The God Delusion

[GurrenLagann]

[
Pointing out that there is an absolute lack of any credible evidence for an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent creator is hardly "an unfounded platitude."  If I explained my "a-unicorn-ism" by pointing out that there is a total lack of evidence, would I be perpetuating "an unfounded platitude"?  Or course not.  I would be offering an absolutely adequate explanation of why I don't believe in unicorns.  Such an argument for atheism is equally adequate.

The problem is that you cannot simply say "there is no credible evidence for X" without actually seeing if there is any proposed evidence. If there is, you would then hammer away at why the evidence is bad, not brush it off. Hence the unicorn comparison is nonsense since I doubt you've seen numerous people mounting evidence for the existence of unicorns.

Of course, I realize that one sentence does not a successful book make.  But, though such a book would probably not sell many (or any) copies, that doesn't change the fact that that one sentence provides a more than adequate justification for atheism

Except that if you don't go into exactly why whatever supposed evidence there is flawed, then that's just an assertion versus actual arguments, flawed or not.

First off, the number of people arguing for the existence of a sky daddy has no relevance to whether "lack of evidence" is an adequate reason to be an atheist.

You actually missed the point, which was that because the unicorn proposition doesn't have multitudes of people defending and constructing arguments for it like God does, you actually have to show why the arguments for God's existence are wrong, rather than just saying that an adequate defense for atheism is just to assert.

 

Also, I read The God Delusion twice, and I'm pretty sure it took on every major philosophical and "scientific" argument for God's existence (half of which are so pathetic they don't even deserve a rebuttal--Ontological Argument anyone?  Intelligent Design--the proverbial "God of the Gaps" argument?  Do these childish arguments really even deserve rebuttals by grown-ups?).

If you read, you'll notice I said "in-depth and valid". For example, Dawkins doesn't spend much going against the Cosmological argument other than to say that he doesn't think such grand conclusions about reality can be found through a mere argument.

Also, if I remember correctly Dawkins only went after Anselm's Ontological argument, not Plantinga's more modern one. And the arguments are serious and well-made. Clearly I think they're wrong, but I wouldn't just laugh them off as childish.

It's just that I have lately noticed the emergence of this pretentious internet meme (regards to Dr. Dawkins) that "Dawkins should stay away from philosophy and stick to science," and it's really starting to get tiresome.

Lately? People have been saying that for years because it's true.

There's no area of human inquiry that requires more mastery of logic and reason than science (i.e. natural philosophy).

Uh, no. Philosophy, by necessity of the training involved, familiarizes you with logic and reasoning far more than other disciplines. Heck, it alone defined errors in reasoning and constructs logical frameworks.

Guess what?  Scientists are philosophers, and most of them are just as good, if not better, at using the tools of reason, rationality, and logic than the average philosopher--IMHO.

And I can confidently say that your opinion is incorrect. Scientists aren't philosophers, they're scientists. They don't do philosophy, rather they employ and (usually) employ the philosophical position of methodological naturalism. Scientists tend to rely on observation and experimentation, not just logic (which is no dig against scientists) because there is nothing about the way things behave at base that is intrinsically logical. And there are many questions and inquiries that are by necessity beyond its scope to answer, from ethics and mathematical ontology to epistemology and truth. Again, read my response to the previous quote.

But to say that it fails to make the case for atheism because "Dawkins is a poor philosopher" just makes my eyes roll.

Well, no. The problem is that if you're going to say that someone is going to make a great case for their position when much of the subject matter falls outside of their specialized purview and knowledge base, I'm going to be suspicious. Dawkins isn't a physicist or a philosopher, so when he speaks on those topics in a book to make a case for atheism, it isn't surprising that he was so-so and wrong several times, since he steps out of his depth when entering into philosophy etc. It has nothing to do with lacking "big words".

[Solitary]

The problem is that you cannot simply say "there is no credible evidence for X" without actually seeing if there is any proposed evidence. If there is, you would then hammer away at why the evidence is bad, not brush it off. Hence the unicorn comparison is nonsense since I doubt you've seen numerous people mounting evidence for the existence of unicorns.

