Scientific research is the clearest human expression of our desire to learn and understand the world in which we live. However, scientific research in itself is an important topic that deserves to be explored and tried to understand
We live in a time when science is an inseparable part of culture and human activity. Scientific progress enables the development of new technologies in the fields of transportation, communication, medicine, construction and design, home appliances, energy supply, computing power and many others; Science leads to the development of life-prolonging drugs and more effective treatment methods, allows obtaining larger and more durable crops and improves the ability of criminal identification.
Almost every aspect of our lives is affected by scientific development. But more than anything, science allows us to break through the limits of our knowledge about the universe we live in, about our environment and about ourselves. But science also has a dark side: alongside its important contributions to our lives, scientific knowledge is used to perfect our destructive power and other military applications that endanger us and all of humanity; Industrialization, which is intended to improve the quality of our lives, is largely responsible for serious pollution of the environment, and probably even contributes to climate changes that could lead to a disaster on a global scale. In the fruits of science, therefore, are embodied together Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the good and the bad in human activity.
Science being such an essential part of our lives is a relatively new thing in the history of human reason, which has gone through quite a few ups and downs in its attempt to understand the world. In the distant past, the accumulated knowledge was mostly practical, not theoretical, and the explanations about the nature of the world were mainly mythical: the perception was that nature is ruled by forces with needs and desires, and man is at their mercy.
The development of mathematics and philosophy, especially in ancient Greece in the second half of the first millennium BC, marked the beginning of the scientific age. It took the magical powers out of the game, and brought with it new hypotheses about the nature of the world and man. However, in the absence of a fixed and clear methodology for empirical examination of the hypotheses and their quantification, this period was nothing more than an initial exploration on the way to a better understanding of nature.
Over the years, much knowledge was accumulated in astronomy, anatomy, botany, mineralogy and many other fields, knowledge that was contributed to by many cultures; However, the beginning of modern science is commonly seen in the proposal of the heliocentric model of the solar system by Nicolaus Copernicus (Copernicus) in the middle of the 16th century, and even more so in the works of Galileo Galilei (Galilei) in the early 17th century, which laid the foundations for empirical and quantitative studies. This fundamental change in the methodological conception of the investigation of nature was the decisive step in the separation of science (until the beginning of the 19th century it was still called "the philosophy of nature") from philosophy, and it is the one that underpins modern scientific research.
What is science?
Following the rapid scientific development after the publication of Newton's works in physics in the 17th century, and due to the enormous influence of science on our lives, a field of knowledge developed that examines scientific practice itself. The purpose of this field, called "philosophy of science", is to examine questions related to scientific investigation.
Central questions in the philosophy of science are questions such as: What distinguishes scientific investigation from pursuits such as astrology, chirology, etc., and those that themselves claim to be bodies of knowledge? What is scientific method? What is a scientific theory? Does a scientific theory really tell us something about the world, or is it just a tool for predicting the results of experiments? Is it even possible to prove a scientific theory? What are the processes that lead to the replacement of an accepted theory with a competing theory? What is a scientific explanation? What are the criteria for preferring one explanation over other explanations? Is scientific practice objective, that is, do its results not depend on the circumstances in which they were received, or is it influenced by human, social and political factors?
Apparently, it seems that philosophical questions accompany human action but do not contribute to it. However, in 1982, the philosophy of science had a great influence on the decision of a judgment in a trial that dealt with the question of whether to recognize creationism as a science for the purpose of teaching it in schools in the state of Arkansas in the USA.
The creationists argued that the possibility of the creation of the universe by a supreme being can be considered a scientific theory in itself, which competes with other cosmological theories, and therefore should be taught in schools as science; On the other hand, scientists and philosophers of science pointed out crucial differences between the creationist position and the characteristics of a scientific theory. Judge William R. Overton accepted the position of the opponents of the teaching of creationism as science, and established in his judgment the criteria that a scientific theory must meet:
* It must be guided by the laws of nature.
* She must provide explanations that rely on the laws of nature.
* It must be empirically testable.
* Its conclusions are not necessarily final.
* It must be refutable.
Since creationism does not meet these criteria, the judge stated, it is not considered a scientific theory. Does this also mean that the creationist position is incorrect? Well, the question of the correctness of a theory or of a position, that is, the question of their compatibility with reality, is a separate question.
Not every scientific theory is correct, because scientific theories change every day; Also, there is no principled obstacle to a non-scientific position (such as a religious belief, for example), let it be the one that describes the real reality. Science strives for the truth, and does so with scientific tools, but the answer to the question of how true scientific theories are to the truth is not simple.
Between science and philosophy of science
The relationship between those involved in science and those who study scientific practice is a complex system. Sometimes it is possible to discover relations of mutual appreciation and cooperation between them, and sometimes relations of suspicion and criticism. The brilliant physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman is credited with the claim that the philosophy of science is as useful for scientists as ornithology (the study of birds) is for birds... On the other hand, we can point to the claim of the famous British philosopher Michael Dummett, that the benefit of scientific research is not Justifies the price we pay in terms of perfecting the means of mass destruction.
The philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend (Feyerabend) criticized the sole rule that science claims for itself in the world, where there was once a place for alchemy, sorcerers and other activities that were forcibly pushed to the margins, and whose legitimacy was trampled by the new ruler. However, for the most part, both sides adopt a system of coexistence, where philosophers of science do not tell scientists how to do science, but rather learn from their work and try to gain insights from it, and scientists accept the fact that scientific work is a subject of legitimate research, and even contribute to it with their insights.
Religion versus science
It seems that scientific innovations bring in their wake resistance, which stems from the (perhaps natural) difficulty of breaking free from a tradition of thinking that is hundreds and thousands of years old. The use of a telescope for astronomical observations, which was a novelty at the beginning of the 17th century, led Galileo to the discovery of sensational phenomena: mountains on the moon, moons of the planet Jupiter, appearances of the planet Venus, sunspots, and more.
These discoveries, published in 1610 in his book "The Messenger of the Stars", were met with disbelief by many of the educated people of the time (although there were also those who supported him), and in a letter he wrote to the famous astronomer Kepler, Galileo said that some of his opponents even refused to look through the telescope to examine the His arguments: "Dear Kepler, what do you say about these scholars, who, being full of the stubbornness of an idiot, regularly resist taking a look through the telescope? How will we treat this? Shall we laugh or cry?"
In 1632, Galileo published his book "Dialogue on the Two Ways of the World", in which he presented both the heliocentric model of Copernicus and the position of the church, which atoned for this position because it stood in contradiction to the Christian faith. Although the church, which adhered to the traditional geocentric model, did not oppose the use of the heliocentric model as a tool for predicting the movement of the planets, it opposed the spread of the idea outside scientific circles for fear of harming the faith of the common man.
Due to the publication of the book, in which it was clear that Galileo favored the Copernican position over that of the Church, Galileo was summoned to Rome to stand trial for heresy, and was ordered to freeze the heliocentric model and stop spreading it. A publication ban was also issued on all his writings, and he himself was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life.
The Catholic Church's struggle with Galileo symbolizes perhaps more than any other event in history the struggle between religion and science for the right to be the sole authority to determine the truth about the world; However, this struggle continues even today, and its most obvious manifestation is the strong opposition of devout religious people to the theory of evolution. Just like the opposition to the heliocentric model, the opposition to the theory of evolution stems from the fact that it does not agree with the Holy Scriptures and from the fact that it pushes man, who is supposed to be the crown of creation, to the margins of existence.
