Does science really have laws? The proposition that it does is at the root of the argument that science is based on undisputed "facts" while religion is based on subjective "values." Moreover, if science has laws that are known to be incorrigible, then miracles would seem to be impossible.
So what exactly are scientific laws and what degree of certainty can we attach to them? This question was raised in a recent email I received. "My question concerns your summation of Hume's position concerning scientific laws," the writer says. In my book on Christianity, I cited Hume to make the point that "no finite number of observations, however large, can be used to derive an unrestricted general conclusion that is logically defensible."
This raised for my correspondent the following question: "How do you suppose a modern-day Hume would answer someone who points out that all humans are made from DNA? Surely he would not be so stubborn as to insist on the possibility that there are a few of us walking around without DNA. What say you?"
Here is my answer. Consider the proposition that all life forms--including all humans--are made from DNA. Hume would say this is not a "law." Rather, it is an observation based on common experience and testing. The reason we cannot speak of a "law" is that we haven't checked every human and every life form that has ever existed to ensure that every one is made of DNA.
So where do we get this so-called "law"? And where do we get other laws, such as Newton's inverse square law or the law that says "light travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum"? Hume would argue that we have measured many humans and other life forms and found DNA and therefore we infer that all humans and other life forms are made of DNA. Similarly we have measured the speed of light frequently and from this we derive the idea that light always and everywhere travels at the same speed.
Hume's point is not to deny the practical utility of these conclusions, but to deny that we know something as a law just because we have measured it many, many times. As Hume writes in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, from the proposition "I have found that such an object has always been attended with such an effect," it is impossible to derive the conclusion, "I forsee that other objects which are in appearance similar, will be attended with similar effects." Logically, Hume notes, this is a non-sequitur.
In particular, just because we have measured light at a given speed a hundred or a thousand or ten million times doesn't mean that light always and everywhere travels at that speed. How do we know that on a distant star, light travels at the same speed as it does here? In truth, we do not know. Along the same lines, if tomorrow a life form was located on, say, Mars, and this life form did not contain DNA, we could no longer hold that all life forms are made of DNA.
From this we can conclude that: scientific laws are not really "laws" but merely generalizations based on previous tries. Once we recognize this we see why miracles are entirely within the realm of scientific possibility. Since we cannot name a single empirical scientific law that is in principle inviolable, we cannot rule out deviations from these so-called laws. I'm not arguing for the validity of this or that miracle. I'm simply saying that the idea that these things cannot happen is based on an ignorance of what science shows and doesn't show.
Hume, generally regarded as an exploder of metaphysics, was also an exploder of the pretensions of scientific knowledge. Recognizing the power of Hume's argument, the philosopher Karl Popper conceded that science is incapable of "verifying" truth; it can merely "falsify" hypotheses and thus (we hope) draw us a little closer to truth. This truth, however, remains elusive, just over the horizon. The biblical notion that "we see through a glass darkly" turns out not to be theological hocus-pocus but a clear-eyed summary of the human situation.
Reader Comments ( Page 16 of 16)
226. Daniel "The same goes for the Greek translations used in the Gospels"
The gospels would be second hand oral Aramaic accounts translated into Greek then into English many, many years later.
PS: the Testimonius Flavius is generally regarded as corrupted and even if it's not corrupted it only confirms that there were "christians".
PPS: I think the blog is dead.... Like Jesus of Nazareth.
Ryan Anderson at 6:47PM on Sep 29th 2008
227. Dinesh D'Souza: "Does science really have laws? The proposition that it does is at the root of the argument that science is based on undisputed 'facts' while religion is based on subjective 'values.' Moreover, if science has laws that are known to be incorrigible, then miracles would seem to be impossible."
Actually science does have a catalog of "laws" that we've determined correlate to objective reality. We are also on occasion improve our "description" of objective reality or aspects of objective reality with improvements to these "laws" such as the jump from Newton's explanation to Einstein's.
