a round about way, this is getting at the core reason for the question. It's cutting to the heart of a major problem that people have, which is that they are only skeptical to a point. They fail to see the assumptions inherent in their own worldview, or that they even have a worldview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

Everyone makes certain assumptions about reality, consciously or unconsciously, in order to function in it. This is something we have discussed before. You think it is unreasonable that you should ever have to justify something like your existence. I happen to agree with you here; it's completely pointless to argue about whether you exist or not. I don't think you should be skeptical of your own existence, and therefore it is justifiable to make that leap. This is an assumption you must make, and there are many more..such as the world is real. That, for instance, the Universe didn't pop into existence 5 seconds ago and all of our memories are false. You must assume that your history is real, and that the people you are meeting are not actors like in the Truman show. All of this sorts out to form the foundations, or basic beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief) of your worldview. A world view is like a pair of glasses you put on to interpret reality. My worldview is Christian, for instance..I interpret everything through the revelation of God. Most atheists are naturalists and so their worldview is naturalistic atheism. They interpret everything in natural terms, but this is also informed by their lack of belief in a God. A belief in God or a lack thereof is the cipher which will determine everything you believe about the nature of reality. It is the one truth that informs all other truths.

But here is where things go wrong, and why the question is necessary. People assume things about the nature of reality, and about logic, morality, and science which they cannot justify, and then they falsify truth claims on those topics with reasoning based on those assumptions. For instance, people will say that something isn't real unless there is empirical evidence for it, but this is based on the unjustified assumption that empirical testing is the only method for determining the truth. They will justify this claim like Dawkins justified the scientific method "science works therefore empirical testing". But pointing to the results to justify the assumption is logically fallacious reasoning. I could get out of debt rather quickly by murdering all of my creditors, but if I promoted this to you as a sound debt management plan, would you agree that being debt free justified the assumption inherent in the premise, that murder is acceptable? If you wouldn't, then you can see why no one should agree with the idea that because we sent a man to the moon, the scientific method has been justified. Results don't justify anything; the methodology used to get the results must itself be justified by a higher reasoning process. The idea empirical testing is the only way to obtain truth itself must be empirically tested; and how do you empirically test that idea? This is where the inductive argument completely fails.

Unfortunately for most people their skepticism has already turned off long ago and they are blind to the leaps of logic they make in their own reasoning process. They are only skeptical of what challenges the core assumptions of their worldview, not the assumptions themselves, and they evaluate all truth claims through these assumptions. It would be like if I wore glasses that saw only two colors and you wore glasses that saw three. Everything you told me about seeing three colors I would evaluate in terms of seeing two. I would be utterly blind to the third color because of my assumption that only two were possible. No matter how articulate your argument was, unless you could get me to take off those glasses (put down the assumption that only 2 colors were possible) I would never see it.

So this is the essence of the question..why should we trust science for the truth and not something else? To answer that we must challenge the assumptions that make science possible and see if they are coherent with reality.

Hurray!

and *controversy of the week.

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by messenger.

Science is a many splendored thing! Science lifts us up where we belong! All you need is science.

And when they haul you into court after your little murder spree you can always just tell them it wasn't really you but an evil doppelganger from an alternate universe. They will of course present "evidence" like clothing fibers, hair samples and fingerprints but they couldn't possibly admit those things when they are based on something as flimsy as empirical observations.

My biggest problem with inductive reasoning argument is that really it's just a simple fuck you response. The sun has risen on this planet again and again for the last 4 billion years or so but because inductive reasoning states that past performance is not a reliable predictor for the future. Holy shit! I'd better get my affairs in order because there's probably not going to be a tomorrow.

By throwing in Inductive Reasoning, you are basically saying that nobody can ever really know anything, that religion and science are all the same, which I suspect is the true intent of the argument. I think some believe that if they can take science and reduce it to being just another "belief system" or "World View" then religion and science will be considered equally valid.

Empirical reasoning exists because we need some kind of shared standard for reality. Without that the court would have to acknowledge that your interpretation of reality (and that of your doppelganger) is as real and as valid as any scientifically produced evidence and you'd probably get away with murder.

So now, anytime you feel like you're losing an argument that involves scientific evidence you can just say "Inductive Reasoning" and you automatically win the argument.