The education system in the United States has undergone quite a few upheavals due to this struggle between the religious and scientific establishment: in the XNUMXs, a law was enacted in one of the states in the United States that prohibits the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools, and when a biology teacher named John Scopes violated this law, he He was put on trial, which gained international resonance and was called the "monkey trial".
Today, when the theory of evolution is an integral part of the teaching of science in the USA, the religious establishment in one of its countries is trying to pass laws that would require the teaching of creationism - the position that the world was created by a superior intelligent being - as a scientific theory alongside the teaching of evolution (to market it as science there is currently a trend among Creationists call it "Theory of Intelligent Design").
In front of these efforts of the religious establishment in the USA stands the scientific establishment, which fights against the teaching of religion as science in schools, and sometimes this fight even takes place within the walls of the courts (creationists have had some legal successes in the past, which were later overturned by higher courts).
Dr. Marius Cohen teaches philosophy at Ben-Gurion University. The article was published in the January issue of the magazine "Galileo"
102 תגובות
Mathematics is absolute because it is based on basic assumptions. As the assumptions do not hold, the math is also wrong
After many years of research, it became clear to me that mathematics is the name of a scientific religion, therefore every mathematician has true and correct knowledge.
The knowledge of scientific religion is real and true and doubts should not be raised about it.
The scientific religion invented for itself a language of true knowledge.
The name of the language was like the name of the scientific religion, mathematics.
This language is based on an agreement chosen to scribble a line that looks like this 1 and it is supposed to express a quantity that is not perceived by the senses.
Only a scientific religion could come up with such a mysterious idea.
How does a line scribble with such a simple shape 1 suddenly express a quantity that is not perceived by the senses of a simple person? How can it be ?
And how would a simple person understand what this line scribble 1 is?
The scientific religion says that he does not need to understand, because understanding belongs to the mathematician who has true and correct knowledge.
A simple person should recite that this line scribble 1 expresses an aerial quantity according to an agreement, and this line scribble 1 has been given the name XNUMX.
And after these things, when the common man began to recite what he was commanded to recite, the scientific religion extended the agreement, and it created a line of numbers
There are infinitely many greater than 1, and an infinite series of numbers less than 1
There is no innovation in this expansion, and all the numbers created express only ethereal quantities that are not perceived by the senses, either greater than 1 or less than 1
This is how the language of scientific religion was created, and it is a language of ethereal quantities.
The name of the language - like the name of the scientific religion - mathematics. This language is understandable to virtuous individuals who have true and correct knowledge, and they are the mathematicians inclined to reason and logic,
After the mathematicians created a language for themselves, they began to investigate it in depth from every possible direction. It was a pure investigation out of interest and curiosity, and it had nothing to do with the physical reality in which man is immersed.
At the beginning of their journey, the mathematicians were engaged in the study of the numbers representing ethereal quantities, and were satisfied with that. The mathematicians followed the path of pure reason and pure logic from the beginning, because they believed that reason and pure logic would lead them to the truth.
It must be emphasized that the mathematicians determined by themselves what is pure logic and what is pure reason, and therefore they presented mathematics as a logical conceptual structure in which there are no mistakes, and it is impossible for there to be any mistakes.
The mathematical practice never developed a natural review mechanism that exists in reality on its own, and mathematics checked itself, solely on its own.
Therefore, a possibility was inevitably created here, that false information would nest within mathematics for hundreds of years, and there would be no way to eliminate it.
And why won't it be possible to eliminate? Because mathematics has already established in advance "that it is itself a conceptual structure that does not contain errors, and it is impossible for there to be errors"
Compared to the mathematicians who deal with ethereal quantities, the physicists stand
Those who deal with tangible quantities of length, weight and time, and they found the way to "dismiss false news" nested within their ideas.
Physicists always put their ideas to the test of the practical experiment, conducted in natural physical reality. An innovative practical experiment can invalidate a physical theory that has been accepted for many years, and in its place will come without hesitation a new theory.
Therefore, it is no wonder that physics as a practical science is constantly changing, and following the changes it improves in understanding reality, and reaches wonderful practical achievements, which are currently on the border of science fiction.
On the other hand, mathematics is a theoretical science that is full of lofty ideas, and there are no actions in it. And since there are no actions in it, mathematics does not have the possibility of the physicists, to reject false information by means of a practical experiment.
False news appeared in mathematics, when it entered the geometric field.
Mathematics established that the perimeter of a polygon that blocks a circle is always greater than the perimeter of the circle. She also determined that a single number whose value is 3.14 is what allows the transition between the diameter of each circle (small or large) to the length of its circumference.
These are two false statements, and it is possible to eliminate them from mathematics, only in the way of the physicists, that is, in the way of an actual practical experiment.
Such a way was immediately rejected by the mathematicians, because they determined that it is only possible to talk with them through reason and logic, and there is no point or need to propose a practical experiment.
Therefore, mathematics itself prevents any possibility of removing false knowledge from it.
Mathematics also worked in the geometric field of curved lines with the help of Newton and Leibniz's calculus, and this activity also contains false information.
Mathematics has also invented false numbers that cannot be written down.
These fake news nested within mathematics for many years, and mathematics did not
could get rid of it, since it has no way to get rid of false news.
As soon as mathematics established a geometric truth, it was not allowed to be doubted.
But there was a field of mathematics that was always free of false information.
The field of mathematics in which there is no false information is the field of the invention of numbers, where one, two, three, and so on are counted.
This is exactly the field where the computers capable of counting quickly operate.
Amazingly, mathematics is considered the queen of exact sciences, capable
Always reach the truth research, and this is the biggest false knowledge, it's time to get rid of it.
A. Asbar
If science is a "pseudo-reality" then everything written above did not happen in reality!
Whatever
Nadav:
If there is something in your words that you want me to take - just don't write it.
On the other hand - you don't address things at all and I've already repeated them twice and the second time in great detail so I won't repeat them the third time.
On the other hand - the debate is already really boring, so let's leave it and move on.
Mathematics as a whole, in my opinion, exists only by force, so for me it is also incorrect to say that mathematics is God, it is more correct in my opinion to say that mathematics is the power or strength or ability of God
Michael, you take what you want from my words to prove your claim, I did not say that everything has a reason, I said that everything finite and limited has a reason, this reason is found in the thing that ends and limits the thing itself, the claim of causality does not derive from the fact that everything has Cause .
Your claim that mathematics has no reason but exists in practice is wrong for me, because it says that things can actually exist that have no reason, which is absurd, because what exists in practice exists in a definite and definitive way
Nadav:
you dodge
If you say that everything has a reason, you are making a statement that for you is in the status of truth - just like mathematics is for me (with one difference, which is that, according to me, there is no internal contradiction).
If you claim that mathematics must have a reason - you need this claim to have a reason (because otherwise, according to your definition, it is not part of reality).
I said that mathematics is part of reality because it is true in every possible reality.
You want to base your claim that mathematics is not part of reality on a claim for which you have not provided a reason until this moment and therefore - according to your definition - a claim that is not part of reality.
Well - I don't accept unrealistic claims as justification for anything.
Ha 🙂
To M.Y. Kal and nad:
If "there is" no reason and "there is no" a reason, who determined that a law that "determines" that it is final is really "reality" itself?
Not only that, if all finite things have a reason and every reason has a reason then when will the fun end?