The more important question is whether or not Objective Reality has Laws. Yes it does as provided by the evidence abundantly. You'd not be able to breath otherwise for example. The laws of nature that enable life keep working for billions of life forms for billions of years. Proof positive that nature is a machine of sorts that obeys it's own "sense of order" (so to speak) that we have described with very high precision (in many cases) under the label of "laws".
Dinesh D'Souza: "Dinesh D'Souza: "So what exactly are scientific laws and what degree of certainty can we attach to them?"
That depends upon the law and the state of advancement of that branch of science!
Dinesh D'Souza: "This question was raised in a recent email I received. "My question concerns your summation of Hume's position concerning scientific laws," the writer says. In my book on Christianity, I cited Hume to make the point that "no finite number of observations, however large, can be used to derive an unrestricted general conclusion that is logically defensible."
Actually Hume is mistaken as are you Dinesh D'Souza. Deeply mistaken.
Dinesh D'Souza: "This raised for my correspondent the following question: "How do you suppose a modern-day Hume would answer someone who points out that all humans are made from DNA? Surely he would not be so stubborn as to insist on the possibility that there are a few of us walking around without DNA. What say you?"
Naturally in Dinesh's answer he changes the question to avoid an unpleasant answer. Of course ALL human beings have DNA. Without question one can state that FACT and Hume be damned! Why? It's the nature of human beings that they have DNA. Just like it's the nature of stars like our sun Sol to have hydrogen as a fuel. It is what it is and isn't what it isn't. We have crossed the "proof threshold" for human beings having DNA and for our Sol burning (acutally fusing) hydrogen fuel.
Dinesh D'Souza: "Here is my answer. Consider the proposition that all life forms--including all humans--are made from DNA. Hume would say this is not a "law." Rather, it is an observation based on common experience and testing. The reason we cannot speak of a "law" is that we haven't checked every human and every life form that has ever existed to ensure that every one is made of DNA.
We don't have to check every human being to see if they have DNA for it to be a law. That is a deep mistake you make Dinesh in your lack of thinking it through.
A law is a rule, a guideline that correlates to objective reality to some degree or another or not at all. For example, is there any human being who can jump to the Moon from the Earth's surface without the aid of any machines? Nope. The explanations we have for Gravity such as Newton or Einstein or Quantum Gravity clearly tell us why it is impossible for a human being or any other life form on Earth to jump to the moon without the aid of a ship or some sort of technological machine taking them there. It's simply impossible.
That means that Jesus could not have risen to "heaven" as the Bible says. It's simply impossible in objective reality unless Jesus was an alien with a space ship. Of course in story books and mythologies it's perfectly possible. Superman does it all the time!
Dinesh D'Souza: "So where do we get this so-called "law"?"
We get it from hard work studying the nature of nature! We observe and theorize and test those theories against objective reality to find out the explanations that correlate accurately with objective reality. Objective Reality is the judge, we are not!
Dinesh D'Souza: "And where do we get other laws, such as Newton's inverse square law or the law that says "light travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum"?"
Well human beings thought them up with amazing amounts of hard work testing their ideas against the harsh taskmaster that Nature is.
Dinesh D'Souza: "Hume would argue that we have measured many humans and other life forms and found DNA and therefore we infer that all humans and other life forms are made of DNA."
Hume is deeply mistaken. Why? A theory or law that has been tested against objective reality and demonstrated to correlate accurately with objective reality can be used to rule out other "ideas" that would violate such well tested law. For example, Newton proves - by ruling out the possibility - that Jesus could not have assended to heaven under his own powers unless he had a space ship. Does this mean that even though Einstein shows that Newton wasn't entirely accurate that Newton is wrong? Nope, for most purposes Newton's Laws of Gravity work great for day to day experience and practical work. It's what engineers use to keep people safe in all the buildings and bridges and other things that they build down here on Earth. When a deeper more accurate understanding is needed is when it's needed and one excellent example is the complex Global Position System (GPS) which requires Relativity to accurately account for the Time Dilation Distortions that the orbiting GPS Satellites experience relative to us down here on Earth's surface or in the air.