And when they haul you into court after your little murder spree you can always just tell them it wasn't really you but an evil doppelganger from an alternate universe. They will of course present "evidence" like clothing fibers, hair samples and fingerprints but they couldn't possibly admit those things when they are based on something as flimsy as empirical observations.

Empirical observation is very powerful, and obviously very useful, and I am not casting any doubt on that. Empirical evidence is good enough for most things, but usefulness does not justify it as a standard for truth. If you want to say we must have empirical evidence for everything except for the idea that we need empirical evidence for everything, then this is what is known as special pleading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

My biggest problem with inductive reasoning argument is that really it's just a simple fuck you response. The sun has risen on this planet again and again for the last 4 billion years or so but because inductive reasoning states that past performance is not a reliable predictor for the future. Holy shit! I'd better get my affairs in order because there's probably not going to be a tomorrow.

The problem of induction is simply pointing out the lack of rationale for why there should be a uniformity in nature (the constancy of natural law). Science has no answer for it; should the problem be ignored in order that the assumption may be justified? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

By throwing in Inductive Reasoning, you are basically saying that nobody can ever really know anything, that religion and science are all the same, which I suspect is the true intent of the argument. I think some believe that if they can take science and reduce it to being just another "belief system" or "World View" then religion and science will be considered equally valid.

I think you're mistaking my position because I am not trying to equalize science and religion; I don't see any conflict between the two. In my worldview, everything that science does is completely justified. I can explain why there is uniformity in nature, and why empirical observation works and can be trusted. My worldview explains why we can know something to be true, and where our rationality comes from. The naturalistic/atheistic worldview can explain approximately none of these things. My argument, essentially, exposes the gaping holes of that position and the leaps of logic over those holes that must be made to justify it.

Empirical reasoning exists because we need some kind of shared standard for reality. Without that the court would have to acknowledge that your interpretation of reality (and that of your doppelganger) is as real and as valid as any scientifically produced evidence and you'd probably get away with murder.

So now, anytime you feel like you're losing an argument that involves scientific evidence you can just say "Inductive Reasoning" and you automatically win the argument.

Most of what I am called to do as a Christian is predicated in some way upon empirical observation. I am not challenging its usefulness at all; what I am really pointing out in this reply is that the problem of induction is only a problem for the atheist/agnostic and not the Christian.

What you seem to be saying here is that we must have a standard even if we can't explain it. If that is so, or even if it isn't, then I am here to tell you that we already have a standard given to us by the God who created you and me. He told us directly what this standard was when He sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world to die for our sins. The standard is Jesus Christ Himself, who said He is the way the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him. What He told us is that we must repent of our sins and believe on Him for forgiveness of our sins and that when we do we will be forgiven and receive eternal life.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

It's kinda sad that the idea that science works is controversial.

SB, there are things we don't know. Yet. And that is all. The fact we don't know why nature is uniform doesn't prevent us from assuming it will continue to be uniform based on our experience. And so far, that has worked out well.

You're right, Messenger..in a pragmatic sense it is a good assumption to make. However, the conclusion that the scientific method is justified doesn't follow from that assumption, and that is the point of this video.

When you say "we don't know, but maybe we will someday" it reminds me of this quote:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow

I tend to see knowledge as a journey that spans over many mountains of ignorance, reaching the peak of one mountain gives you new insight but never the whole picture. To me, the difference between the theologians and the scientist was that the theologians gave up the journey centuries ago, while the scientist was just passing through.

On the contrary, scientists are trying to crack the code:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

As John Lennox said, scientists don't mind a "ToE", so long as there isn't a God attached to it. Richard Lewontin put it bluntly by saying that materialism is absolute, because "we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

Oh shinyblurry, you can always be relied on for a laugh.

The point you appear to be making, shinyblurry, is that science/Atheism (which are not the same thing but I see where you're coming from) refuses to consider theological arguments.

I have. I was technically a Christian, when I was too young to make up my own mind. Over nearly 10 years I went from believing every word of the Bible, through doubting more and more of it until realising that I no longer believed at all, that it was of moderate historical value only. I was no longer Christian. During this process, I considered theological arguments and found them all wanting.

I continue to read and consider such matters and I've continued to find the non-theological explanations for events and trends to be massively more convincing.