If you are correct then why are there so many people that believe in the Bible that talks about unicorns as history? What makes you think that atheists haven't looked for evidence of God? To say we would then hammer away at why the evidence is bad like it is wrong to do that is stupid.

Except that if you don't go into exactly why whatever supposed evidence there is flawed, then that's just an assertion versus actual arguments, flawed or not.

Where is this evidence there is a God that isn't flawed?

You actually missed the point, which was that because the unicorn proposition doesn't have multitudes of people defending and constructing arguments for it like God does, you actually have to show why the arguments for God's existence are wrong, rather than just saying that an adequate defense for atheism is just to assert.

The Bible is evidence that there were unicorns and God, talking snakes, talking donkeys, and you say the evidence is to be believed? The arguments for God have been shown to be logical fallacies because they assume a God exist as the premise that not everyone agrees upon.  A logical argument can only be sound if the premises are agreed upon.

Lately? People have been saying that for years because it's true.

:rollin:  Do you even realize how stupid it is to say that? Those are all opinions not facts. It's also a logical fallacy called Popularity, like saying God must be real because most people agree He is.

Uh, no. Philosophy, by necessity of the training involved, familiarizes you with logic and reasoning far more than other disciplines. Heck, it alone defined errors in reasoning and constructs logical frameworks.

Scientist by necessity of what they need to know about logic and sound reasoning in their profession, as well as scientific evidence is what enables them to construct logical frameworks or science wouldn't be so successful, unlike Philosophy that relies on conjecture without reliable evidence.

And I can confidently say that your opinion is incorrect. Scientists aren't philosophers, they're scientists. They don't do philosophy, rather they employ and (usually) employ the philosophical position of methodological naturalism. Scientists tend to rely on observation and experimentation, not just logic (which is no dig against scientists) because there is nothing about the way things behave at base that is intrinsically logical. And there are many questions and inquiries that are by necessity beyond its scope to answer, from ethics and mathematical ontology to epistemology and truth. Again, read my response to the previous quote.

You are correct, and philosophers aren't scientist that study the world we live in not hypothetical conundrums. And saying science can't study ethics, mathematical ontology to epistemology and truth is absurd because they have and done very well.

Well, no. The problem is that if you're going to say that someone is going to make a great case for their position when much of the subject matter falls outside of their specialized purview and knowledge base, I'm going to be suspicious. Dawkins isn't a physicist or a philosopher, so when he speaks on those topics in a book to make a case for atheism, it isn't surprising that he was so-so and wrong several times, since he steps out of his depth when entering into philosophy etc. It has nothing to do with lacking "big words".

Please show where he is wrong! One can be an idiot philosopher or a genius biologist. And where exactly are philosophers not out of their element when they are not physicists?
Why are there so many unanswered problems and paradoxes in philosophy and not in science or mathematics that have gotten rid of most of the contradictions and paradoxes ? Because philosophy relies on words that have more than one meaning.  Solitary

[GurrenLagann]

If you are correct then why are there so many people that believe in the Bible that talks about unicorns as history? What makes you think that atheists haven't looked for evidence of God? To say we would then hammer away at why the evidence is bad like it is wrong to do that is stupid.

Most people who read the Bible and are monotheists do NOT believe in unicorns.

You realuze that I AM an atheist, right? If you actually follow the conversation, you'll see I was responding to his claim the Dawkins coukd have just written something like "There is no evidence for the existence of God."

Pay attention.

Where is this evidence there is a God that isn't flawed?

Again, actually read. I said that if there is actual support for a position, to have grounds against it, beyond mere assertion, you actually have to demonstrate why it's wrong.

The Bible is evidence that there were unicorns and God, talking snakes, talking donkeys, and you say the evidence is to be believed? The arguments for God have been shown to be logical fallacies because they assume a God exist as the premise that not everyone agrees upon.  A logical argument can only be sound if the premises are agreed upon.

Well, first off not everyone believes everything that the Bible says at face value, which is good. Second:y, not all pro-God arguments assume God exists. In fact, I'd say most of the prominent ones (Kalam, fine-tuning, etc.) do not.