Does this mean that we won't find a more accurate version of theories of gravity? Nope, we might. Will they obliviate Einstein or Newton? Unlikely since Newton and Einstein must - MUST - be taken into account with any new theory or "law".
Dinesh keeps twisting and distorting. Are you seriously suggesting that there are human beings without DNA Dinesh? Maybe you're one of them - after all Dinesh, you're spineless.
Dinesh D'Souza: "Similarly we have measured the speed of light frequently and from this we derive the idea that light always and everywhere travels at the same speed."
In fact we know that the speed of light doesn't always travel at the same speed. Your statements about light here reveal a deep lack of knowledge not only of science but of the scientific method.
Dinesh D'Souza: "Hume's point is not to deny the practical utility of these conclusions, but to deny that we know something as a law just because we have measured it many, many times."
Hume's is a precautionary principle that only holds in some cases. It's like don't dive into a lake without first checking that you won't injure yourself by impaling your head on a rock as Dinesh does in this column on a regular basis.
Dinesh D'Souza: "As Hume writes in his Inquiry [spelling correction] Concerning Human Understanding, from the proposition "I have found that such an object has always been attended with such an effect," it is impossible to derive the conclusion, "I foresee [spelling correction] that other objects which are in appearance similar, will be attended with similar effects." Logically, Hume notes, this is a non-sequitur.
Your simplistic understanding of science fails you Dinesh D'Souza. It take more than A causes B to determine a scientific law. Much more. Usually by the time most people hear of a scientific law it has been distilled down to it's essense which may seem like a simple casual statement.
Scientific Laws are descriptions of objective reality and if accurate will correlate with the way the universe works.
Dinesh D'Souza: "In particular, just because we have measured light at a given speed a hundred or a thousand or ten million times doesn't mean that light always and everywhere travels at that speed. How do we know that on a distant star, light travels at the same speed as it does here?"
Actually astronomers can tell that the speed of light does indeed travel at the speeds that they have measured even out to the edge of the Universe's Horizon and back in time to just a few hundreds of thousands of years after the Theorized Big Bang. So you're deeply mistaken again.
Not only that we can and have measured the composition of stars and know what they are made of to an extremely high degree of confidence.
Rarely does a new law overturn all the predicted aspects of an old law. Almost always a new law includes and incorporates the old aspects and spells them out. Obsolescence of old laws isn't necessarily obsolescence but a growth forward. This is most often true in the physical sciences. In the biological sciences which are much younger we are still in phases of learning with may not have attained a deep enough threshold of study, observation of phenomena, and building up of theories with enough gravitas to be considered laws. This is the way of science, stepwise and leapfrog development that takes centuries if not hundreds of centuries.
It's the faithers that hold the human race back with superstitious "beliefs" and "myths" of old that magical beings can simply go around violating the laws of nature. We know that magical beings can't walk on water (without cheating) or raise the dead after brain, cell and organ death occurs since we've ascertained a few laws of nature. We've sussed out of existence a few rules that guide us in a deterministic and statistical manner. In a quantum manner. We can't violate these well known and well tested laws.
Sure a man can put on a jet pack (as was recently done) and fly across the English Channel and live to tell about it. He needed technology to cheat the laws of gravity that any high school physics student can tell you about.
Dinesh D'Souza: "In truth, we do not know."
In truth Dinesh D'Souza does NOT know!!!
Astronomers do know by observing in very smart ways. Their creativity often astounds me. Just because I didn't think of it doesn't mean that they didn't.
Dinesh D'Souza: "Along the same lines, if tomorrow a life form was located on, say, Mars, and this life form did not contain DNA, we could no longer hold that all life forms are made of DNA."
It's YOUR proposition Dinesh D'Sousa - given by the nonsense you wrote above - that all life forms must have DNA. That we don't know. They might have DNA. They might not. It's clear that ALL human beings do have DNA without us testing every human being. Alien life or even some life forms on Earth may have a different form of molecules that encode the life processes and those might be very different or just a small variation. What we do know is that all matter based life will have some form of way of encoding it's life processes. Life forms are atomic matter information processing systems after all. Information Science - especially the works of Stephen Wolfram - clearly show this.
Dinesh D'Souza: "From this we can conclude that: scientific laws are not really "laws" but merely generalizations based on previous tries."
Actually you're deeply mistaken Dinesh D'Souza. Underlying principles and maths and relationships are uncovered in the process of science. When we get to the level of these underlying principles we get beyond the need to test everything everywhere. Sure BEFORE we cross the "knowledge thresholds" of any particular body of knowledge or field of study your simplistic and out dated understanding of the scientific method might have once applied. However, once we cross any particular knowledge threshold our comprehension of objective reality deepens.
For example, Newton's clarification of the Newtonian Laws of Gravitation and Motion altered our comprehension of the forces of Gravity with enough accuracy that we were able to get men and machines to the Moon!
Newton also proved with his laws that Jesus could not rise up or ascend to heaven since that would violate the laws of gravity! Thus Newton proves the Bible WRONG! (Thus Literal interpretations of the bible are wrong!)
Was Newton still a religious whack job like Dinesh? Sure it seems to be the case from the historical information about him (and the current information we have of Dinesh).
So what though? What possible difference does it make if someone is a religious belief and faith stricken nut job? It can make all manners of difference. For example, a person's sense of what is real and what is not real is directly affected by their "beliefs" or "faiths" - if they have any that is.
Dinesh's faith in his mythical god does great harm in the world around Dinesh. In his relationships and in his writings. It's clear that Dinesh is out to lunch and lacks any solid foundation in science. If he did he'd have no choice but to admit that God can't possibly exist, that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, and that hundreds of silly miracles could not have happened - since laws of nature prevent his mythical gods powers from having any effects in objective reality - other than in the delusional minds and actions of the faith based nut jobs.
Dinesh D'Souza: "Once we recognize this we see why miracles are entirely within the realm of scientific possibility."
Nice try miracle boy. There isn't a chance in hell (ironic use of that phrase intended) that miracles occur. Miracles are simply in the minds of the beholder much like beauty. It's a mistake by the people's brain caused by the affliction known as belief and faith distorting the lenses of perception that humans have.
Dinesh D'Souza: "Since we cannot name a single empirical scientific law that is in principle inviolable, we cannot rule out deviations from these so-called laws."
That statement is so false there amoral miracle boy Dinesh D'Souza who authorizes the murders of those with different beliefs than his.
Dinesh D'Souza: "I'm not arguing for the validity of this or that miracle."
No you are arguing for the validity of ALL miracles just because all laws of nature have not been pinned down accurately to the 100th or 1000th decimal place. No matter how accurate we get with the laws of gravity you still won't be able to jump to the Moon Dinesh D'Souza.
Dinesh D'Souza: "I'm simply saying that the idea that these things cannot happen is based on an ignorance of what science shows and doesn't show."
What is rife with ignorance of what science shows and doesn't show is your flawed understandings of actual science Dinesh D'Souza, the child who wants miracles to be real. They aren't real, only your delusion that they are real is real. That is why you are such a sad case Dinesh D'Souza.
Dinesh D'Souza: "Hume, generally regarded as an exploder of metaphysics [so what?], was also an exploder of the pretensions of scientific knowledge."
What is pretentious are people thinking that they can override Nature. Go ahead and try to jump to the Moon. Can't eh? Too bad. That is the harsh reality. Just as it's the harsh reality that Jesus - if he existed - was simply a man (it even says that in the bible) and had no magical powers just like any other human being who has ever existed didn't have any magical powers. Nor will any human being with the aid of technology that still works within the laws of Nature.
You can't get by the laws of Nature Dinesh Miracle Wipped Boy D'Souza. Sorry. No God. No Jesus. No magic. No miracles. No afterlife - just bugs eating your corpse. No funny! Just harsh reality.
Dinesh D'Souza: "Recognizing the power of Hume's argument, the philosopher Karl Popper conceded that science is incapable of "verifying" truth; it can merely "falsify" hypotheses and thus (we hope) draw us a little closer to truth."
Well Kant is a useless pile of putrid nonsense.
Besides if you actually use the well known and well tested laws of nature that we have so far sussed out we can easily see that all the miracles are "falsified" and that "god" is falsified. God disobeys the laws of thermodynamics thus god can't exist! The list of valid refutations of the existence of god or beings like gods is extensive even with our current primitive levels of scientific knowledge in various fields.
Dinesh D'Souza: "This truth, however, remains elusive, just over the horizon."
Nonsense. We've come far. Sure we will - if we continue to exist - continue to go further. We might even obtain a grand unified theory of everything or we might not. It won't lead us to god though. It will demonstrate that god is just not there as do most other well tested and well known scientific laws and principles and facts.
Dinesh D'Souza: "The biblical notion that "we see through a glass darkly" turns out not to be theological hocus-pocus but a clear-eyed summary of the human situation.
All that is in the bible that violates laws of nature is hocus-pocus and thus bullshit. Mostly it's just stories written down to either control people or to spread primitive attempts to teach or describe the evil and vile and harsh moralities of the time 2,000 years ago till now. Where you go wrong is thinking that any of it is "true" or "actually happened" as described or that the mythical gods described therein exist.
Any insights within the bible were ripped off from wise human beings of the times and put into writing by some con men or by some deluded men or some combination and presented to idiots like Dinesh D'Souza as the word of god.
What makes you an idiot Dinesh is that you believe it. The universe, the world, we live in is so much richer and wiser once you shed the nonsense bullshit that is written in holy books. Sure there is some wisdom there such as "do not kill, do not murder" but crusaders such as Dinesh D'Souza ignore that sage advice and advocate the mass murders of people of another faith whom they don't like. Dinesh D'Souza you are an agent of Evil in this world and I mean Evil in all non-supernatural senses (as well as all mythological senses within the context of a non-mythological objective realtiy).
You are the problem Dinesh D'Souza. People like you who act upon your mythological beliefs in the world by working for evil organizations such as the White House spreading Death and Destruction around the planet, you are the evil ones as much as those who seek to destroy you for your earlier crimes against them. You and your ideas and actions simply perpetuate the cycle of violence. Your beliefs and faith in god assist and accelerate this cycle of violence and lets you sleep at night after you've drawn blood. Pure evil Dinesh, pure evil are you.
Peter at 4:53AM on Sep 30th 2008
228. Scientific Laws are descriptions of objective reality and if accurate will correlate with the way the universe works.
The mythologies and beliefs of so called holy books like the Bible or Koran or what have you are either ancient failed attempts to explain the universe or outright con jobs.
Faith is the great mind destroyer.
Peter at 5:14AM on Sep 30th 2008
229. Objective Reality - aka Nature - is the ultimate Judge, Jury and Executioner. Only that which is actually possible within the laws of nature can possibly happen. All your dreams of magic and an afterlife are just that dreams - futile dreams of those wishing objective reality wasn't as harsh as it is. There is no afterlife. No god will save you from your certain oblivion that awaits you and all of us including myself. We will end. We will cease to be forever. We get one trip around. That's why it is in our interest to not kill others or harm them as it's one of the best ways to ensure that we are not harmed or killed ourselves. It's a simple observation.
Sure there are those that don't follow it. Self defense is important but going out of your way to impose your beliefs and faiths around the world and dropping bombs is not self defense and is highly unwise. Ethics and morals are simple self preservation.
Peter at 5:20AM on Sep 30th 2008
230. Oh, Dinesh Miracle Boy D'Souza, if you really think that Objective Reality doesn't have "laws" then visit the Golden Gate Bridge, take in the view, and then jump off of it. The Law of Gravity will oblige your death wish as it does for many people every year.
The "laws" of science may be a pale and incomplete description of the "laws" of Objective Reality yet we've made tremendous strides understanding them. So much so that the mythologies of the past have been devastated and obliterated by the progress. It's just that most of humanity hasn't caught up in their thinking with that progress, most of humanity is intellectually stuck in the middle ages or before with their superstitious beliefs and faith foibles in magical super beings.
Learning to distinguish the difference between faith fantasies and actual reality is not easy for most people. It may, however, be one of the most important skills that we as a race need to learn in order to survive. We're not primitives on the savanna anymore yet most people's way of thinking still is there.
Enjoy your one life without any possibility of escape to the mythical heaven. No magical Superman Jesus or other Mythical Gods will save you from your own personal permanent death that awaits us all. The Grim Reaper really is grim. The grip of death awaits you. No story book god will save any of us from the cold grip of death. The only good news is that once we're dead we won't care anymore since we won't exist. Only the living care.
Peter at 1:35PM on Sep 30th 2008
231. Peter, very well said. You've given DD a lot to think about that he won't ever think about. :-)
Thinking is not an option, with such as him.
Anyhow, have you visited my humble blogspot yet?
http://saintbrianthegodless.blogspot.com/
Saint Brian the Godless at 2:14PM on Sep 30th 2008
232. Peter, love your webpage there, godlessaccident.com
WOW!
Pretty cool, dude.
Saint Brian the Godless at 5:56PM on Oct 3rd 2008
233. I saw this title on a news search....
"Does Science Really Have Laws?"
....and immediately thought it has to be that dumbass Dinesh D'Souza trying to decieve himself and deceive the world again - you know the world - like in the earth that we LIVE ON thanks to the LAW of gravity?
Wow.... Dinesh D'Souza = Insane Queen of Superstition.
DD stands for Devious Deception - It's how Dinesh D'Souza lives his life.
CharlieAndAnita at 8:14AM on Nov 17th 2008
234.
C O N T R O L = R E L I G I O N
simple math :-)
mac at 3:14PM on Nov 26th 2008
235. So, to all of you commentators who think that Dinesh is silly I have a couple of questions:
1) Have you, personally, looked down a microscope and seen DNA?
2) Have you, personally, ever measured the speed of light in a vacuum.
The answer is most likely to be "NO". And so, you are taking the word of a handful of scientists on faith that DNA actually exists and that the speed of light in a vacuum is what it is.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't believe these scientists since the observations that they've made are the basis of many technological improvements that have greatly improved our standard of living. However, that is all that they are: observations.
"Laws" and "Fact" in science are merely agreements among a group of people that they have reproduced each others observations in support of a given hypothesis. These laws and facts are mutable as we gain a deeper understanding of our world and how we can manipulate it to suit our ends.
As far as religion is concerned, I think Dinesh is being a bit silly. How is religion based on subjective values? First off, we have far more people who claim to have first-hand experience with God than people who have actually seen DNA or measured the speed of light. So, to this group of people, their observation is reproducible amongst the crowd. Secondly, I wouldn't call religious values particularly subjective. I find it pretty objective to follow ten commandments that include things like "don't kill", "don't steal", and "don't commit adultery". If everyone went around doing these things, the world would be in a pretty sorry state. Perhaps the subjectivity comes in when you decide to accept Jesus Christ as your savior and hence you aren't REALLY responsible for the havoc you've reaped.
Evelyn Price at 1:27AM on Dec 14th 2009