I think this is the same for most people with similar beliefs - these arguments have been considered and have been found unconvincing. The reason I am reluctant to engage in discussion is because the discussion has been had; nothing has changed since. The discussions become the same circular logic that contributed to me losing my faith in Christianity. The same discussions as have been happening for hundreds of years.

I'm perfectly prepared to consider the topic and reconsider how I think the world works, my world view if you like. If there was anything to discuss, I'd be happy to do so. But there's nothing to discuss because your arguments have been made many times by many people over many centuries and they're pretty much talked out. I have listened, I have discussed and I have considered. And I disagree.

I'm not Atheist because I am 100% certain that there can no be a God in any way. I am Atheist because of Russel's teapot. I've found no evidence and no argument which is even slightly convincing for any religion.

Lol, Christianity is a standard and a constant? If that were true then we'd still be torturing people for breaking the 10 commandments. Now there are what tens of thousands of christian denominations in the US alone that each have their own interpretation of the bible? Not much of a standard.

@Quboid

Regarding Russels Teapot, I feel it is an invalid argument because a teapot orbiting mars has no explanatory value. To ask whether the Universe was intelligently caused is a rational question, and Russels Teapot provides no answer to it; it explains precisely nothing. The idea of God however has explanatory value, and does provide an answer to the question. This is (one of)the difference(s) between the idea of God and the teapot.

Let me ask you this..do you understand what the scripture says about faith? I think we can both agree that we should have no expectation of arriving in New York by following the directions to Los Angeles. In the same way we should have no expectation of coming to know Jesus personally outside of the directions given in scripture. I want to tell you that the directions you are following will never lead you to know Jesus, so please allow me to open up the scripture to you:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

Faith is a gift from God. You will never come to believe that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah) by your own effort, because you cannot generate the faith to believe it. The question then becomes, how do you receive the gift of faith?

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of God.

The word of God gives you the ability to hear Jesus, and through hearing believe:

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Jesus is knocking at your door all the time, but you do not hear Him. The word of God will give you that ability, but what should you read?

John 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The gospel of John is written specifically so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. You may have read it before as a former Christian, but you may not have realized that without the Spirit of God you cannot grasp it:

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Therefore you must ask for help, which will take a ration of humility. Since you are an honest skeptic who will investigate, and you do not know whether God answers prayers, here is a possible clue to knowledge:

Pray to God:

I do not know if you are there or not, or whether Jesus is your Son, but if you are there I want to know the truth. Please help me understand the scripture I am about to read and show me what is true. If you will do this, I promise to follow the truth where ever it leads.

Then read through the gospel of John, and read it slowly and carefully, coming to an understanding of what is being said before you move on. Before each reading, simply ask God to help you understand it. If you will do this you will discover that Jesus is the Christ and come to know Him personally. God bless.

Well, the scripture predicts an apostate and fractured church in these times, so what you are seeing is consistent with the bible. The divisions that you see though are steeped in minor doctrines; what is considered orthodox to the faith (the life death and resurrection, the trinity etc) has nearly universal agreement going back to the early church.

If you are going to complain that Dawkins's response is inductive reasoning, then you cannot use scripture to justify your own argument as that is circular reasoning.

@shinyblurry, I don't care about scripture. I don't believe in it. I don't believe it was written by God, directly or through man. I believe it was written by man, alone, and has been translated, manipulated, and copied for centuries so even if it had any truth, it would be long, long gone. The scripture you quote is all about trying to fool yourself anyway. God could prove his existence in a millionth of a second, why is he so insecure that he needs to play games with us?

I used to pray, but I have never ever heard of one single prayer actually having any supernatural effect. It always comes down to confirmation bias or the placebo effect. Not once has a single prayer done a damn thing, yet people fool themselves into not only believing that it works, but that it always works.

Again, I have considered this at great length. I was Christian, I was probably baptised, I believed in God and I tried to talk to him. But I grew out of having invisible friends.

Everything, every possible set of circumstances, is "consistent with the bible", because your interpretation morphs to fit whatever reality you can't manage to pretend doesn't exist. When childish nonsense like "God works in mysterious ways" is considered a valid argument, absolutely anything will confirm your belief that the Bible says God is true and that's reliable because God says the Bible is true and that's reliable because the Bible says God is true and that's reliable because God says ...

Richard Dawkins - How to Justify Science - Doodle has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.