Trilili and Terlahla Lolilo and Lolila
From Yakal
I do not "determine" any law, I conclude, when you say that a certain "something" is finite, you are in the same breath saying that it exists within something that determines its end and limits it, and is the reason for its existence in its final form, then if nothing existed "Other" that would limit it then it would be infinite, the reason for the existence of a thing is also the reason for its finitude
I didn't say that every "truth of reality" has a reason, but all finite things must have a reason
Nadav:
My opinion is different, but in my opinion there is no point in arguing.
You establish without any reasoning a strange law which says that while a finite set of events needs a cause, an infinite set does not need a cause.
Let it be!
What is the meaning of this infinity without mathematics?
You say that everything needs a reason.
Do you think this is true of reality?
What is the reason for this truth?
You don't have to get out of it, but as long as you don't get out of it, your words won't make sense to me.
M-Yachal, I don't need to get out of it at all, for every finite and limited thing there is a different and separate reason from it that is also finite and limited, and so on ad infinitum, this is the case with all finite and limited things, why even get out of it?
If you ask what is the reason for all this infinite mechanism then it is a wrong question because the definition determines the existence of a reason only for finite and limited things and not for infinite things.
A circle is finite and limited, therefore it has a reason that is related to the structure of the two-dimensional space, which is also finite and limited because of the structure of the three-dimensional space, which also has a reason, and so on and so forth. A consequence of another physical entity
Ghost:
I don't understand where you are going and what you are trying to say.
What is important for what need I use mathematics.
If "in my opinion" a certain stone is used as a weight to prevent a sheet of paper from flying away in the wind - does this mean that this is the purpose of the stone?
I use mathematics both when I do business, both when I try to understand physical reality and when I try to explore mathematics itself.
Reality is reality - I have already explained my opinion on the matter. There were electrons before the human mind grasped their existence. There is no meaning to more than one reality and I have already said that different beings may notice different aspects of the same reality, but since these are different aspects of the same thing, there will be no contradiction between them, only complementarity.
Beyond that - there are certainly parts of reality that no human or animal experiences and they exist nonetheless.
Does that mean that for you mathematics is a tool for analyzing reality?
If so, then which reality? Your perception of reality is human, so the analysis you do will be too
Towards the reality perceived in the mind of a human being, and not valid for the reality in the mind of other animals.
This means that you understand the 'way' that explains nature to man, and not something that exists in nature.
Ghost:
Let's start with the fact that, in my opinion, mathematics does not try to do anything. She has no desire at all. She is completely still.
Physicists try to explain physical reality and they make use of mathematics for this purpose.
Merchants also use mathematics, but this use has nothing to do with science.
Mathematicians do mathematics for…. the fun
Michael
In your opinion, would the definition that mathematics tries to explain the physical process be correct?
Higgs:
I don't think you are presenting a different opinion than mine at all.
For some reason you choose to call parts of mathematics that have not yet been discovered by another name while I call them mathematics.
As I said - mathematics existed and was correct even when there were no humans - that is - when they had not yet discovered anything. Would you divide the mathematics that had not yet been discovered at all into "mathematics" and "something beyond mathematics"?
Nadav:
The desire to base everything on a reason is a futile desire because even a reason needs a reason and you will never get out of it.
In my opinion, mathematics is by definition one of the things that do not need any reason.
Avi Blizovsky
Thank you for your efforts, the site looks very well maintained
Mi-Kal, I understand and partially agree with you. I personally believe in causality.
In my view, what exists by force is anything that cannot find a reason that prevents its existence, while what exists in practice is anything that has a reason that requires its existence, which also exists in practice
A perfect circle, for example, exists by force because there is no reason that can be found from within its definition or outside of it that would prevent its existence, but it is possible that in reality as a whole there is no perfect circle (such that the thickness of its borders are zero and its circularity is infinitely precise) because there is nothing in reality as a whole that is capable of producing a circle such a
If according to you mathematics exists in practice then there is necessarily an active reason for its existence as well and mathematics depends on this reason,
Therefore, for me, it is not possible to put mathematics before physical reality, all things that exist (in force and in action) are simply different expressions of the same being and both exist at the same level of reality.
M-Yachal: (This is what I realized that your name lights up the beat - a beauty that compliments the status)
I think your last sentence could have been the name of Mario Livio's book. He meant the same thing.
I think more or less in the same direction. In any case, there is a significant difference between the opinions. A difference that depends on everyone's personal choice and the point of view that everyone believes in and everyone has their own way of defining the essence of an independent mathematical reality.
I personally believe that mathematics as we know it. is a narrow derivative of a "much broader mathematics" picture. In the same way that the perfect circle is a narrow idyllic template that is convenient to use as a starting point. However, which is not found in nature. It is possible that in the future the mathematical circle pattern will express a much wider starting point. For example, a pattern that will express the curvature in a much greater generalization and in higher dimensions. Such a type of pattern will include the basic pattern of the two-dimensional perfect circle as we know it today.
I feel well.
After several arguments that escalated I had to mark some keywords that the comments containing them are checked by me before uploading them. Nothing personal against you.
Higgs:
In my opinion - mathematical entities actually exist - maybe even more than the physical ones (more, in the sense that even if it turns out one day that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes in some of which the laws of physics are different, the mathematics will be valid in all of them. That's why I say that mathematical research is actually the study of the possible worlds While physical research deals with the world in which we live.
I think so much that the mathematics actually exists that I do not rule out the proposal of Tagmark which raises the possibility that basically everything is mathematics (and thus answers Marius Cohen's question - "Is God a mathematician?" the surprising answer - "No! He is not a mathematician! He is mathematics itself!")
Nadav:
The misunderstanding is understandable 🙂 But really, for me, mathematics exists in practice and not by force.
What exists in force are physical models that obey these and other mathematical laws.
What still exists in the force are the mathematical discoveries that have yet to be discovered.
But mathematics itself exists - and in practice - whether we deal with it or not, whether this or that model is realized in the physics of this or that world or not.
Mathematics is accepted as "the study of the possible worlds" because those who claim this (and I am among them) believe that it is true in all of them and does not depend on them.
In my opinion - not everything that exists in force actually exists.
In force there is a dinosaur living nowadays.
In practice - no.
The enigmatic boy from Mumbai also exists in force and not in practice.
The 11/9 disaster could (forcefully) have been caused by the Israeli establishment. I don't believe this is actually the case.
Hello to my father Blizovsky
My response is waiting for confirmation for some reason.
Hope this is not a punishment for being absent from the site.
Besides, how are you?
Michael, the reason I chose to understand the matter this way is because of your statement that reality is everything that exists in "action", while in my understanding mathematics is everything that exists in "force", reality in my opinion (and probably also in your opinion) is everything that exists (in practice and in force) therefore Your use of the concept "actually exists" led me wrongly to what I understood.
Hi Michael, how are you?
Mathematical Entities: Supports the approach except that these involve subjective recognition from the assumption that a human mind is supposed to understand mathematical language. There is no telling if intelligent non-human beings will understand the meanings. As it is impossible to know if in a thousand years or more the function that mathematics fulfills will not be replaced by another tool and perhaps during that period this language will be forgotten as other languages have been forgotten.
In my opinion, only independent things belong to the group of concepts to which the definition "reality" can be attached.
And therefore the consistency of the mathematical patterns belongs to the definition. Because the appearance of consistency - when connections between patterns are discovered and proven - does not depend on subjective choice.