:rollin:  Do you even realize how stupid it is to say that? Those are all opinions not facts. It's also a logical fallacy called Popularity, like saying God must be real because most people agree He is.

Actually, the fact that people have been saying this about Dawkins for several years is true. I didn't say it was true because a lot of people say it is, but that a lot of people have said it because it is true.

Scientist by necessity of what they need to know about logic and sound reasoning in their profession, as well as scientific evidence is what enables them to construct logical frameworks or science wouldn't be so successful, unlike Philosophy that relies on conjecture without reliable evidence.

Scientists don't create logical frameworks nor does the evidence they uncover allow them to do so (that doesn't even make sense), that's what philosophers do.
I do think it's funny that you don't think philosophy progresses or is successful, or has any basis in evidence. :rollin: Philosophy uses evidence (by which I assume you mean empirical evidence) where applicable. I'd like to see you try to use empirical evidence in a discussion on the ontology of math.

I had a sinking feeling this was going to get turned into a science vs. philosophy thing, and voila it has.

You are correct, and philosophers aren't scientist that study the world we live in not hypothetical conundrums. And saying science can't study ethics, mathematical ontology to epistemology and truth is absurd because they have and done very well.

Just fractal wrongness here. Philosophy does "study" the reality, all aspects of it. But not all of reality is amenable to science. You say that science has studied AND had success in the areas I mentioned (ethics, mathematical ontology, truth and epistemology) - I pray tell, where, on ANY of those topics? I know you're bullshitting, because it hasn't. This, again, is not a knock against science, but what you're doing is clear 'scientism', i.e making your love for science blind you to areas that it cannot be of [much] use, certainly not solving it, as they are often conceptual issues.

Please show where he is wrong! One can be an idiot philosopher or a genius biologist. And where exactly are philosophers not out of their element when they are not physicists?
Why are there so many unanswered problems and paradoxes in philosophy and not in science or mathematics that have gotten rid of most of the contradictions and paradoxes ? Because philosophy relies on words that have more than one meaning.  Solitary

I think Joe will get a laugh out of this one, what with you thinking that science has gotten rid of 'most of its paradoxes and contradictions'. :rollin: I mean hell, all I have to do really is gesture to wave-particle duality, quantum gravity, Big Bang, consciousness etc. to show your bullshit.

Science doesn't tend to fret about the conundrums in philosophy not because scientists think thet can solve them all, but (probably) because they feel their own time is better spent assuming a particular position and going on from there. Why would a scientist spend too much time worrying about the problems with the Correspondence Theory of Truth when there are people who are likely more capable (because of their education)?

[Colanth]

Dawkins' book could have made a "good argument[] for atheism" with just one sentence; "There is no good evidence for the existence of any gods."  That's it.  That's all he needed to write.

To be a book presenting a good case for atheism, TGD would have had to have had in-depth and valid refutations of the main arguments for God's existence, not an unfounded platitude that it would have been had it really only have been what you suggest it should have been.

Pointing out that there is an absolute lack of any credible evidence for an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent creator is hardly "an unfounded platitude."  If I explained my "a-unicorn-ism" by pointing out that there is a total lack of evidence, would I be perpetuating "an unfounded platitude"?  Or course not.  I would be offering an absolutely adequate explanation of why I don't believe in unicorns.  Such an argument for atheism is equally adequate.

Adequate for atheists, or for people who were born Christian but don't go much further into it.

But for people who are more certain that God exists than they are that Lincoln is really in Nebraska, it's not even a platitude.  They believe, as much as you believe that the sun is hotter than dry ice, that if the Bible says that God exists, he does.  Writing a book that says "the entire basis of your life is total nonsense" isn't going to convince them.

If somebody doesn't like The God Delusion because it's boring, or it doesn't have enough big words, or because it contains nothing they don't already know, that's fine.  But to say that it fails to make the case for atheism because "Dawkins is a poor philosopher" just makes my eyes roll.

