Monday, July 9, 2007
Of Axiom, Theory, Practice, Belief, and Silliness
The slew of pop-science books I've read recently has wreaked havoc on my Amazon.com recommendations (while I didn't actually purchase these books from Amazon, I did claim ownership of them). Suddenly, they are convinced I want to be an atheist, and are recommending Letter to a Christian Nation, The God Delusion, God is Not Great, and God: the Failed Hypothesis. Huh.
Leaving aside the notion of whether I am a good scientist, or whether I am a good Christian, I'll make some sweeping statements that may sound like neither, depending upon the audience. God is not anathema to good science. Evolution is not anathema to God. Logic and belief may coexist peacefully. Theory and practice have a place alongside one another. Placing them on opposite sides of some scale, demanding that only one may be picked, is kind of silly.
Where to begin?
Axiomatic systems like logic, statistics, and mathematics rely on a priori knowledge. On propositions. We make some foundational statements (propositions), and we combine these statements to make other, hopefully more powerful statements. The belief involved in this kind of system is dependent upon the belief in the propositions, and the belief in the axiomatic systems themselves. The practice is generally called "proving".
Science is another kind of practice, also with an underpinning of belief. In the practice, one forms a hypothesis, conducts an experiment, and refines the hypothesis. The underpinning beliefs are that this system will yield better hypotheses and that the simpler the hypothesis, the better. I'm no Karl Popper, but I'm sure someone who is will email me important clarifications.
Practice is, simply put, repeated action. It may involve a purpose. For instance, I may write often in the hopes of becoming a better writer. This purpose could be thought of as a hypothesis, but it's not scientific, because it is neither falsifiable nor repeatable. Practice may also result from an authoritarian dictate- such as a child's daily regimen of piano "practice." Eventually, practice may result from habit. Where habits come from, I wish I knew.
Last, but not least, belief. Belief, I believe, is inevitable. I don't really even know how to describe it without using tautology: one believes something if one considers it truth. One can believe in a proposition, a hypothesis, a causal link, a method, practice, a truth, a falsehood, and even a practice. In some cases, belief may even be arbitrary- such as my belief that what has happened in the past will happen in the future.
There are obvious problems with each. We've known since Gödel that axiomatic systems only have two flavors: incomplete and inconsistent. The scientific method is refinement of hypotheses, and as such is dependent upon the quality of input. Practice, while comforting, is little else on its own. And belief- to a non-believer- is arbitrary and capricious.
But in the end, it is the mis-application of one to another that yields the conflicts described above. Christianity is, in the end, neither an axiomatic nor a scientific system. Using axiomatic logic to prove or disprove belief and practice is, as I stated previously, kind of silly. Same goes for the scientific method. Conversely, applying religious belief or practice to axiomatic or scientific inquiry is equally silly. It's like trying to use statistics to disprove Karate.
Kind of silly.
Leaving aside the notion of whether I am a good scientist, or whether I am a good Christian, I'll make some sweeping statements that may sound like neither, depending upon the audience. God is not anathema to good science. Evolution is not anathema to God. Logic and belief may coexist peacefully. Theory and practice have a place alongside one another. Placing them on opposite sides of some scale, demanding that only one may be picked, is kind of silly.
Where to begin?
Axiomatic systems like logic, statistics, and mathematics rely on a priori knowledge. On propositions. We make some foundational statements (propositions), and we combine these statements to make other, hopefully more powerful statements. The belief involved in this kind of system is dependent upon the belief in the propositions, and the belief in the axiomatic systems themselves. The practice is generally called "proving".
Science is another kind of practice, also with an underpinning of belief. In the practice, one forms a hypothesis, conducts an experiment, and refines the hypothesis. The underpinning beliefs are that this system will yield better hypotheses and that the simpler the hypothesis, the better. I'm no Karl Popper, but I'm sure someone who is will email me important clarifications.
Practice is, simply put, repeated action. It may involve a purpose. For instance, I may write often in the hopes of becoming a better writer. This purpose could be thought of as a hypothesis, but it's not scientific, because it is neither falsifiable nor repeatable. Practice may also result from an authoritarian dictate- such as a child's daily regimen of piano "practice." Eventually, practice may result from habit. Where habits come from, I wish I knew.
Last, but not least, belief. Belief, I believe, is inevitable. I don't really even know how to describe it without using tautology: one believes something if one considers it truth. One can believe in a proposition, a hypothesis, a causal link, a method, practice, a truth, a falsehood, and even a practice. In some cases, belief may even be arbitrary- such as my belief that what has happened in the past will happen in the future.
There are obvious problems with each. We've known since Gödel that axiomatic systems only have two flavors: incomplete and inconsistent. The scientific method is refinement of hypotheses, and as such is dependent upon the quality of input. Practice, while comforting, is little else on its own. And belief- to a non-believer- is arbitrary and capricious.
But in the end, it is the mis-application of one to another that yields the conflicts described above. Christianity is, in the end, neither an axiomatic nor a scientific system. Using axiomatic logic to prove or disprove belief and practice is, as I stated previously, kind of silly. Same goes for the scientific method. Conversely, applying religious belief or practice to axiomatic or scientific inquiry is equally silly. It's like trying to use statistics to disprove Karate.
Kind of silly.
// posted by David @ 11:30 AM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]