That is, you cannot predict that they will appear until you try to prove them and discover them.
And from this point of view, there is independence in choosing the starting points that the path of development in the field of evidence led to finding new connections.
I won't elaborate, I just passed by here.
Eddie:
The dispute is clear.
In my eyes the mathematical entities exist no less than the physical ones and do not even depend on the existence of ideas.
If we take the circle brought here as an example - it would exist even if there were no thinking beings in the world.
The stars would also continue to obey the mathematical laws even if man had not researched these laws (and it is a fact that they did so before man researched the subject).
In any case - I only mentioned the subject due to Nadav's response who for some reason chose to understand that I do not include mathematics in reality while I include it in reality more decisively than you.
I do not include Harry Potter in reality.
I include in it the book, the story, and even the possibility of telling this story or other stories that have not yet been told.
I do not include the content of the story in it.
Eddie (71),
What do you mean by "physical reality" (or "reality" in general)?
I would be interested in your answer regarding the following situation:
Let's look at a computer (which, if I understand correctly, belongs to "physical reality"). On this computer there is a program (to which reality does it belong?) that draws circles on the screen. The concept of "circle" has some kind of representation inside the computer - to which reality does the concept of circle belong in this computer?
Eddie, in 56 I simply accepted your opinion that physical reality is not the only thing that exists, if we define "reality" as everything that exists, then everything that exists is expressed both in a physical form and in the form of eternal ideas in thought, that is, mathematical reality and physical reality are merely two expressions of It is there
Nad,
To your response in 56:
Your wording is interesting. Could you elaborate more on your position? Thanks.
potato,
Thank you for the praise in response 50. There are those who do not like the philosophical debate in scientific contexts - I am glad that there are those who understand science in a philosophical context as well.
That's why people like Michael Rothschild and Ehud are especially important to the site, beyond their concrete scientific knowledge.
I - I certainly do not think that there is anything intentionally improper about delaying the response. There is a machine here that works, and it happens that optimal results are not always achieved. Admittedly, there is room for improvement, but the editor's idea to conduct an investigation on inappropriate statements is correct, if we want cultural and reasonable litigation on the site.
I think that Michael Rothschild should not be linked to the matter of the postponement at all. - In my opinion - beyond all factual disputes - he is a person with a level of personal fairness that I would wish for many others.
Let's all decide that we don't resort to purely personal attacks and accusations - it's not true and unfair, in general.
Michael Rothschild,
Regarding the link you mentioned in response 58 and further to the things in response 30 - I would like to clarify my position:
In my understanding, physical reality is not the only possible reality, nor is it the only actual reality.
Mathematical reality is an existing reality (in the intellectual plane) and therefore the mathematical concepts are real. Although they are not 'objective' - the 'objectivity' belongs (to a certain extent) to physical reality or to any reality where things 'exist' by virtue of themselves and only have to be 'discovered'. Likewise, they are not quasi-Platonic 'ideas' (which we have discussed in the past). They are rational - because they are coherent, and they are created in a rational process, and from the point of view of reason this is enough to make them realistic, that is, they belong to an independent existential framework.
Although, it is possible to try to overlap the mathematical reality and the physical reality - but certainly not to an absolute extent. Since these are two different realities - it is clear that one transcends the other. That's why I thought in the past that Prof. Livio's words on the subject of the compatibility of mathematics with physics - were wrong.
When:
Everyone believes in something. This is true and I have always said that I believe in the principles of logic and mathematics.
The problem is never with the one who believes in these principles because these are principles that everyone believes in - even the most religious.
In fact without the application of this belief there is no way to even think or hold a conversation.
Belief in these laws developed in us during evolution, which in fact operated - without awareness, and as a result for a long time - in the scientific method - in doing experiments on animals and humans and in destroying those whose principles of logic they believe in are wrong.
Therefore, the problem is not with the belief in logic (which, as mentioned, is common to everyone and is based on scientific "research" that evolution "conducted") but with other beliefs that are not shared by all humans and that are not based on anything other than brainwashing of sorts.
The problem is exacerbated when those same beliefs make people think they have the right to interfere in the lives of others.
Everyone believes in something. No matter the content, you believe in science and rationality. When you assert your claims, they come from -faith- in the truth that stands there according to your personal point of view.
You cannot say that your words do not come from -faith-. Maybe if you were a machine it would be true. And it's not certain either because there is a programmer behind the machine who also believes in something.
Lisa:
You probably don't understand the term "religion" but if you really follow the comments then you have already seen my explanation of the abysmal differences between religion and science and the fact that you insist on comparing shows that the explanations don't help you so I won't repeat them to your ignorant ears.
to Michael (66)
My short stay on the site and following this discussion in particular is my impression that your beliefs are no less religious than some of the other Medians.
opal regret:
My father also explained to you what was happening, but you are on your own.
As I mentioned - the truth is of no importance to you - what is important to you is personal attacks.
The skeptic:
It's not a hot temper - it's calculated.
You are welcome to follow the progress of the discussions in the period before I started participating in them or during the break I took.
When I don't act like this - disdain for science and others flourishes and postmodernism and religion rear their ugly heads and turn the responses into a propaganda and brainwashing device.
And I would be very happy if all your messages were deleted and only because they do not contribute at all to the discussion...
get lost
Potato, I think you are bored just trying to take advantage of Michael's hot temper without having anything to do with anything...
And he always falls into the trap….
I don't know what you get out of it? It's not even remotely funny...
Come on, get off the man... he generally speaks his mind, and listens to the opinions of others and answers his opinion again... it's called a debate in Hebrew. Everyone sees it as a positive thing except you. You see it as a sport where Michael must lose... you have problems, dude …
Mr. Michael Roshe Til:
You think they will believe you that you are not the one who delayed the response for about 12 hours. Because your name was mentioned and you don't like people opposing your opinion. Allow us to laugh at most of your disdain for our ability to understand simple things.
I would like to recommend to the visitors of the site and to the debaters here in particular, a book by Gil Kalai.
He talks about philosophy of science and scientific discussions in the blogosphere.
This is a book full of humor and has a special touch for this discussion in particular.
In short - a must read! have fun
http://gilkalai.wordpress.com/gina-says
Nadav:
You are welcome to read my first response in this debate (response 43).
Among other things, it says:
"Don't get me wrong: ...in other words - reality simply includes logic and mathematics and the logical discussion - mathematical is part of the discussion of the existing reality in which there are also the mathematical theorems that can be formulated also regarding objects that do not represent anything tangible."
Therefore, you are also requested not to misunderstand me.
As mentioned - the debate between me and Eddie - and the debate I pointed to in my previous response shows that from both of us I am the one who thinks that mathematics has an objective existence - not only in our world but in every possible world.
The circle is only a private case of this fact and its existence does not depend on being imagined by someone.
Michael, I would appreciate it if you could clarify, didn't you claim that:
"Reality is what is actually found and not some imaginary world that someone creates in their mind."
And if this is so, then a "perfect circle" is an idea created in our minds and there is no such thing in practice
And yet it is more "realistic" to both you and me than many other things
Michael, I would appreciate it if you could clarify, didn't you claim that:
"Reality is what is actually found and not some imaginary world that someone creates in their mind."
And if this is so, then a "perfect circle" is an idea created in our minds and there is no such thing in practice
And yet it is more "realistic" to both you and me than many other things
By the way, Nadav, if there is a debate between Eddie and me on the subject of mathematics, it is in exactly the opposite direction from the one you tried to support.
