The Omnipotent Deceiver vs. Astronomers

[wisefool]

Do we truly know what we know? http://members.cox.net/clarkt7/deception.html

 

[mooware]

Sounds pretty stupid to me.

 

[wisefool]

Crazy Eddie, the essay was written to be an antidote to religious gobbledygook, and that includes the Religion of Science. We can still do science as before, but we should proceed with a little less arrogance. We do not have access to all the mysteries of the universe, and we never will.

 

[wisefool]

I couldn't agree more that science is not a religion. Pure science, that is. In the popular mind, and even with some "popular scientists," science is just a tool to prove what some were thinking already. Such transparent attempts to hijack good methodology for non-scientific agendas need to be exposed.<br /><br />But there is another error that is hardly ever exposed, and that one is the idea that science always = truth. Science may = truth, but we never know with 100% certainty if it does. That is precisely why we have the scientific method. It is the method, not the "conclusions," which defines why science is different from religion. At the very point where we stop questioning, we slip away from science toward mysticism.

 

[pizzaguy]

<font color="yellow">I couldn't agree more that science is not a religion. Pure science, that is.</font><br /><br />You can be totally "non religious" and STILL have your beliefs influence your science.<br /><br />REMEMBER, for 40 years, Piltdown Man was scientific fact.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1"><em>Note to Dr. Henry:  The testosterone shots are working!</em></font> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

Beliefs really can get in the way of truth. There's a poster on these boards who defends with religious fervor his opinion that there is no life in the solar system besides that found on earth. His dogmatic attachment to this idea is exactly what "pure" science attempts to counter.

 

[wisefool]

Crazy Eddy, being "sure" of something does not make it a fact. The religionist is "sure" his/her vision of the hereafter is fact. Maybe it is; maybe it is not. The point is that being "sure" in an honest way involves the ability to disprove one's former proof. Now, just because the scientist is not 100% sure of the absolute truth of his/her hypotheses, it does not stop the scientist from acting AS IF the hypothesis were factual. In this way doubt can coexist with honest action. Life is a journey, not a destination; and so too is honest science.

 

[wisefool]

Religion is not "quite useless" in a psychosocial sense. Much of everyday human life is based on dynamics hardly scientific. As a pure science, religion is useless, despite all the bogus efforts of "creationists" to establish their scientific credentials.

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">all the bogus efforts of "creationists"</font><br /><br />I think that the label "creationites" fits better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[wisefool]

You know, they really try hard to convince themselves that the Earth is only 5,000 or so years old. You have to give them A for effort, even while they earn an F for results.

 

[robotical]

Unfortunately, they have gained substantial ground in other sectors, like education. Their science may suck, but it is highly persuasive to those unaware of how science works. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">"I think that the label "creationites" fits better. "</font><br /><br />I was just going to post the same thing. I think from now on I'll be doing that substitution.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[wisefool]

Steve, excuse me, is your criticism directed against me? It cannot be directed against what I said, because you and I are in agreement that Science is not a religion. I only pointed out that hypothetical conclusions are never Conclusions, however good they may appear to be.<br /><br />As for omnipotent deception, this is a potential variable that cannot be factored out. A true scientist would admit to the limitations of our methodology. A true scientist would accept that finitude cannot know infinitude. Having accepted our human finitude, this alone does not stop us from proceeding AS IF we are working with the truth, at least until further scientific inquiry modifies it.<br /><br />So where is the "religion" in all this? I would say that to not accept the possibility of an Omnipotent Deceiver, however remote this idea may seem, is a form of religious behavior. By your own standards, the absolute rejection of this possibility is an unprovable assertion. So let's just allow the Omnipotent Deceiver as one possibility among many, and go ahead and do good science.

 

[cougar10]

Wisefool is right, natural science is susceptible to the same meta-level criticism that reilgion is. Just because scientific claims tend to be more open to challenge doesn't entail that science is more firmly grounded than certain kinds of religious claims. The empircist concept of data is an extremely narrow, abstract device that precludes much of the "data" of human existence. For good reason, scientists work within an established framework of understanding without which the complexity of research would prevent progress. I think scientific "paradigm" is the current buzzword. People who have religious experiences have religious "data," and others have a religious paradigm. Just because some datum isn't publicly available doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Think of dreams, pleasure, and pain for starters. There are many private mental episodes. <br />Besides, one of the main empiricist axioms "all knowledge comes through the senses" cannot be justified through the senses. Either the axiom is an empirical hypothesis, and falsifiable, or it's a metaphysical presupposition, in which case it's not empirically responsible. So either way you slice it, the key question isn't "is religion as a whole wrongheaded?" or "is science as a whole wrongheaded?" This is silly, one needs to evaluate each claim based on a number of factors. Science and religion are just another part of human nature, so it's not likely that they will be extinguished anytime soon. <br /><br />John

 

[cougar10]

Science is not religion, if you mean by religion "dogma," in the sense that one has a belief not based on evidence. But neither is religion religion. Many religious people find proof of God's existence is reason, final cause, and personal experience. And prey tell, where on earth is one to find evidence for empiricism itself? In the data? Is that not circular or what? Data is a misused concept. Data as any possible object of experience includes beings like God or divinities, or moral values. <br /><br />There are a number of other miscellanious "religious" notions science accepts. Can you study the scientific method scientifically? Can you observe obersvers observing? (the Soul) Why does science value truth? (Objective value) Are values observable? Are possible worlds observable? (Possibility, necessity) Are negative claims provable, like God does not exist?<br /><br />Once again, I suggest a more inclusive view of religious people and scientists; instead of demonizing each other, people should build each other up, learn more about each other.

 

[wisefool]

Well said, Cougar. Obviously, you have studied philosophy and logical possibilities. Too many people build their logical edifice starting with the second floor, and forget to construct a basement foundation and a first floor. I call these logical castles in the sky. Perfect, if you don't look below the second floor!<br /><br />With the idea of an Omnipotent Deceiver I have tossed in a new challenge. Not only am I challenging the smugness of scientism, I have also challenged the idea that god "must" be good. The joke is that to a dog his master is a god. To those in prehistory the forces of nature were gods. As our powers to peer into the cosmos increase, it's almost as if we push back the domain of god to just beyond our powers. But why can't the kingdom of god be within ourselves too? Or maybe it's a kingdom of darkness. We have no way to independently and comprehensively prove any of these possibilities. So we are forced to fall back on our best paradigms, and proceed AS IF we were blessed with knowledge. That's fine with me, because omniscience would be boring.

 

[cougar10]

As far as the issue of an "omnipotent deceiver" is concerned, it is clearly a genuine possibility that we're all being manipulated by some demon. But even if that's true, it's not a matter one can test empirically, so it's not something which science can properly study. For the most part, I don't think astronmers should go and worry about this problem too much. Epistemic humility is always good, and many astronomers have such humility. In every field there are always a few people who try presumptuously project their own prowess through their research. I think that is a danger in any activity, not just astronomy. Everyone is built with a little God in them, so they think they know it all... nevertheless, it is hardly a sign of bad science to ignore "demon" related issues.

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">As far as the issue of an "omnipotent deceiver" is concerned, it is clearly a genuine possibility that we're all being manipulated by some demon'</font><br /><br />I don't see how it's clearly a genuine possibility that some mythical demon is manipulating us. The possibility seems stupid at best.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">For the most part, I don't think astronmers should go and worry about this problem too much'</font><br /><br />I agree, or worry about it at all really.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"In every field there are always a few people who try presumptuously project their own prowess through their research"</font><br /><br />Agreed, I see this being a problem, rather than some ominipitant deceiver. However, other scientists would eventually weed out the aforementioned researcher<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Everyone is built with a little God in them"</font><br /><br />Is that the little voice in my head? I wish he would stop really. Quite annoying. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> is hardly a sign of bad science to ignore "demon" related issues'</font><br /><br />Demon related issues... lol<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[Betelgeuse]

wisefool, your philosophy is really just a form of agnosticism. <br /><br />Everyone knows the one line definition of the term, but here is A good read on the history of the term and why your ideas fall under the umbrella of agnosticism.

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow">As far as the issue of an "omnipotent deceiver" is concerned, it is clearly a genuine possibility that we're all being manipulated by some demon.</font><br /><br />Only in light of, and on a par with, the possibility that this is all a dream, or that our Solar System is an atom in the feces of a giant gnat, or that atoms are really tiny universes with little people on them etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. The number of possible but unlikely scenarios regarding our existance is only limited by our imaginations. That, of course, does not give any credibility to them. The bottom line is that it is not only non-productive to pursue these phantoms, but often counter-productive. IOW, what is the point? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[cougar10]

You three are not serious thinkers. That's ok, there's room for research rats too.

 

[mooware]

Giving serious credibility to an Omnipotent deceiver doesn't do wonders for your though processes either.<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

That wasn't a very nice thing to say, Cougar10. Since you are new here, I'll let you know that we frown on ad hominems (attacks on the person, not the argument). Suggesting that someone's sole value to science is as a research rat is an insult. Be careful. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Regarding the idea of an omnipotent deceiver....<br /><br />I have a problem with the idea because it strikes me as an ultimately pointless consideration. If an omnipotent entity is manipulating everything we observe to trick us, we cannot tell. We might be able to detect a more imperfect deceiver, though it would be extremely challenging, but an omnipotent one by definition cannot be detected. If one exists, then it renders all of our efforts at understanding meaningless -- and not just our scientific efforts. Such an entity can fool our philosophy and theology too if it so desires.<br /><br />So because it ultimately cannot be detected, we can either give up on understanding (on the basis that it is not possible to be completely sure), or operate as if it is not true, and as if there is some point to our meanderings. Given that there is no logical way to choose between the two, I'll pick the one that I like better, and that's the second. It makes no difference whether there's an omnipotent deceiver or not, and life seems less futile if there isn't one, so therefore I will believe that there is not an omnipotent deceiver.<br /><br />I do believe in an omnipotent god, but I do not believe he deceives us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[mooware]

Steve, I agree. However, cougar10 has decided that we are not serious thinkers. So, care to join us and employ yourself as a lab rat?<br /><br />