SOUL and SUBSTANCE: The Paradigm of Science

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this blog is four-fold:
(1) to recognize that every person functions within a basic paradigm, which affects how all information is processed;
(2) to understand the paradigms of others;
(3) to discuss, in particular, paradigms which are related to science, religion, and philosophy.
(4) to reveal the paradigm shifts in my own life, a process that has completely changed the direction and purpose of my existence.

The purpose of this blog is NOT to convince anyone that their paradigms or beliefs are correct or incorrect. I am hoping for an honest dialog, but the discussions must remain respectful of others, even if there is profound disagreement. If any comments are not respectful, they will be removed.
(Revised 1/13/09)

Sunday, January 20, 2008

The Paradigm of Science

The apparent success of scientific inquiry has led many to assume that all things are ultimately provable. According to this line of reasoning, anything with substance (or mass) should be measurable and, if something is without substance, at least its effects should be measurable and predictable. I know this because I was raised in an academic science household, trained as a scientist, and work in a medical field. I viewed anything of the spiritual world with great skepticism, because it was not part of my experience or the experience of anyone I knew.

4 comments:

wala said...: The definition of the word faith according to Funk and Wagnall’s Standard Dictionary of the English Language is: Belief without evidence.
God is a super being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive or understand.
''Scientists don't think that evidence seen by faith is truly evidence; and believers don't think that scientists can see anything that is not physically measurable.''
Science couldn’t physically major Ultraviolet light, there is no physical evidence that such rays exist because we cant see them or feel them but still science believed in the existence of such rays when Johann Wilhelm Ritter woke up one day and dipped gum paper in silver chloride and started exposing it to the different waves of visible light violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red.
Trying to find why does sun light make silver salts dark and then he discovered that an invisible ray above violet in wavelength exist and is the cause of the discoloring that happens to silver salts when exposed to sun.
The evidence was physically immeasurable but it was real evidence with logical fundamentals and reasonable thinking.
Now if religious person said that because Mr. x said 2000 years ago that he was the creator of the universe and it is demons that made silver salts get dark when it is exposed to sun, and this religious person felt better with such in explanation then it is a dictate of reason that this spiritual evidence should be denied.
M.Wael Alkel
http://science-vs-religion.blogspot.com/; January 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: "God is a super being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive or understand."-- Not everyone would agree with that definition. Although God is certainly beyond our complete understanding, the Bible shows that He is both accessible and personal, asking His followers to pray to him and promising to answer. There are many passages in the Bible that indicate that he is a loving God, who keeps His promises.
Note these representative passages from the Bible (Old Testament):

"'Call to Me [the Lord], and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, which you do not know.'" (Jeremiah 33:3)

"The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers...." (Deuteronomy 7:7,8a)

Wala stated that "Science couldn't physically measure Ultraviolet light"--I assume you mean that ancient science could not measure it. Modern science can measure ultraviolet light and they know its wavelength. They can also measure its effects. It is invisible, but not immeasurable. Two thousand years ago, though, there were a lot of things that people tried to explain as spiritual occurences, simply because they did not have the technology to detect or measure them: magnetism, gravity, ultraviolet light, etc.

Let me give an example of what I meant by the statement,
"Scientists don't think that evidence seen by faith is truly evidence; and believers don't think that scientists can see anything that is not physically measurable." Let's say that two parents pray that their child be healed of a type of cancer thought to be incurable. Two weeks later, the child is free of cancer. Parents who have faith in the power of God to heal will see their child's healing as evidence that their faith is real. Scientists hearing the story of this child will assume that something totally apart from God allowed the cancer to go into complete remission. They think the supposed "healing" is just coincidental with the prayers. Unless something is reproducible, measurable, and predictable, it is looked upon with extreme skepticism in the scientific community.--See the link to "The Scientific Method": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Scientific_method; January 21, 2008 at 6:02 PM
wala said...: ss you are depending on an ancient book written by a person who was born from a virgin mother then got nailed to a tree so you can explain phenomenon’s that you cant understand, 1000 years ago people thought that the moon is shining because angels live there and they told tales of great prophets and monks building long long ladders to get there, they thought that any unidentified disease is plague and if this illness wasn’t lethal and the person got better then it is a miracle.
Back in 1801 there was no way to major any thing about the ultraviolet rays but its existence was a scientific absolute fact.
In medicine there is no absolute case but there are always chances, some times they are high and some other times they are low, consider it like the lottery:
a group of 100 people entered a lottery with 10$ each and that means each one of them has the chance of 1% to leave with 1000$and this one is going to randomly be chosen if he prayed or he didn’t because if parrying is a factor then lets say 50 of these people prayed then all these 50 should win but at the end of the day science would tell you that prayers had no effect and 1 out of the whole 100 would win.
Prayers aren’t that bad though because they can be an important psychological element to make you hold on to your life and never give up while you are ill.
But as you know people differ in motives and prayers scientifically are useless if they weren’t a psychological factor to trick your mind with a lie that someone is looking after you.
You can’t say that God allowed the cancer to go into complete remission if god is not scientifically proven to exist, it is like me telling you that planes and ships were lost at Bermuda triangle because my elf brother that you cat see is living there and he ate them. and then ill go write a holy book so you can quote from it and prove my words and when coincidences and odds comes by and some one get cured while praying for my brother it will be my brother's work.
Ss everything in this world has a scientific explanation it is just waiting for some one to study then think and find it so don’t dump every thing you cant understand over a fairytale.; January 22, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Wala,
You described the viewpoint of faith-in-God-as-myth so well that I am going to start a new discussion thread on it. This is the heart of the types of discussions I have been hoping this blog will delve into. Thank you. Now, for my comments on what you have to say, go to the new post. (Give me a little time to organize my thoughts, though.)
-SS; January 22, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Post a Comment