Feel free to read the argument represented by this comment:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-god-a-mthematician-1512095/#comment-257144
Anonymous / Nadav:
You probably didn't understand my words.
I am the one who always claims that sixty mathematicians are more realistic than all the other things.
This also emerges from my words here and it is not part of the debate.
I quite agree with Eddie, mathematical applications are ideas that are derived from generalizing (or excluding) observation of the intellect on reality, for example the intellect sees shapes characterized by circularity and infers the idea of a perfect circle, even though it is not necessarily that a perfect circle exists at all but only an approximation, the same generalization of Things that are perceived by the senses as ideas make mathematics possible, that is, mathematics is a common concept of the mind and reality
If all that is found is only physical reality, then mathematical "applicables" do not exist at all, which is absurd
I quite agree with Eddie, mathematical applications are ideas that are derived from generalizing (or excluding) observation of the intellect on reality, for example the intellect sees shapes characterized by circularity and infers the idea of a perfect circle, even though it is not necessarily that a perfect circle exists at all but only an approximation, the same generalization of Things that are perceived by the senses as ideas make mathematics possible, that is, mathematics is a common concept of the mind and reality
If all that is found is only physical reality, then mathematical "applicables" do not exist at all, which is absurd
The Irrespective Mr. Potatoes:
I am not justified.
You probably don't distinguish between justified and right.
Everything I said is true and everything you said (the small part that isn't a lie) is irrelevant.
The honorable Mr. R. T. Shield...
Why would you be unfairly justified? And why the transparent hypocrisy. Soon you will say that you don't step on ants because your mercy has been rewarded.
Couldn't you read like everyone else that his response waited about 12 hours before it was released. when it was not relevant.
Take a look at his response #47 to Meninim.
Potato:
Your words are just nonsense.
I have no control over the words that cause filtering.
There are those who have decided to block the use of my name (in my opinion, rightly so) because there are a lot of people who cannot stand being disputed and because I occasionally put people in the wrong - many of them tend to engage in unjustified personal attacks.
The fact is that Eddie's comments - which were polite - were released even though they disagreed with my words.
This fact clearly shows that your claim is not a true claim and the fact that you wrote your comment after(!) they were released shows that you are not really interested in the truth.
It turns out that you are one of those people who, because of their tendency to attack for no good reason, have been filtered.
But the software is stupid and easy to bypass
Eddie
Your philosophical statements are polished and graceful.
As well as dealing with the concept of what reality is and how Zionism can be reconciled with the concept.
Allow me a little Tim…. The reason for —>the response is waiting until Bush== use of one of the failing words.
I guess after a little analysis the forbidden words are…. Michael Ruth Shields - without profits, apparently he doesn't like to be divided.
Eddie
I quoted a letter in the discussion on clinical psychology, where the claim was made that the only criterion for evaluating clinical psychology is scientific, that is, what is not objectively measurable is irrelevant.
Eddie:
Also in my opinion "riots" are out of the question and laws that do not correspond to logic and mathematics are out of the question at all.
This, by the way, even stems from the definition of the laws of nature as those that correspond to experience, because if there is an internal contradiction between the laws within a proposed system of natural laws (a theory) it is always possible - through logic - to plan an experiment that disproves the theory.
As for the realities that have nothing to do with reality (I purposely used the word "reality" twice - just to use a coin of the language that well illustrates the mistake you make in using this word) - I have nothing to say. I am not interested in them.
From Eddie:
Your response is awaiting approval
4-02-2010 בשעה 0:56
Michael Rothschild,
In response 43 you touch on an important and deep question - what is 'reality' as well as another question - what is 'there'. The two questions are not equal.
The above questions have philosophical and scientific aspects.
We have a rather short history of litigation around the question of whether everything can be reduced to the physical level - that is, around the materialist concept - and the issue has a connection to the above questions.
Since you touched on the question of reality, I want to clarify my opinion more, at least in general.
It is clear that in my opinion the concept of 'reality' is not reduced only to the physical level (for example: I think that mathematical reality is separate, in important ways, from physical reality, and mathematical entities are real entities - in their unique mathematical reality). On the other hand, I want to strongly tie the concept of 'reality' to a logical rational procedure (reality tends to be rational at least on the basic logical level) and illusory 'riots' are out of the question.
I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the issue, and then maybe we can find out the issue in a more detailed way - if you want to, of course.
sympathetic,
To your response 33:
It's fine. Ideas are not the 'property' of anyone - and anyone who wants to - can import and take. (And I am not referring to copyrights or patents or trademarks - all of these are embodied in legal res and are not relevant to the free and voluntary discourse that develops on the site...).
Since your words are always important and interesting, please tell me where and in what context the quote is. Thanks.
Michael Rothschild,
In response 43 you touch on an important and deep question - what is 'reality' as well as another question - what is 'there'. The two questions are not equal.
The above questions have philosophical and scientific aspects.
We have a rather short history of litigation around the question of whether everything can be reduced to the physical level - that is, around the materialist concept - and the issue has a connection to the above questions.
Since you touched on the question of reality, I want to clarify my opinion more, at least in general.
It is clear that in my opinion the concept of 'reality' is not reduced only to the physical level (for example: I think that mathematical reality is separate, in important ways, from physical reality, and mathematical entities are real entities - in their unique mathematical reality). On the other hand, I want to strongly tie the concept of 'reality' to a logical rational procedure (reality tends to be rational at least on the basic logical level) and illusory 'riots' are out of the question.
I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the issue, and then maybe we can find out the issue in a more detailed way - if you want to, of course.
To Ilan (39):
I agree with you that different scientists think different things and believe different things. Regarding the scientific method, although there is no consensus regarding its exact definition, its purpose is to remove subjectivity from the game.
When Copernicus proposed an alternative model to describe the solar system he did so because his alternative description (the one that says man is not at the center but the sun) both matched the observations and was much simpler and more elegant. The church's belief that man is at the center of the universe clouded its judgment - they didn't have the courage to look at the facts and say "hmm... interesting, we'll have to change the way of thinking" - they tried to silence Copernicus.
If something pushed Copernicus, it was not a belief in randomness, but on the contrary - a belief that nature works according to simple rules (even if it means that man is not the center of the universe)
Eddie:
There is something disturbing in your response (30) and in my opinion this something is an incorrect use of words.
You argue against Yair who talks about the scientific method as a way to discover the truth value of claims about reality, but you do so while giving the word "reality" a wrong meaning.
This is dangerous, to me, because it is the first step in walking the slippery slope to postmodernism.
You don't mean it that way, but your readers may understand things that way.
Reality is what is actually found and not some imaginary world that someone creates in their mind.
This is why there is also the phrase "virtual reality" which is intended to represent sensory input that gives a reality-like experience that is not reality itself.
Questions about reality are questions about things that exist and not about imaginary things.
Don't get me wrong: in reality you can imagine things that don't exist as tangible objects and you can ask questions about the properties they would have if they existed, but the discussion of the correctness of these things in that imaginary world is only meaningful if it is based - as you said - on the laws of logic (which are part of real reality ).
In other words - reality simply includes logic and mathematics and the logical-mathematical discussion is part of the discussion of the existing reality in which there are also the mathematical theorems that can also be formulated regarding objects that do not represent anything tangible.
tree:
Your claims are baseless.
