Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: rw@rwelch.demon.co.uk (Rupert Welch)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!hookup!swrinde!pipex!demon!rwelch.demon.co.uk!rw
Subject: Re: Question
Distribution: world
References: <28c.137.1046.0N15DBB2@htp.com> <38and7$b9q@seralph9.essex.ac.uk>
Organization: The Crazy Eddie Point
Reply-To: rw@rwelch.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 69
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 01:45:37 +0000
Message-ID: <783308737snz@rwelch.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <38and7$b9q@seralph9.essex.ac.uk>
           butljw@essex.ac.uk "Butler J M" writes:

[snip]

> You can have a belief without true knowledge.
 
[snip]

> Lay people (non-scientists) who belive in science but not God believe in
> atoms and yet have never seen one (on its own that is) and yet they don't
> have the knowledge with which to go looking for one. So how can they have
> knowledge in science and disbelieve in God. They too are irrational.

Yes, of course, science, like religion, is a belief system.

However, religious doctrines tend to be "written in stone", so to
speak, and are thus "dead", however many new interpretations are
given to them.  They often contain much which is contradictory, or
at odds with what we can see in the everyday world around us.

Science, on the other hand, is a living, constantly changing entity.
The very nature of science is that ideas are put forward into the
public domain, through publication in scientific journals.  This
allows other scientists to verify (or reject) any claims made, and
also allows new theories to be built on top of what is already
there.  This means that scientific theories are constantly being
challenged and can (and are) being revised and replaced.  For the
most part these are minor modifications to our overall model of the
universe, but every now and then a new idea comes along which
overturns everything, as when Einstein upset Newton's apple cart.

[snip]

> The problem is that science soesn't explain everything and when the likes of
> Penrose, Hawkins etc. start putting forward ideas on the formation of the
> universe they have to resort to their beliefs because they weren't there at
> the Big Bang and the Big Bang obliterated all clues of its origin. So
> cosmologists are equally irrational.
 
[snip]

I don't think that this is entirely fair.  Research in these areas
is based on the current body of scientific knowledge (which, as I
have said, is always subject to change), and so is a rational
attempt to expand our understanding of the universe.  While much of
cutting edge cosmology is highly speculative, (and fairly esoteric
to the layperson), it does have a grounding in what we laughingly
call "reality".

Another point that I think is worth mentioning here is that science
does not EXPLAIN the universe, it DESCRIBES it.  No reputable
scientist would say "this is how it works", the best that can be
said is "this is a model describing how it might work".  You are
right in saying that as there are no witnesses to the big bang, we
will never know exactly how (or if) it happened.

By describing the universe we are able to produce a working model,
that can lead to practical discoveries and inventions.  While we
don't really "know" how technology around us really works, everyday
objects like televisions, CD players and computers would not exist
without science, and that's good enough for me.

And anyway, it's fun.

-- 
Rupert Welch (rw@rwelch.demon.co.uk)

...Discoveries are often made by not following instructions.