What is Occam's Razor?

(1) Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.

[From Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]

(2) Okham's RazorSharon Kaye
There are so many interesting theories about the nature of reality. How do we decide which to accept and which to reject? As we go through life, we examine new ideas and reexamine old ones in an attempt to establish a suitable collection of beliefs. Sometimes this process feels like walking through the a la carte line in a cafeteria where you can pick and choose any combination you want. Just as a smart eater will use healthy principles to make these choices, a smart thinker will use epistemic principles to evaluate beliefs.
Ockham’s Razor is one of the most important epistemic principles. It states that if you have to choose from some number of competing theories, choose the simplest theory because it is most likely to be true.
Suppose, for example, that the newspaper, which is delivered daily to your doorstep, is missing this morning. There are a number of possible explanations. The delivery person could be ill, the newspaper plant may have shut down, or outer space aliens may have stolen it for the purpose of spying on Earthlings. The obvious choice among these three possibilities is the first. The second and third choices seem increasingly unacceptable. But why? If the choice is mine, what is there to prevent me from accepting the alien theory?
The answer is that the alien theory is too complicated. The illness theory requires me to believe in the presence of a virus, something I already believe in for other reasons. The alien theory, in contrast, requires me to believe in something that I have no other reason to acknowledge. This is to say that the alien theory asks me to adopt more assumptions than does the illness theory.
One might still wonder why added assumptions constitute a problem. After all, it is not as though we are short on brain space. My interest in creativity and originality might lead me to take pride in developing a more complicated theory.
But this would be a mistake. Complication is not something to take pride in because it necessarily increases the risk of error. Each and every belief is a liability insofar as it carries the possibility that it may not be true. The more assumptions you adopt, therefore, the more likely it is that you have unknowingly committed yourself to a falsehood. Falsehood is the great enemy of intelligence. To live intelligently, we must minimize the risk of error as much as we can.
Ockham’s Razor does not state that the world is maximally simple. Clearly, the world is not simple. The world is so complex that it would not be entirely surprising if it turns out that outer space aliens do exist. The point is that we should not move to that conclusion until the evidence forces us there – until we are not able to explain what we observe in a simpler way.
Philosophers have used the Razor in many different ways. Sometimes they use it to defend traditional views. The great twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell appeals to the Razor in his refutation of idealism, the view that the external world does not exist. Russell writes:
Thus every principle of simplicity urges us to adopt the natural view, that there really are objects other than ourselves and our sense-data which have an existence not dependent upon our perceiving them. . . . Since this belief does not lead to any difficulties but on the contrary tends to simplify and systematize our account of our experiences, there seems no good reason for rejecting it. (The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 24.)
On the other hand, philosophers have also used the Razor to attack traditional views. For example, atheists increasingly use it against theism. If we can now explain everything about the world that there is to be explained in purely natural terms, then there is no need for the supernatural assumption. Sure, you can still add it if you want, but it is no longer an intelligent choice.
As this last example suggests, there is room for disagreement over the use of Ockham’s Razor. After all, positing an extra entity can actually simplify a theory. (Imagine trying to do physics without the electron.) Richard Swinburne argues that the God hypothesis performs a similar function. Like any philosophical tool, the Razor is itself controversial, raising some interesting epistemological questions.
One question about the Razor that is rarely asked, however, is this: why is it called a Razor? When I ask my students this question, they often answer that it is called a Razor because it trims the fat. It is true that trimming the fat is an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes insofar as it signifies getting to the "meat of the matter," the essentials. But who uses a razor for trimming fat? Ask any butcher and you will learn that there are plenty of other more effective tools for such a procedure.
Ockham’s Razor is named after the fourteenth-century logician, William of Ockham. Although he did not invent the principle of simplicity, he used it so effectively and with such devastating effect, that it became indelibly associated with him. Did they use razors for trimming fat back in the Middle Ages?
Of course not. The primary use for the razor in the Middle Ages was the same as it is today: shaving. The problem is that, unlike trimming fat, shaving is not an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes. Setting aside certain medical contexts, shaving is a cosmetic procedure. We shave to beautify ourselves, not to simplify ourselves. In fact, one could argue that shaving makes personal hygiene considerably more complicated. Nor do we shave to get down to the essentials as though a bald man is somehow more authentic than a hirsute. Shaving is a matter of personal preference. If the epistemic principle in question were about personal preference, then it should have been named the ‘principle of prettiness’. Granted, ‘elegance’ has long been regarded as a desirable quality in theories, and elegance is closely related to simplicity. But since when is hair inelegant? Just what were they thinking when they named Ockham’s Razor?
My own personal theory is that they were thinking about another use of the razor during the Middle Ages. At the end of the fourteenth century, paper was only just being introduced in Europe as a common writing material. Before then, everything was written on parchment, which is made from animal skins. The picture below features a typical medieval scribe:
Notice the tools he holds. In his right hand is a quill for applying ink. In his left hand is a razor. He uses the razor to scrape the parchment clean when he makes an error. His razor is an eraser.
I believe that we would all do well to be more conscious of the principle of simplicity. It is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of accuracy. Ockham’s Razor is the way to keep your mind neat and clean.
(Sharon Kaye is assistant professor in philosophy at John Carroll University Cleveland, Ohio)