No argument there.  Because the only "case for atheism" one can make is only sufficient for those who are already convinced.  You can't write a book that will make Christians convert, but you may be able to make some of them think, just a little.  And that takes more than "there's never been any objective evidence of any god".

[Hijiri Byakuren]

unlike Philosophy that relies on conjecture without reliable evidence. [/color]

The philosophy classes taught in colleges these days teach students to walk through a logical thought process and back up assertions with proper evidence and sources. In ethics, for example, competing theories on morality are used to teach this because it is challenging to back up a pure moral argument; students eventually learn to bring in cases to demonstrate a particular moral theory in action, and make their case as to why they agree or disagree with the moral theory. They are taught to stop looking at it in terms of right and wrong and instead to look at it in terms of what will realistically bring the greatest benefit and the fewest malefactors to a society. (Generally defined in terms of physical and mental health.) It uses the scientific philosophy even if it is not science itself. Any modern philosophy class worth its salt operates on scientific philosophy, and certainly does not rely on "conjecture without reliable evidence." Just thought I'd clear that up for you. :-D

On that note, I thought Dawkins' takes on philosophy were just fine. While it's necessary to say more than, "there is no evidence for the existence of God," you don't need to get into very advanced philosophy to tear apart theistic arguments.

[Solitary]

If you are correct then why are there so many people that believe in the Bible that talks about unicorns as history? What makes you think that atheists haven't looked for evidence of God? To say we would then hammer away at why the evidence is bad like it is wrong to do that is stupid.

Most people who read the Bible and are monotheists do NOT believe in unicorns.

You realuze that I AM an atheist, right? If you actually follow the conversation, you'll see I was responding to his claim the Dawkins coukd have just written something like "There is no evidence for the existence of God."

Pay attention.

Where is this evidence there is a God that isn't flawed?

Again, actually read. I said that if there is actual support for a position, to have grounds against it, beyond mere assertion, you actually have to demonstrate why it's wrong.

The Bible is evidence that there were unicorns and God, talking snakes, talking donkeys, and you say the evidence is to be believed? The arguments for God have been shown to be logical fallacies because they assume a God exist as the premise that not everyone agrees upon.  A logical argument can only be sound if the premises are agreed upon.

Well, first off not everyone believes everything that the Bible says at face value, which is good. Second:y, not all pro-God arguments assume God exists. In fact, I'd say most of the prominent ones (Kalam, fine-tuning, etc.) do not.

:rollin:  Do you even realize how stupid it is to say that? Those are all opinions not facts. It's also a logical fallacy called Popularity, like saying God must be real because most people agree He is.

Actually, the fact that people have been saying this about Dawkins for several years is true. I didn't say it was true because a lot of people say it is, but that a lot of people have said it because it is true.

Scientist by necessity of what they need to know about logic and sound reasoning in their profession, as well as scientific evidence is what enables them to construct logical frameworks or science wouldn't be so successful, unlike Philosophy that relies on conjecture without reliable evidence.

Scientists don't create logical frameworks nor does the evidence they uncover allow them to do so (that doesn't even make sense), that's what philosophers do.
I do think it's funny that you don't think philosophy progresses or is successful, or has any basis in evidence. :rollin: Philosophy uses evidence (by which I assume you mean empirical evidence) where applicable. I'd like to see you try to use empirical evidence in a discussion on the ontology of math.

I had a sinking feeling this was going to get turned into a science vs. philosophy thing, and voila it has.

You are correct, and philosophers aren't scientist that study the world we live in not hypothetical conundrums. And saying science can't study ethics, mathematical ontology to epistemology and truth is absurd because they have and done very well.

Just fractal wrongness here. Philosophy does "study" the reality, all aspects of it. But not all of reality is amenable to science. You say that science has studied AND had success in the areas I mentioned (ethics, mathematical ontology, truth and epistemology) - I pray tell, where, on ANY of those topics? I know you're bullshitting, because it hasn't. This, again, is not a knock against science, but what you're doing is clear 'scientism', i.e making your love for science blind you to areas that it cannot be of [much] use, certainly not solving it, as they are often conceptual issues.

Please show where he is wrong! One can be an idiot philosopher or a genius biologist. And where exactly are philosophers not out of their element when they are not physicists?
Why are there so many unanswered problems and paradoxes in philosophy and not in science or mathematics that have gotten rid of most of the contradictions and paradoxes ? Because philosophy relies on words that have more than one meaning.  Solitary

I think Joe will get a laugh out of this one, what with you thinking that science has gotten rid of 'most of its paradoxes and contradictions'. :rollin: I mean hell, all I have to do really is gesture to wave-particle duality, quantum gravity, Big Bang, consciousness etc. to show your bullshit.

Science doesn't tend to fret about the conundrums in philosophy not because scientists think thet can solve them all, but (probably) because they feel their own time is better spent assuming a particular position and going on from there. Why would a scientist spend too much time worrying about the problems with the Correspondence Theory of Truth when there are people who are likely more capable (because of their education)?

"I mean hell, all I have to do really is gesture to wave-particle duality, quantum gravity, Big Bang, consciousness etc. to show your bullshit."

Really! You obviously don't understand quantum mechanics or mathematics actually works do you? And I did say most, not all! There is a three body problem for example in math but the process is almost without paradoxes accept for the set problem.  As far as consciousness, how is that a paradox or contradiction? The Big Bang problem has been solved with quantum mechanics. And the wave particle duality is not a paradox and is easily understood if one realizes a particle is real, and a wave is shown by a bunch of particle, and there no contradiction in the logic used for the calculations.

You are correct that quantum gravity hasn't been solved, so how is that a paradox or contradiction? And why are you so sure Joe would disagree. He disagreed with me once here and you laughed your silly ass off until he agreed with me after I showed an electron and photon are particles and not waves until you have a group of them. Even if Joe was the very top expert in the field you're  still appealing to authority that is not always logical because there are authorities that don't agree with each other. You need to educate yourself on math, science, modern cosmology, and formal logic before you start saying stupid shit.  [-X  Solitary

[BugRib]

The philosophy classes taught in colleges these days teach students to walk through a logical thought process and back up assertions with proper evidence and sources.

This is called "The Scientific Method."  And it is good that this is what they are teaching in advanced philosophy classes because it is the only kind of "philosophical" method of thought that has any relevance in determining actual truth claims in the real world (such as whether there is a super-being running the universe).  Peter Singer, for example, is notable for applying what can only be called "The Scientific Method" to ethics, and this is what makes him perhaps the most respected and influential living ethicist.  (He's also notable for avoiding pretentious philosophical jargon.)

And this is why I say scientists are philosophers.  They take the methods of logic and rationality worked out by philosophers (and other scientists) and apply them to the outside world.  They are natural philosophers, and their job is to determine how things work in the real world and to figure out what's true and what's false.  This is exactly what Dawkins does in The God Delusion, and he does it more than adequately.

While the more esoteric branches of philosophy are important (and at times incredibly, mind-blowingly interesting), they are not better-equipped than scientists to determine truth claims about the real world (e.g. Is God real?).  What I want these Dawkins naysayers to do is point out specifically where he is actually "wrong," and where his arguments actually fail.  And if they can't do so without resorting to postmodernist-style philosophical jargon--that is, if they can't do so within the confines of plain old English--then I think they are pretentious and full of it.

For instance, why is it silly for Dawkins to point out that the Cosmological Argument fails because it quite obviously fails to explain where the "Creator" came from?  This is logic at its most basic.  Why is it silly to ask proponents of the Cosmological Argument why the Creator doesn't need a creator, as somebody here asserted?

(BTW, I don't recall Dawkins ever claiming the mantle of philosopher.  And if he is practicing philosophy in his book, it is only that school of philosophy known as "The Scientific Method"--something that he is more than capable of employing.)

[Hijiri Byakuren]

This is called "The Scientific Method."

I know. That was the point of the post. Solitary seemed to think modern philosophy used something other than that.

[GurrenLagann]

This is called "The Scientific Method."  And it is good that this is what they are teaching in advanced philosophy classes because it is the only kind of "philosophical" method of thought that has any relevance in determining actual truth claims in the real world (such as whether there is a super-being running the universe).  Peter Singer, for example, is notable for applying what can only be called "The Scientific Method" to ethics, and this is what makes him perhaps the most respected and influential living ethicist.  (He's also notable for avoiding pretentious philosophical jargon.)

Sure, the generalized (and thus not really "the") scientific method is chiefly reliant on empiricism. However, your claim that it is the only relevant method of determning truth claims in reality is hilariously false, self-defeating and amounts to logical positivism for goodness sake. If 'the' scientific method is the only way of judging truth claims of reality, then the claim itself is false, seeing as it is neither an application of 'the' scientific method nor self-attesting, and is therefore contradictory.

Further, it essentially voids mathematics (since it doesn't use the scientific method) and would also mean that areas where science is of little to no use , like epistemology or truth theories, are in fact open to science even though they aren't seeing as they're chiefly conceptual and yet clearly involve truth claims about reality and - more fundamentally - about the very nature of what it even means to be a "truth claim".

And this is why I say scientists are philosophers.  They take the methods of logic and rationality worked out by philosophers (and other scientists) and apply them to the outside world.  They are natural philosophers, and their job is to determine how things work in the real world and to figure out what's true and what's false.  This is exactly what Dawkins does in The God Delusion, and he does it more than adequately.

Scientists determine what works, that is not an application of logic. Otherwise how things behave would be logically necessitated; but they aren't, as I can deny that without contradiction. And again, scientists aren't really modern philosophers in anything more than the somewhat trivial sense under which I can claim to be a philosopher of a sort as well.

While the more esoteric branches of philosophy are important (and at times incredibly, mind-blowingly interesting), they are not better-equipped than scientists to determine truth claims about the real world (e.g. Is God real?).

It is in fact the case that where the questions about reality are not amenable to science (as I said earlier: mathematics' ontological status, epistemology, ethics, etc.) philosophers are much more well equipped at tackling the questions in a way that scientists just aren't due to it being out of their depth because of differing education. And the same goes for philosophers in some cases. This isn't so much about being 'better' as it is about being honest where something works.

What I want these Dawkins naysayers to do is point out specifically where he is actually "wrong," and where his arguments actually fail.  And if they can't do so without resorting to postmodernist-style philosophical jargon--that is, if they can't do so within the confines of plain old English--then I think they are pretentious and full of it.

I've already done this. His treatment of the Ontological argument is hollow and does little more than call it something along the lines of pretentious. His treatment of the Cosmological argument is similar, wherein his real criticism mostly amounts to saying that he fails to see how a mere argument could establish something so radical about reality. Not all of his treatment of the Cosmological argument is bad, it's just so-so.

For instance, why is it silly for Dawkins to point out that the Cosmological Argument fails because it quite obviously fails to explain where the "Creator" came from?  This is logic at its most basic.  Why is it silly to ask proponents of the Cosmological Argument why the Creator doesn't need a creator, as somebody here asserted?

That would be me and I'll tell you why: Dawkins' objection - and the usual atheist objection - to the Cosmological argument is self-defeating and voids science. The Cosmological argument itself doesn't intend to say "where" the Creator came from, because that's supposed to be antithetical to its nature. It just is, much like reality itself.
Further, the Cosmological argument is positing God as the best explanation/solution to given problems. If you require that the best explanation itself be explained, you inescapably start an infinite regression of explanation-explaining that cannot be solved; there is no recourse but to nix that. That's why Dawkins' particular objection (the usual atheist objection to the CA) fails.

[BugRib]

GurrenLagenn, you say my claim about "the scientific method" being the only way we can know actual truths about reality is laughable.  You then cover your ass by claiming that mathematics is not based on the scientific method.

I fear that few philosophers of science will agree with you that math is not science (unless they are strict Popperians--and even Popper ultimately concluded that the vast majority of--if not all--mathematical theorems were "proven" scientifically).  All of math rests on the fact that we can prove simple equations experimentally.  From there, it's all inference, induction, and deduction--all methods of science by the reckoning of probably everyone on earth with an advanced degree in philosophy.

And even if I can't convince you that math is a science, I doubt you can come up with a mathematical theorem that was discovered and "proven" purely ontologically.  If you do, you will have made history.

And as for your claim that the efficacy of the "the scientific method" can only be proved ontologically, well you're in the company of lots of wonderful Christian apologists who want to claim that science ultimately rests on the same kind of faith as religious belief.  Have fun with them.

Anyway, don't forget to get back to me with a truth about reality that was discovered and proven purely ontologically.

[BugRib]

This is called "The Scientific Method."

I know. That was the point of the post. Solitary seemed to think modern philosophy used something other than that.

Sorry Hijiri.  I didn't mean to come across as condescending to you.  Point taken.

[BugRib]

I found this quote for you GurrenLagann:

>>>Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not science according to the definition of Karl Popper.  However, in the 1930s important work in mathematical logic showed that mathematics cannot be reduced to logic, and Karl Popper concluded the "most mathematical theories are, like those of physics and biology, hypothetico-deductive: pure mathematics therefore turns out to be much closer to the natural sciences whose hypotheses are conjectures, than it seemed even recently."<<<

http://mathandtext.blogspot.nl/

[Icarus]

GurrenLagenn, you say my claim about "the scientific method" being the only way we can know actual truths about reality is laughable.  You then cover your ass by claiming that mathematics is not based on the scientific method.

I fear that few philosophers of science will agree with you that math is not science (unless they are strict Popperians--and even Popper ultimately concluded that the vast majority of--if not all--mathematical theorems were "proven" scientifically).  All of math rests on the fact that we can prove simple equations experimentally.  From there, it's all inference, induction, and deduction--all methods of science by the reckoning of probably everyone on earth with an advanced degree in philosophy.

And even if I can't convince you that math is a science, I doubt you can come up with a mathematical theorem that was discovered and "proven" purely ontologically.  If you do, you will have made history.

Math isn't science because science studies the natural universe and math is a creation of man to aid in the understanding of the natural universe, a small but crucial difference. Science gives math context and math gives science validity through quantitative experimentation. They go hand in hand but are not one in the same.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Math does not do this.

Formal science isn't science.

[BugRib]

GurrenLagenn, you say my claim about "the scientific method" being the only way we can know actual truths about reality is laughable.  You then cover your ass by claiming that mathematics is not based on the scientific method.

I fear that few philosophers of science will agree with you that math is not science (unless they are strict Popperians--and even Popper ultimately concluded that the vast majority of--if not all--mathematical theorems were "proven" scientifically).  All of math rests on the fact that we can prove simple equations experimentally.  From there, it's all inference, induction, and deduction--all methods of science by the reckoning of probably everyone on earth with an advanced degree in philosophy.

And even if I can't convince you that math is a science, I doubt you can come up with a mathematical theorem that was discovered and "proven" purely ontologically.  If you do, you will have made history.

Math isn't science because science studies the natural universe and math is a creation of man to aid in the understanding of the natural universe, a small but crucial difference. Science gives math context and math gives science validity through quantitative experimentation. They go hand in hand but are not one in the same.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Math does not do this.

A purely semantic disagreement.

What's important in this debate is that mathematical theorems cannot be discovered or proven purely ontologically.  That, in fact, mathematicians use the same methods to discover and prove theorems as scientists do--namely inference, induction, and deduction, all ultimately resting on the ability to experimentally prove the simpler equations on which the complex theorems are ultimately built.

[Icarus]

A purely semantic disagreement.

What's important in this debate is that mathematical theorems cannot be discovered or proven purely ontologically.  That, in fact, mathematicians use the same methods to discover and prove theorems as scientists do--namely inference, induction, and deduction, all ultimately resting on the ability to experimentally prove the simpler equations on which the complex theorems are ultimately built.

I thought that was the argument because the fact that mathematicians use the same method as scientists is obvious. Same thought process with difference conceptualizations. It's a lot easier for scientists to show their results in research papers, I've never read a published mathematical paper nor do I wish to.