--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > All the God beliefs can't be right at the same time. > > > All the beliefs about physics can't be right at the > same time. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics cannot > both be right. They contradict each other. Should I reject > both of them because they both can't be right at the same > time?
Do relativity theory and quantum mechanics contradict each other? I thought it was more that one works for tiny stuff, and one works for big stuff. The hope is to be able to unify them some day. But it is an interesting idea this - could different contradictory beliefs about something (whether about God, or physics) BOTH be true? The knee-jerk assumption might be "of course not!". For example, it is probably taken as axiomatic by those whose faith lies in Science that if one day all the "facts" were in, then it would be possible for science to lay out The Complete Truth about Life, the Universe, and Everything. There could only be ONE "truth" at that point: It would not be possible to have more than one "theory of everything" where each theory contradicted the other, and yet each theory explained all of the facts perfectly. For Scientism, that would amount to heresy! Yet this heresy is well known in epistemology as the "Quine/Duhem hypothesis". (Quine being a mid 20th century American logician, who in turn was influenced by the brilliant C.S. Peirce, and Duhem being a French physicist d.1916). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific- underdetermination/ Indeed I'd suggest a potted history of recent epistemology might go like this: First there was the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle (1920s approx). (Xeno here has recently referred to Carnap, a fully signed up member of the club): "Science is built on solid empirical foundations and there is a clear demarcation between science (whose theories are verifiable), and metaphysics (which is meaningless)". Then Karl Popper shows up: "Science is NOT built on a foundation of theories which are known to be true. In fact we can never know this. But we can conclusively falsify some of our ideas, and that's how we progress (by weeding out the rubbish). There is a clear demarcation between science (whose theories are falsifiable), and metaphysics (which is not, but may stimulate research)". But post-Popper, the Quine/Duhem hypothesis has gained considerable traction: "Not only is there no conclusive verification, there is no conclusive falsification possible either. Our web of beliefs face the tribunal of experience 'not singly, but as a whole' (epistemological holism). The 'web of belief' (whether of science, or our own personal beliefs) is adjusted in the face of experience using values - such as simplicity, universality, and conservatism. Somewhat subjective values! In other words, 'rationality' is as much an art as a science. It's a 'knack' that we all possess (to varying degrees, including animals), and not just a deductive system of rules and evidence that 'guarantees' objective knowledge when followed properly. In addition to epistemological holism, this school of thought believes in epistemological indeterminacy. This is the idea that the web of belief is always under-determinded by the 'data' (which are always theory-laden anyway). So two theories can 'explain all the evidence', and yet still contradict each other. As an example, let's say on planet Zargos the Eleverines get along fine building technology based on the theory that stuff is 'made' of particles. But then on planet Gaga the Zebrarinos do just as well, although their science takes 'stuff' to be fundamentally wave-like. Particles or waves? They can't BOTH be true can they? Well, yes, possibly it seems, if we are to go along with Quine/Duhem. And, to use a Zebra's parlance, 'Reality' won't find out one theory at the expense of the other. Both will be 'supported by reality'. Or perhaps instead of thinking that both theories are true, we should think that NEITHER is *true* (in the sense of revealing reality, giving us absolute knowledge). They are of equal value - they both enable folks to get by. But they are not even fingers pointing at the moon. This epistemology is so pessimistic, there may be no moon at all, and even if there is, no one finget gets exclusive pointing rights. So the whole thing is a bit of a ride down the slippery slope to scepticism: First the epistemological optimism of the Vienna Circle, then the more humbling approach of Popper, then finally a collapse into subjectivism and indeterminacy courtesy of the Quine/Duhem gang. I buy this, but it DOES change your perspective. It makes you suspect that the way science is invoked in our times involves a lot of hubris. For those who have turned to science to resolve their existential angst (now that 'God is dead') - well their faith may be misplaced. It makes you suspicious of the view that we moderns suddenly 'got' science in the Enlightenment, and folks in other ages and cultures were just superstitious ignoramuses. And of course it might make the idea that "knowledge is structured in consciousness" appear more reasonable?