[From Royal Institute of Philosophy: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think/article.php?num=18)

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS

A list of USEFUL TERMS, from the University of Aberdeen, Philosophy, School of Philosophy, and Religious Studies, Old Brewery • High Street • Aberdeen • AB24 3UB http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml
DETERMINISM The theory that whatever happens (including human acts) is caused by something else. Physical Determinism maintains that the ‘something else’ is a physical entity or event; Psychological Determinism maintains that the cause (at least, the immediate cause) of a human act is a psychological or mental entity or event (e.g. a desire, a decision).
EMPIRICISM The doctrine that knowledge comes from experience.
EPISTEMOLOGY The branch of philosophy that involves the study of knowledge.
ETHICS The branch of philosophy that deals with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: What is it right (or wrong) to do? Do the intentions behind an action determine its goodness or does the actual outcome of the action matter more? Are there any universal ethical rules?
FIDEISM Holds that religious beliefs can not be justified by rational means, but only through faith.
LOGIC The branch of philosophy that deals with the formal properties of arguments and the philosophical problems associated with them. Central questions in logic include: What is a good argument? How can we work out if an argument is good or not? What are paradoxes? Can they be resolved? How can we talk meaningfully about objects that don’t exist e.g. Sherlock Holmes, or unicorns?
METAPHYSICS The branch of philosophy which studies the underlying structure of reality. Central questions in metaphysics include: Can we act freely? What is it for something to exist? How are causes related to their effects? What is time? What is space? How is change possible?
NATURAL THEOLOGY Knowledge of God which is obtained by reason alone, without the aid of revelation.
ONTOLOGY The branch of METAPHYSICS which studies the nature of existence. Central questions include: What kinds of objects exist? What is it for something to exist?
PHILOSOPHY OF MIND The branch of philosophy which studies the nature of the mind. Central questions in the philosophy of mind include: Is it possible for a machine to think? How is the mind related to the brain? Do animals have minds? How can I know that anyone else has a mind? (This last one is sometimes called the problem of other minds.)
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION The branch of philosophy which discusses the nature and existence of God. Central questions include: Does God exist? What sort of evidence could justify belief in God? If there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world? Is there life after death? Do we have souls? How could we know anything about God?
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE The branch of philosophy which analyses the nature and results of scientific inquiry. Central questions include: Do scientist describe reality or just appearances? Can we have good reason to believe in the existence of unobservable entities (e.g. quarks)? What happens when one scientific theory replaces an older theory?
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY The branch of philosophy that discusses freedom, justice, rights, democracy and other political issues. Central questions include: Is democracy the best form of government? How can we balance rights and responsibilities?
RATIONALISM The doctrine that genuine knowledge, or at least the most significant kind of knowledge, is not established by sense-experience, or at least not by sense-experience alone.... Contrast EMPIRICISM
SOLIPSISM A form of SCEPTICISM. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists except my mind and the creations of my mind.
THEODICY An argument which tries to explain how a good and all-powerful God could create a world with suffering and evil in it.
UTILITARIANISM The doctrine that acts are right solely in so far as their consequences maximize the general happiness (in some versions: maximize the general pleasure; in some versions: maximize the general welfare). It is controversial whether the general happiness must be interpreted as the happiness of the majority.
VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE An account of meaningfulness which claims that all and only those sentences which can be empirically verified are meaningful.

SOUL and SUBSTANCE

PARADIGM

Statement of Purpose

Sunday, January 20, 2008

The Paradigm of Science

4 comments:

Blog Archive

About Me

ShareThis

Followers

My Other Blogs

An Inspiring Blog.......

BlogCatalog

FAVORITE SITES CONCERNING SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND PHILOSOPHY

Thought-Provoking Blogs

What is Occam's Razor?

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS