As I've said before, if you open up the definition of belief system, then science will fit into it nicely--but only at the expense of having everything fit it too. That would mean it's not narrow enough to be useful. Once you narrow the definition of belief system to make it useful, then science no longer fits the definition.
I guess the alternative is that some events have no cause? And, of course, some would then have no effect?

Or are you talking about causes and effects that are not scientific?

I see you have ignored my correction!

No, I don't know what you are trying to suggest here.

Very early on I warned against drawing comparisons with other types of belief system, be they religious or whatever, but instead to work within my definition of a BS, or otherwise raise any concerns you might have about this definition.

Fair point judging by the last few posts. But please, I defined 'belief' within the context of a 'belief system' early on, and then expanded upon it midway through the thread. My definition also allows for both subjective and objective belief. I was, of course, suggesting that much mainstream scientific theory contains an element of subjective faith.

I will have a think about the causation arguments. But Zero Ontology and Cause (first cause, that is) and Effect, blah, blah, are big, big philosophical areas, and in a way outside of science because of their highly speculative nature.

Right, that's what I'm talking about. The activity of science is rooted in empirical evidence that supports theoretical structure. There's no belief in that. But as you suggested above, we believe our senses provide accurate information about the world. I'm suggesting that at the most fundamental, broad level we believe that natural cause and effect can explain everything.

I guess the alternative is that some events have no cause? And, of course, some would then have no effect?

Or are you talking about causes and effects that are not scientific? [/quote]

Right, some people choose to believe in God as an explanation. As scientists we cannot disprove God so the point is philosophical. When we engage in science we make the choice that God is not the explanation but rather natural cause and effect is. That's a philosophical choice and that's why I'm suggesting that natural cause and effect fits with trust in the senses as a belief choice that underlies science.

From that starting point, there is no belief in what follows. Science is objective, empirical work.

The effects would be observable, but the scientist would seek the natural cause. A person survives a terrible car crash without a scratch and comes out of the experience saying God helped them. How do you disprove that scientifically? You can't. The scientist makes the philosophical choice that natural causes explain those sorts of "luck" while the person of faith may choose to believe God helped out.

No it doesn't matter for the practice of science - except that it illustrates you have another philosophical choice which scientists opt not to use in favor of natural cause.

Look, I've defended science here vigorously. I'm pointing out that science does have a very broad philosophical underpinning that can be considered "belief". From that starting pointing everything is the empirical scientific process we've all defended.

Look carefully at what I'm suggesting. I'm talking about one - two actually if you include trust in the senses - assumption that underlies all scientific activity. Of course what scientists do daily is not belief. I've made that point repeatedly on this thread.

Because if there isn't, then you've made a philosophical choice that cause and effect explains everything.

The scientist doesn't? The desire is to find a cause without a guarantee that it will be found. The scientist fully expects (believes) that the cause exists.

Does causation allow you to make specific predictions about phenomenon in the universe? It is the framework within scientists seek answers.

O boy. I think we have another one on our hands.

You're not seriously suggesting that no scientist used falsification until Popper gave it his name, are you? Wow.

Soupdragon, what is the element of faith you think science has?

__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, because it's a fact.

Falsification, before Popper, did not exist as an applied methodology. It overcame the problem of induction, and now acts as the criterion of demarcation between science and non-science.

Prior to this you might have said that a test result was true or false, or verified or falsified even, but this is quite a different thing.

The Karl Popper web http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/

Yeah, yeah. Russ_Watters also called me a Troll some time back.

I started this thread more than six months ago. The kind of noise you and russ_watters are generating is disrespectful to those who have made constructive contributions.

Dgruss23. Personally I'm avoiding any discourse on the relative merits of various 'isms. They all have a different take on what God can or does choose to do ... if he exists.

Deism, Pantheism, Determinism, Atheism... and on and on.

I'm enjoying reading your posts, nonetheless.


Worm hunter. I have already written so much on this. But you are pointng out, in effect, and quite rightly, that this post is getting lost. Perhaps I should consider ISABS 2 with a more comprehensive agenda for discussion ... to hopefully cut down on some of the noise.

not sure that another thread would cut down on the noise but it could be worth a try. Though im am interested in your answer to what element of faith you think science has. I was gonna comment but i wanted to make sure we were on the same page first. To me it seems you have concluded that causation is the element of faith in science, please let me know if thats right so i can continue.

__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto

No it's not, check out the Karl Popper website that you link to below.
For some people. See the link. Popper did not invent falsification, he described it. His methodology is called Falsificationism. He claimed it was the only path to science.
No arguement there. But then, you wouldn't have "corrected" Russ.
I didn't call you a troll. You're a scientific illiterate, who is demanding to be taken seriously as a critic of science while deriding those of us who try to help.
I've made constructive contributions to this thread, on the first page.

Thats all fine, but its not an assumption. Its a choice in the way you approach your investigation. Ok....so you agree with me? No, what you suggested: a test that proves causality absolutely, is just unnecessary. Maybe, but that isn't required and its not a part of his/her investigation. Its the personal decision that got him/her into science in the first place, but its not part of the scientific process.

Look, you could certainly say that I "believe in" science. But that doesn't make it a belief system because my belief isn't part of the scientific process and isn't required for science to succeed.

I guess another way to put it is that science is something upon which other belief systems are founded, but it is not in and of itself a belief system. pot:kettle again, soupdragon. Respect is a two way street. You haven't gotten any because you've had that attitude right from the beginning. My post at the top of the last page - the first response to you since you came back, was perfectly respectful and contained valid points. You responded with personal attacks. Maybe you just plain missed my point, but you still didn't need to respond the way you did. You've earned my lack of respect yet again. Repeating it doesn't make it any more true than the first time you said it.

Earlier you told soupdragon that philosophy is arguments about definitions - which is what you're doing here.

Its not a choice in the way you approach an investigation. Its the choice you must make in order for your investigation to be science. You seem to think I'm implying science is practiced with belief. In fact, all I'm saying is that as a foundation for science, we must (1) trust our senses and (2) adopt cause and effect as a method for planning and interpreting what we do.

As I've said, science as practiced is not a belief system in any way defined on this thread. I would think where I stand on that would be abundantly clear by now. I'm talking about the underlying philosophy of science here. Scientists can practice objective science every day without worrying about this philosophy. But its there nonetheless because it involves the assumptions that distinguish science from other "world views".

Its unnecessary because causality is the underlying philosophy of science. That's the point that doesn't seem to be getting through. You don't have to go out and prove that causality is what makes things happen in the universe. You assume/adopt/whatever word makes you happy to call it that causality is behind everything and then the objective process of science begins to systematically seek out the individual causes of the phenomenon that are observed. Can you explain to me where this doesn't make sense or why it should be so objectionable? There isn't a philosophy underlying the practice of science?

Now you're choosing to disagree with me and at the same time you're saying here exactly what I'm saying. There is a philosophy underneath science, but belief is not part of the practice of science. I've said this in the last few posts. That's why I don't understand what you're objecting to.

As to whether or not science is a belief system, I think that depends upon how belief system is defined - which doesn't seem that clear. Consider this paragraph from page 36 of "The Scientific Approach" by Carlo Lastrucci:

Lastrucci goes on to say that the postulates of science permit an orderly system of inferences and seem to provide dependable answers to the questions scientists ask.

This is all consistent with what I'm saying. How many woo-woo's discount what scientists say because they argue we cannot trust the senses of scientists? How many creationists discount what science says because they choose God as an explanation? These alternate worldviews exist because they offer a different set of starting assumptions than science.

Worm hunter. I didn't start my arguments based on Causation. Dgruss23 has pointed out that it is a 'starting assumption' of science.

Other worldviews (dare I say belief systems) have different starting points. Creationism, for example, as Dgruss23 points out above, postulates that God kicked the ball rolling.

I don't see too much wrong with continuing this line of thought. In fact it's cool. 8)




Twist words as much as you like milli360, but Falsificationsm, falsifiabilty - call it what you like - was incepted by Popper to overcome the problem of Induction. Falsifiability may have been used in some very loose sense prior to this, but not in any defined methodological way.

Check out the 'Problems of Induction' if I were you. Science/Empiricism was essntially logical induction prior to Falsifiability.

Twist words? You've spent this entire thread trying to twist the meaning of "belief system" into something which applies to science, but you have not been able to.
I think that's what Russ said (except we'd probably disagree with the "very loose" part--how would you interpret the concept of statistical confidence intervals in scientific tests?). But then you tried to "correct" him.

Like you say, I think many are in agreement in this discussion. If I understand correctly, I think Russ is pointing out that causality is more than an assumption, so science is much, much different than some "belief system" that is based on some fundamental beliefs. Causality is not just some unsupported belief or assumption. It is an empirical deduction pretty much based on every observation that humans have ever observed. (OK, maybe that's overstating a bit, but I hope you get my drift.) in other words, the foundations of science are not arbitrary, unsupported beliefs.

And there's another major difference that Russ mentioned. Unlike the foundational beliefs of a belief system, Science is not sworn and beholden to causation as a foundation. If an alternative to this general rule is found to be controlling, Science would drop this tenet like a hot potato. I don't think "God" would be so easily dumped.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Why is causality more than an assumption? We have no solid empirical evidence to suggest why many things happen in the first place. That something can come from nothing, for example.

We can only observe the effects and the causes that we know about, not the primary causes.

Empirical deduction, eh. In logic, a deductive inference guarantees the truth of its conclusion. OK. You admit that you maybe overstating it a bit.

Causation (first causes at least) is, therefore, a philosophical issue.

You maybe interested in Zero Ontology which relates to this.
http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm

First, we need to get past the obligatory "science is different than...". I think that's been well established. The problem here is that the practice of science is being confused with the underlying philosophy/assumptions/beliefs of science.

If you design a study and have a set of assumptions built into your hypothesis, then at the end of that experiment you will be able to say that the assumptions were either (1) supported to some statistical level or (2) refuted to some statistical level or (3) inconclusive and more study is needed.

Can you tell me exactly how causation can be refuted? A huge part of our arguments on this thread has been the falsifiability of scientific hypotheses.

Causation cannot be falsified. You can falsify this possible cause or that possible cause for any phenomenon you're trying to explain, but you can never falsify that there is a cause out there. Every time a proposed cause of a phenomenon fails, the scientist looks for a new cause. The scientist does not say "Hmm well I guess this particular phenomenon has absolutely no cause whatsoever on any level."

And if the scientist seeks something other than a cause as an explanation, then they're not doing science any more - which only serves to underscore that causation is an underlying (choose your preferred word) of science. In fact it was russ watters that asked me originally if not causation, then what?

If God was dumped then it would be a different belief system. If you drop causation, then you have something besides science - you've dropped the potato for an onion. Explanatory science is beholden to causation - again the difference between the daily practice of science and its underlying philosophy.

Oh, I almost forgot the obligatory disclaimer: None of the above is intended to imply that science is a religion or practiced as such!!!! Not a religion!!!! In any way!!!! Not today!!! Not ever!!!

I would agree with dgruss23 that causation must be considered a postulate of science, since it is not falsifiable. It is a very well-supported postulate though - I cannot think of an observation which violates it.

A cause need not be 'natural', though - God would definitely clarify as a cause, if She was shown to exist. Neither is it necessarily the case that causality is true, but if not, science would be very interested in determining how the non-causal processes work...

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

Er, think about the above. #-o

If causation is not falsifiable, there are no observations capable of violating it, by definition.

It it was falsifiable, it wouldn't preclude this possibility.

So, is the statement I have quoted above tautologous, self-contradictory, or both? :wink:

Because in most cases, it has observational support.
Kind of a special example, isn't it?!
What about radioactive decay? I believe there are a lot of mainstream quantum physicists who have said just that. Why does one atom decay now, and another identical atom of the same element decay several years down the line? Physicists have come to the conclusion that there is no predicting which will decay now and which will wait. We know pretty well the statistical behavior of billions of these atoms, but the decay effect of one particular atom seems to have no specific cause.

Of course you can't prove the non-existence of something, so there's no argument there....

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Exactly. In most cases, but NOT all.

Yes. Fundamental, even?

There is no apparent reason for the timing of any individual atom's radioactive decay, but the decay event itself should have a cause when it happens. The postulate is simply that there are natural causes for all events - not that the timing of those events must be predictable.

Why stop now? We've gone this far without an agreement on definitions... I don't see the problem here. I agree with you. The choice isn't a choice in how to practice science, its a choice in whether or not to be a scientist. Its like baseball: if you choose to play the game, you have to agree to obety the rules. Well, I guess now we're down to disagreeing over how much we agree. How exactly did we get here? Bah - enough: you and I are pretty much on the same page. One thing though on causality:

If your theory is that causality exists, the proof is in every experiment that shows it.

Hypothesis. If I strike this match, it will light. Cause: striking the match. Effect: match lights. A positive result is proof of causality. A negative result may be disproof of causality if you can eliminate other possibilities.

I prefer to call it a theory, you can call it an assumption, it really doesn't matter to me. Either way, its testable. One of the primary points of SR is an assumption (C=constant), but it is also testable.

I also have no problem with the quote from Lastrucci. Like I said above - we're getting down to the really nitty gritty here. Yeah, that's pretty much it. Not so sure about that one (what happens if causality goes away?) - I'll have to think about it. I even have a specific experiment for you, dgruss. I alluded to it before: it comes from QM. In the two slit experiment, it has recently been shown that if you close one slit after each photon has passed but before it strikes the detector, the interference pattern disappears. The photon seems to "know" the cause before it happens. Thats quite a serious challenge to causality. Um, AstroSmurf, your second sentence contradicts your third. If an observation could violate it, then it is falsifiable. [edit: soup caught it too]

Maybe this is a topic for another thread (it kinda fits here). But what, if any, are the unprovable/unfalsifiable assumptions upon which science depends? I can think of one:

-We don't live in the Matrix (ie, what our senses tell us is reality or a representation thereof).

Cougar, Russ Watters: I hope you guys have stopped to see the humor in the point this discussion has brought us to. You both are working very hard to identify phenomenon in nature that don't have causes !! Keep it up and you'll have identified a whole new "world view". Call it "Science without a cause!"

But how do you come to the point where you say there was no cause? How do you conclude that every conceived possibility has been eliminated? There are plenty of examples where the answer is that current scientific knowledge does not allow us to explain this event/phenomenon. But scientists still seek possible explanations and envision future developments that may produce the answer. You don't throw in the towel and say there was no cause.

If what you're suggesting was possible, then when you guys ask for a mechanism for ejection of quasars, I would be perfectly justified in saying that there is none. I could simply say "Ejection of quasars has no cause. " Or I could say that "We don't know the cause yet, but who cares. It might just be one of those thingy's without a cause." Is that the road we want science to take?

Ok, so we don't need to debate the name, but we still disagree on the testable issue. Assumptions within scientific theories are of course testable. But my point is that the assumption that every event has a natural cause cannot be falsified.

Its testable in that we can go out and conduct studies that identify causes for phenomenon. But there is no way to falsify the postulate.

Do you have a link or reference on that? Without reading the specifics its hard to say too much.

But its pretty clear that this does not violate the postulate of natural causes. The scientists study design caused something different to happen - right? What it appears to violate - as you've described it - is our concept that causes must always precede effects. But when it comes to quantum mechanics I think its safe to say that we have plenty yet to understand.

Soupdragon, I think since my last post others like cougar have stated much better then i could what i wanted to about causation.

if you ask me you are trying to connect belief to a word that doesnt need, or fit with. Thats about all im going to say on this thread, it is becoming apparent that you have you mind made up and this thread is turning into a debate about words instead of facts. I doubt either side is going to agree any time soon and I probably wont be the contributing factor. Peace

__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto

Worm hunter. The last few pages have focussed on Causation. I've steered pretty much clear of this debate other than trying to clarify a few issues relating to falsifiability and logic. Dgruss23 has raised the causation angle, not me, and doesn't agree with my overall contention, regardless.

I fail to understand your conclusion, therefore, that 'I appear to have made my mind-up'. #-o

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! #-o

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

My point is, in most "belief systems" that come to mind when someone tosses out the term "belief system", the underlying assumptions have no observational support. None. Zip. Nada. In my dictionary, the second definition of belief is akin to religious faith. Faith, recall, does not require any proof or evidence. It seems to me that the entire scientific enterprise was concocted as a response to such blindly following, no-need-for-evidence belief systems.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

[digs it out] "Schrodinger's Kittens" by John Gribbin (sorry, no link, but I'll post some paraphrases/quotes). Page 243-247 talks about causality specifically (I'd forgotten that). The author cites another scientist named "Cramer" who proposes a "strong" and "weak" causality. Weak causality applies to the macroscopic world, strong to everything (microscopic and macroscopic). And btw, "microscopic" isn't as microscopic as you might think: the two slit experiment works for individual atoms! Its not just photons.

"...there is actually no experimental evidence for strong causality. Indeed, such experimental evidence as there is...explicitly shows that 'microscopic' causality is violated, regardless of which interpretation of QM you favor."

"Every photon that is emitted already 'knows' when and where it is going to be absorbed; every quantum probability wave, slipping at the speed of light through the slits in the experiment with two holes, already 'knows' what kind of detector is waiting for it on the other side. We are back with the image of a frozen Universe, viewed from the perspective of a photon, in which neither time nor space has any meaning, and everything that ever was or ever will be just is."

P. 140-141 discusses variations on the two slit experiment where you can turn detectors on or off after the light has been emitted and before it is detected. The description isn't very concise, but the conclusion is: "the behavior of the photons at the beam-splitter is changed by how we are going to look at them, even when we have not yet made up our own minds about how we are going to look at them." [italics is in the book] The choice of how the detectors is set up is made by a computer after the light is emitted and the light still behaves accordingly.

This all seems like a pretty serious challenge to the conventional notion of causality - it really might not apply in all cases and where and how it does apply is part of the theory of QM.

Fascinating, fascinating book (I need to read it again). P.118 discusses how a single photon can be split in half with a prism. Not especially relevant here, but pretty insane nonetheless.

The point of all this is that where - and even if - causality works is absolutely a question to be addressed by theory and experimentation. Google for "quantum causality theory" and you'll get links to scientific papers with names like "Causality Violation in Non-local Quantum Field Theory." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...ep.th....7208J The abstract alone is way over my head, but from what I gather, this paper investigates and actually quantifies the causality violation.