A reasonable person's beliefs are not formed in a vacuum but based on his observations of reality.
Creationists make claims that have no basis in reality and for that they are attacked.
Another reason why they are attacked is the fact that, contrary to the belief in evolution, which does not arise from any agenda other than the desire to understand what is happening, anyone with eyes in their head understands that the agenda of the vast majority of creationists is not the discovery of the truth but the domination of religious laws over the world. It already goes beyond questions of what is right and what is wrong and literally endangers the lives of people.
As you yourself contradict yourself, even the scientists mostly believe in the existence of randomness in nature and they came to this conclusion through science and not through other approaches (such as religion) where there is no randomness and everything is determined by the Creator (does this word remind you of something? Maybe creationists by chance?) Therefore, one really has to ignore reality in order to see science as an escape from randomness.
Ignoring reality - as opposed to searching for the truth - is never innocent. She is always driven by an agenda that does not have the truth at the forefront of her mind.
tree,
How many distortions and mistakes can be compressed into one response...
Evolution was not born out of belief in randomness - who told you this nonsense?
Evolution was born out of a careful look at reality, and identifying processes that took place, are taking place and will take place in the future.
No faith is involved in the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution is as far from any religion as the East is from the West.
No one uses the theory of evolution to bash the creationists - just the opposite - the religious and the creationists try to bash the evolution they hate, which drops the ground from under their faith.
Ilan, it seems that you still do not distinguish between religion and science, well the biggest difference is that science strives to understand reality, using the scientific method, a method that is not subject to a rabbi, priest, dictator but only to what is found in the field.
Unlike religion, when what is found in the field does not fit the theory, the theory is changed, on the way to a better understanding.
Religious people who encounter a reality that contradicts their faith - and there are many such cases - begin to twist and interpret and get involved in stupid explanations, but do not dare to reach a simple conclusion: religion is not a suitable tool for explaining reality.
There is no wonder in this, religion was created by humans, in a time when human knowledge was limited and lacking compared to today, but it is very difficult for people of faith to come to terms with that.
The randomness is a total order that is not understood and not explained.
As soon as you manage to understand 'behavior' or a certain process within the chaos, then it is also possible to explain the same process, and then the same process becomes 'orderly' within the chaos. (my guess)
But chaos will never disappear, it is essential for order. You can say that the world is chaotic and over time
A certain order is revealed in it. According to the same order, they try to explain the next order in the chaotic structure.
Besides, everything is measured first and foremost in thought. And not everyone has the same thoughts, therefore an order that is understandable to one, is not understandable to another. Those who understand order explain to others what is not understood, and from this (ordered) understanding build ordered theories. But the randomness will always remain because it is part of the order that is discovered.
Lisa:
The scientific method was not born on Mars or the moon. It was born in the hearts of people and is full of feelings and beliefs.
Einstein spoke out about the cubes out of a strong belief in a certain portion of the laws of nature. And equally his colleagues believed in other things. The theory of evolution was born out of a deep belief in the rule of randomness. Adherents of this theory base their view on belief in randomness. It would be correct to say that the theory of evolution has become a kind of undeclared religion for them. After all, they use it to strike at their creationist haters.
If it wasn't a religion they wouldn't have gone to a horma war involving so many emotions.
Ilan (37):
(This is me)
The scientific method is devoid of emotions, however it is certain that scientists have emotions (and they can even push but also hinder and cloud the judgment of the scientist in his work).
The prevailing view among scientists is that it is precisely order and harmony that govern nature (this is what Einstein meant when he said that God does not play dice)
The question of the nature of randomness in nature is an excellent question. Here(http://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/randomness-in-nature-ii/) you can find a discussion that dealt with this question recently
Liza: (you or you??)
A scientific point of view is not as emotionless or neutral as you are trying to portray.
On the contrary, very strong feelings guide those who see themselves as part of this league.
These feelings are coupled with a strong belief in a worldview that sees randomness and chance as the main engine for managing all of life and reality, history, the present and the future.
Against the background of this belief in microcosm, the scientific worldview takes shape among those who believe in it.
tree:
Some people try to understand things and some don't.
Your psychological need to call science a religion is a clear psychological need of people who don't want to let the facts destroy their theories.
Their theories can, for that matter, be religious theories (which there is no example of seeking certainty at any cost - even at the cost of truth) or postmodernist theories whose entire basis, in my opinion, is mental and other laziness that makes a person say that there is no truth at all and therefore there is no point in searching for it.
To Ilan (34):
I actually think that a real scientist doesn't let his fears of uncertainty cloud his judgment. Science does not seek to give certainty, if it does, it is only as a by-product.
Experience shows that scientific theories change frequently and the explanation given by science today may no longer be the same explanation tomorrow. A real scientist is not looking for absolute truth, but rather explanations that agree with the knowledge accumulated up to that point in time in which he works.
This is a very humble point of view and it is against the nature of man.
Eddie:
The scale for finding is inherent in human nature.
Man seeks certainty. For many, science is a psychological defense against randomness.
These people create a world for them within a framework of certainty that they believe in.
And outside the framework, uncertainty reigns.
In fact, this is the way they chose to deal with the rule of the mikriyas.
The certain belief in the aimless mikriya and direction in life and reality. leaving them only one narrow and protected place. It is science that dispels this vexing uncertainty.
From this point of view, science can be seen as a kind of hidden religion. A religion that stems from psychology.
Eddie
I was very enthusiastic about your response on the 30th and I quoted it in a response in another discussion. I hope you forgive me
Rah:
I agree with what you said in 5. I did not argue in favor of accepting revolutionary theories. I think, for example, that hypotheses that do not agree with the principle of Ockham's razor should be treated with caution, even though the principle itself is not an idea fix.
Thus, the dark matter hypothesis should be treated with some suspicion, especially in light of the fact that there are several theories (some of which seem well-founded) that explain the difficulties that I believe the observations raise - according to an elaborate gravitational theory. On the other hand, there are examples in history of revolutionary theories that are given the value of truth. Also , we have become accustomed to complex concepts that explain the findings not precisely on the most economical basis in terms of basic assumptions (such as the dual concept regarding light waves) - which do not correspond to the principle of Ockham's razor as it is.
It is very possible that Michael Dummett is right in his claim that the benefit of scientific research does not justify the price we pay in terms of perfecting the means of mass destruction. But we will never know if he is right until we are destroyed. And in any case, whoever thinks that way will change his mind if Paum needs "advancement" in some surgery or something like that.
Yair,
According to you at 7:
If I understand your view correctly, then science is a measure of the truth value of 'reality'.
I only partially agree with you.
I think that reason, meaning the rational ability in its broadest definition - is the yardstick for the truth value of every possible reality.
Exact science, meaning the scientific method in all exact sciences - is a special scale for a specific reality - the material reality. is a special case or derivative of the rational intellectual capacity. It cannot be a standard for the value of truth in other types of realities.
Other disciplines - they have the realities relevant to them, and attaching the term 'science' to such disciplines is mainly a terminological choice. But even such, they reflect a true value (even if they are not 'scientific' in the sense of the concept of the scientific method in the exact sciences).
If and when the scientific method as it is in the exact sciences is determined to be the standard for every possible reality (that reason creates or seeks to perceive) then science is not just a 'religion' but a form of idolatry.
On the other hand, if the same method is kept in its proper proportions, as defined above - then there is almost no tool that holds more blessings for a person than it.
Ron:
This is the first time someone has tried to tell me that I feel that I am not equal and that I am not worthy, etc.
These are of course nonsense.
sympathetic:
I think there is no disagreement between us.
As I have mentioned on many occasions - mathematics explores all possible worlds.
Physics tries to locate our world in the multitude of these worlds.
It does this by observing the world and verifies it through further experiments and observations.
Regarding evolution - as I mentioned - the law indicates the conditions under which the result will be obtained and in our world it is easy to see that the conditions are met.
Sometimes we do not see everything - either because some of the things are too small or because some of them do not interact with electromagnetic radiation.
In these cases, and to the extent that various observations are better explained by assuming the existence of entities that we have not yet seen, we try to build a mathematical model of these entities and mathematically conclude which observations - whether in nature or in the results of an experiment we expect to find.
The more observations we find that fit the model well - the more we believe in its correctness (by the word "correctness" I do not mean the correctness of the mathematical model because it is always correct, but in its adaptation to the world in which we live)
Michael thanks.
As for who is the owner of the house, as you rightly said - you will have to investigate on your own to be convinced
But just to demonstrate to you that this is not false research and chasing a ghost
Some reliable quotes:
Benjamin Disraeli 1804~1881 British Prime Minister
the world is governed by very different personages to what is imagined by those who are not themselves behind the scenes.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy [1917~1963] President of the US 10 days before his assassination
The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of this plight
David Rockefeller 1915~ Founder & Honorary Chairman of Trilateral Commission, Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national self-determination practiced in past centuries
Why is evolution a tool in their hands?
Because evolution says that we are a biological object and nothing else -
And this makes the believer feel unequal and unworthy - and the pursuit of others
Recognition/money/fame etc. starts –
And see what a miracle? Who sells you these "awards"?
And at what price?
And of course it's an unsatisfying endless pursuit.
to Liza. The real reason evolution should be preferred
On the face of creationism it really is "Occam's Razor"
(Go invent the system of assumptions that stems from creationism).
Michael
The point I tried to make is the connection between mathematics and science. First, the reality we are examining must be described in mathematical language and only then can the mathematical tools be applied to it. This is the main point.
There is a secondary question of whether mathematics explains things or whether it only shows us what equals what, but this question is not of interest to me now. The greatness of science is that it identifies and constructs objects, for example: the electron cannot be seen, we define a concept with the help of which we can describe the observations, we assume that it has certain mathematical properties and from there other properties are derived. Sometimes the math is correct but its adaptation to reality is misleading as in the site theory. An unobservable concept was defined, but it was believed that with its help reality could be described, but it turned out that there is another mathematical theory (Lorentz transformations) that does this better and in a simpler way (although less intuitive).
Dr.:
What is the connection between what you wrote and religion?
sympathetic:
I don't really understand what you are trying to say.
As I mentioned - both the genes and whole organisms fulfill the conditions of the law of evolution and therefore they also undergo evolution.
Science is "intended" for what it is intended for and therefore it is pointless to argue whether it is intended to describe or explain.
As far as I'm concerned it's meant to explain but I'm well aware of the fact that all I can ever claim with certainty that I've been able to do is describe (and you've already seen me write this elsewhere).
I have no doubt that our drive to engage in science stems from the desire to really explain, and therefore we also sometimes experience a feeling of understanding ("understanding" has no meaning when it comes to description).
It is also clear that those who bring God into the picture do not do so to describe because God is the last thing one can expect to describe. The mistake of the one who introduces God is that he deceives himself that God is an explanation and this mistake is only possible because he forgets or has never understood what an explanation is.
Maybe science is not "religious", but those who are engaged in it, at least in Israel, are mostly becoming small religious entrepreneurs.
Anyone who knows the research corridors in Israel knows how much the level drops and the pursuit of publications turns into predicting everything: taking the same idea and turning it into five different articles just to "have a chance of publication"... 🙁
Michael
The world that science claims to describe and not explain (but that's another story) is not mathematical! Science is based on
Simplification of reality (or what is reflected from experimental results) so that they fit a mathematical model. Science is indeed based on mathematics, but before the mathematical stage there is the adaptation stage where objects in the experiment or in reality are adapted to mathematical objects. Evolution can be a mathematical theory but of what?
of species? of varieties? To what extent is the reproduction of the organism inaccurate? What are replication time scales? How is a struggle for resources described? Does an organism have to die? And more questions that affect the mathematical "model" and its adaptation to reality.
Ron:
I am interested from a psychological/anthropological point of view, who do you think the owners of the house are and why it is so important for them to deceive us about evolution.
Of course, the answer is important to me only to understand you because I know personal information that no one convinces me of and all the knowledge I have was created from my meeting with the findings, but understanding you is also an important task.
The academic establishment is a religious establishment that aligns with the landlords
Nothing here is new.
We must see all the data to see the current fraud and its name is evolution designed to turn man into an intelligent brown puddle -
There is an agenda here.
The lecture that demonstrated to me the truths and lies of evolution is
Everything you know is wrong
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1285345463618889531&ei=B2JqScX6KIvCrQKU_s2tDA&q=intervention+theory#
The evidence points to neither evolution nor creationism for the human phenomenon on earth.
The final part of the lecture mainly about the DNA and historical sources cannot be ignored.
Lisa:
A mathematical proof is always scientifically correct.
These are claims that exist in all possible worlds, including ours.
That's why when you take an apple and another apple you can trust that you have two apples and you don't need to test it by experiment.
Evolution is a mathematical theorem.
A mathematical sentence is structured as follows:
If these and these conditions are met, such and such a result is guaranteed.
This sentence is guaranteed to hold in every possible world and in a world where the conditions are met the result will also be met.
In the specific law of evolution, the conditions are the existence of replicators (not entirely accurate) competing for the resources they need for reproduction and the extent of their success in reproduction is a function of their success in competition.
This condition exists in our world - both in living beings and in genes, therefore evolution is guaranteed - both of these and of those.
to Michael-
A mathematical proof cannot be used as a proof of the correctness of a scientific theory. A scientific theory will never be proven, as I mentioned, scientific theories are measured according to their agreement with observations and also according to their "elegance" (as expressed by the principle of "Occam's razor").
As evidence, I will point out that contradictory mathematical systems can together constitute exhaustive descriptions of different parts of the reality we live in, such as Euclidean geometry on the one hand and non-Euclidean geometry on the other.
Regarding evolution - a scientist who does not present a way in which his theory can be disproved is not a scientist but a devout religious believer.
By the way, the existence of evolution has been proven beyond any doubt because it has been proven mathematically.
Nothing they find out will change that fact.
It may be that discoveries in the future will require additional theories because it will turn out (unlikely in my view, but possible) that evolution is not omniscient, but nothing will change the unequivocal conclusion that evolution does exist (and it is clear that in computer programs built on its basis it exists and there it is undoubtedly omniscient https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-an-efficient-search-algorithm-bgu-2907079).
Even the discovery of human skeletons from 100 million years ago will not disprove evolution as a mathematical theory that the world fulfills its conditions and therefore it exists in it. Such a discovery will only change our estimates regarding the structure of the tree of life and perhaps oblige us to the conclusion that in addition to evolution, other factors were also at work here.
Lisa:
An unscientific theory cannot be an exhaustive explanation because it cannot be an explanation at all.
Between us, since what is at stake is not just a combination of words and only religion stands against science (in its various manifestations, including the guise of creationism in which the "Creator" is nothing but a god in disguise), it is possible to reduce the foundation of my claim to only this "explanation".
After all, we don't invent theories just like that.
We make them up so that you can explain something to us.
If it's about scientific theories, we want even more - we want you to provide predictions. But let's assume that it is not a scientific theory and we only ask that it explain to us, or that it improves our understanding of the world that is revealed to our eyes.
Can the theory of God's existence be considered an explanation for something?
To answer this question we should ask ourselves what should be called an "explanation".
An explanation is first of all a sequence of arguments that shows that a certain reality is derived (even if not absolutely - then with a high probability) from certain assumptions that are the basis of the explanation.
Let's assume that the claim of God's existence meets this condition and that it can be shown that God's existence can indeed lead to the creation of a world like the one we experience.
However, this is not enough, because there is another requirement that we require from an "explanation" - the requirement is that the basic assumptions on which it is based be "simpler" than the thing we are trying to explain.
The quotation marks around the word "simple" are intended to clarify that simplicity is a complex concept in itself:
A simple assumption, for that matter, can be a simple assumption in the conventional sense of the word, but it can also be "simple" in the sense that it describes a proven fact - one that those who observe the world can easily prove its correctness.
The assumption of God's existence does not meet these conditions.
It is not simple in the conventional sense of the word because a being that is able to enact laws of nature is a much more wonderful, strange and incomprehensible thing than the laws of nature themselves!
It is not simple in the extended sense because it does not describe a fact that those who observe the world can prove its existence.
Therefore, trying to explain something based on the assumption of God's existence without explaining how God himself was created or designed does not explain anything. In other words - this is a theory that has no contribution to our understanding of the world.
Following on from 13
But I definitely agree that remnants of the theory of evolution can still be used by science (it just won't be the same theory) just like Newton's laws are still used by us today even if only as a pedagogical tool. I mention that the theory of evolution was introduced in Darwin's book on the origin of species.
If a 10 (or 100 or 1000...) million year old skeleton does not convince scientists that this theory is incorrect -
After all, this is evidence that their science is indeed the new religion
L - 12.
Ok I got it - so 100 million years.
to 11 (Liza). Although it is clear to me that evolution is
Science (because, unlike intelligent design, it does not stand
no factor outside of objective investigation) the example
You gave is not good because the human skeleton is 10 million years old
Years may change the theory in the specific case or
will be perceived as a failure of the researchers to find a sequence of development
An alternative to sustain today, but will not reverse the evolution
It's all an empty vessel in the eyes of the scientists - as the rebuttal
should do (see the theory of the site), simple
Because there is no other theory that will take its place
Compared to the site theory that gave way
to the theory of relativity.
1. Of course, evolution can be disproved. If you find a human skeleton that dates back 10 million years - the theory will change because this contradicts the gradual development of species.
2. In my opinion, science is not looking for "truths" or a description of "reality" as it is.
Science seeks an efficient and exhaustive description of observations. The question of whether this description is real in any sense is meaningless. Therefore the sentence:
"There is no principled obstacle to a non-scientific position... it should be the one that describes the real reality"
It is meaningless.
If a non-scientific position constitutes a more exhaustive explanation that is consistent with the observations, then this explanation becomes the preferred explanation (and see it's a wonder that it also became a scientific explanation)
The truth is that I am surprised (for the better!) by the ease of the discussion.
In my opinion, the claim that "there is no principled obstacle that a non-scientific position (such as a religious belief, for example), should be the one that describes the real reality" is a claim without actual content.
As soon as a religion makes significant claims about the world, it makes scientific claims and these claims can be refuted (as indeed happened to all religions).
As soon as she does not make claims about the world, it is not clear if concepts like "correctness" or "truthfulness" are even valid for her.
With regard to the negative insinuation regarding the scientific nature of evolution - it is indeed a well-worn and stupid claim and there is no point in repeating the multitude of tests that this theory has passed and passes every day.
Nevertheless - I will come back and point out a finding that I think everyone should know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
There are also hypotheses from various hypotheses regarding the origin of life, but here - since it is a claim that is purely historical, it is hard to believe that we will ever have an established conclusion.
Just for the sake of an example of this type of hypothesis I will provide a link that discussesThe formation of the first living cell.
Eliahu,
I'm a bit fed up that every time the word Abolutya comes up, someone immediately jumps in and says that it can't be refuted.
I feel that all these commenters do not really understand the meaning of the theory. What evolution claims are two very simple and very proven things:
1) Changing species - it is very easy to show that new mutations are created all the time, DNA segments are passed from creature to creature by viruses and other leading elements and DNA fragments in cells are mixed by recombinations and translocations.
2) The fit survive - elementary, put two species in competition for a limited resource and you will see that one of the species disappears. An experiment that is carried out every day in hundreds of thousands of laboratories in the world that perform molecular biology using the selection and elimination of the "unsuitable" cells.
That's it, that's all evolution and it's proven every day.
Regarding the origin of life, evolution has nothing to say and there is still no conclusive theory, so it is still an open issue. This question does not cast any shadow on the existence of the evolutionary processes in our world.
7 by Yair
Eddie
Is there really no obstacle that "there is no principled obstacle that a non-scientific position ... should be the one that describes the real reality"?
As far as humans are concerned, in order for us to know that the real reality is described, we need to know in the summary of the description that the real reality was indeed described. In other words, we need testable limits, that is, we actually need the limits imposed on science.
1. Be precise about Galileo. He claimed that the heliocentric system was more correct, but was unable to prove it. What's more, he didn't know elliptical motion so his theory had no advantage over Ptolemy's. Note that the absolute majority of creationists are Protestant Americans and this is because, unlike Judaism and Catholicism, there is no willingness to interpret the Bible in a way that is not literal.
2. By the way, it is doubtful whether evolution meets all the above criteria that disqualified creationism, since it cannot be disproved either (at least not in practice).
Eddie, note that the quote you gave does not claim that because there is a (very relatively) low probability that revolutionary theories are a better description of reality compared to existing ones, as indeed happened in the rare example of Einstein, hence we must immediately accept any new theory.
In fact, the more revolutionary the theory is in relation to existing, the more it must be confirmed.
Therefore, coming to the morning with unproven theories and claiming that "even Einstein was not believed in the beginning (which is not true)" will not work.
As mentioned, the chance that an established current theory that has been confirmed in many experiments will be replaced is very small.
Need to be precise. "Striving for the truth" is an improper concept, because if you know what the truth is that you are striving for then there is nowhere to strive for.
Therefore, it is more correct to say that science strives to find and negate the lies and errors in our current perceptions.
point,
well said.
I would add to this the quote from Mar as follows:
"Not every scientific theory is correct, because scientific theories change from time to time; also, there is no principled obstacle to a non-scientific position...it should be the one that describes the real reality. Science strives for truth, and does so with scientific tools, but the answer to the question of how scientific theories Getting to the truth is not easy."
I would suggest to some people, and also to the editor of the site - to take the quote seriously.
There are those who treat science as a religious doctrine. These certainly do not represent the fundamentally skeptical view of science, which destroys any prejudice in the face of the new facts.
To treat science as the human way that is based on common sense, to understand everything. Then there is no worship of the word, and everything is questioned, in this approach there is no element of religion in science.
Due to an error, the check mark that allows adding comments to this article has been removed. You are now welcome to comment.