Since so many of our discussions lately are about science, I thought I'd toss in some comments by three of my favorite dead people.

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Here are some quotes from G.K. Chesterton on science that I thought pretty good. I love GKC, but admit that his "cleverness" might sound a bit flippant and off-putting to an atheist, so the fourth quote from C.S. Lewis (in "Mere Christianity") is a bit more substantive:

"Science is the study of the admitted laws of existence, which cannot prove a universal negative about whether those laws could ever be suspended by something admittedly above them."

“Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say.”


"Unfortunately science is only splendid when it is science. When science becomes religion it becomes superstition."

......................................................................................................................................................................................


“Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is.​

"And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind--this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?”​


Oh, and here are three from my favorite neurotic, mystical Jewish Christian lady, Simone Weil:

"The villagers seldom leave the village; many scientists have limited and poorly cultivated minds apart from their specialty."

"One could count on one's fingers the number of scientists throughout the world with a general idea of the history and development of their particular science: there is none who is really competent as regards sciences other than his own. As science forms an indivisible whole, one may say that there are no longer, strictly speaking, scientists, but only drudges doing scientific work."

"Science is voiceless; it is the scientists who talk."
 
“Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is.
I have seen this before by Lewis before. It certainy serves to show how clueless he was about science.
 
For one thing that it makes predictions.

Where did he say it didn't? In fact he said ........

".............this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too."​

I doubt he was unfamiliar with weather forecasts. He probably found them "useful and necessary."
 
Where did he say it didn't?
Here:

"Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.'"

In fact he said ........
".............this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too."
I doubt he was unfamiliar with weather forecasts. He probably found them "useful and necessary."
If you think predictions in science are just "weather forecasts" then it looks like you are in the same boat as Lewis.
 
Here:

"Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.'"

What about it? You claimed Lewis denied that science is useful in making predictions. Why are you copy/pasting something he said that does no such thing? See your assignment in bold below.


If you think predictions in science are just "weather forecasts" then it looks like you are in the same boat as Lewis.

"JUST?" Where did I say that? It is amazing how easily befuddled you get. Two massive screwups in two short paragraphs.

Here, let me give you your assignment and we will see if you're capable of restoring what little bit of credibility you have:

Prove that science's ability to make observations precludes its ability to make predictions.
 
Here are some quotes from G.K. Chesterton on science that I thought pretty good. I love GKC, but admit that his "cleverness" might sound a bit flippant and off-putting to an atheist, so the fourth quote from C.S. Lewis (in "Mere Christianity") is a bit more substantive:

“Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is.​

"And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind--this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?”​

All this quote is saying is that science studies things in front of us but does not study the cause of the universe, the Why we are here. It does not study philosophical questions that abstract out from the things we know. It does not study moral questions. IOW, science is an important part of many ways for us to understand ourselves in this world. I have heard atheists agree that science does not say anything about God and that is because of the limits of technology and resources. science only studies what it is able to study. It is why some discoveries are made in later generations when technology becomes available. Therefore, I generally agree with CS Lewis.
 
What about it? You claimed Lewis denied that science is useful in making predictions. Why are you copy/pasting something he said that does no such thing?
I did not. Lewis, in that quote, says science is nothing more than merely making observations. That implies he is unaware of science doing anything more than that, such as making and testing predictions.

See your assignment in bold below.
The arrogance you display here is a wonder to behold.

"JUST?" Where did I say that? It is amazing how easily befuddled you get. Two massive screwups in two short paragraphs.
So what do you think is the role of prediction in science?

If you fail to answer - and I feel sure you will - you will support my claim of "just".

Here, let me give you your assignment and we will see if you're capable of restoring what little bit of credibility you have:

Prove that science's ability to make observations precludes its ability to make predictions.
Why? I never said that.

Lewis said that all of science - every scientific statement - comes down to observations, and it is that that precludes predictions.

Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.'

Do you see the difference?
 
I did not. Lewis, in that quote, says science is nothing more than merely making observations. That implies he is unaware of science doing anything more than that, such as making and testing predictions.


The arrogance you display here is a wonder to behold.


So what do you think is the role of prediction in science?

If you fail to answer - and I feel sure you will - you will support my claim of "just".


Why? I never said that.

Lewis said that all of science - every scientific statement - comes down to observations, and it is that that precludes predictions.

Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.'

Do you see the difference?
that is not necessarily true. Retrospective studies are observational studies which test predictions. It is looking back in history and reviewing (observing) historical data in order to test a prediction in the present. It is what epidemiologists do.
 
I did not. Lewis, in that quote, says science is nothing more than merely making observations.

No he doesn't. That explains your miserable failure to quote him saying that. I repeat: Realizing that science observes in no way precludes the realization that it predicts. You screwed up. Quit being so arrogant and admit it.

That implies he is unaware of science doing anything more than that, such as making and testing predictions.

It IMPLIES no such thing. You ignorantly INFERRED that.

So what do you think is the role of prediction in science?

To predict, based on observation. Example: A scientist who is a meteorologist OBSERVES the barometric pressure at the center of a low pressure system at a certain location, as well as the wind speed, barometric pressure and temperatures at locations surrounding the center, uses proven formulas that relate pressure, volume and temperature and then PREDICTS where the location of that center will be in three hours.


If you fail to answer - and I feel sure you will -

Looks like you blew that PREDICTION. That's because you don't OBSERVE very well.
 
that is not necessarily true. Retrospective studies are observational studies which test predictions. It is looking back in history and reviewing (observing) historical data in order to test a prediction in the present. It is what epidemiologists do.
I am not sure what you are talking about. Retrospective studies that test predictions would appear to include predictions, and therefore outside what Lewis says is all science is. Hence it supports my position that Lewis is ignorant of science.
 
No he doesn't. That explains your miserable failure to quote him saying that. I repeat: Realizing that science observes in no way precludes the realization that it predicts. You screwed up. Quit being so arrogant and admit it.
It says every, stiggy:

Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.'

He is just plain wrong, as some scientific statement make predictions, for example.

It IMPLIES no such thing. You ignorantly INFERRED that.
And yet it does.

To predict, based on observation. Example: A scientist who is a meteorologist OBSERVES the barometric pressure at the center of a low pressure system at a certain location, as well as the wind speed, barometric pressure and temperatures at locations surrounding the center, uses proven formulas that relate pressure, volume and temperature and then PREDICTS where the location of that center will be in three hours.
Great. But I see nothing there to suggest my "just" was wrong.

I was talking about using relativity to predict the orbit of Mercury, or evolution to predict the distribution of fossil. This is the sort of prediction of which Lewis is clearly ignorant, and yet making predictions like this, and then testing them, is the scientific method.
 
I am not sure what you are talking about. Retrospective studies that test predictions would appear to include predictions, and therefore outside what Lewis says is all science is. Hence it supports my position that Lewis is ignorant of science.
Since Lewsi gave an example of observing stars you presumed he is ignorant of how science tests predictions which is not the case. An astrophysicist could test a prediction about star formation, for example, by observing the historical data recorded through the telescope. Right? The telescope is looking back in time so it should offer evidence for how stars form.

I think Lewis‘ comment was intended to downplay science relative to more important things like morality or ethics or philosophical questions about life, etc, —questions science can neither quantify nor test. IOW, science is important but not the most important thing. Science may give us modern medicine but it also gave us the nuclear bomb. What good is it if we can cure infection if there is no wisdom to prevent us from blowing each other up? Thus humans possessing a moral consciousness, honor, integrity, empathy, for example, is better than anything science can discover.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure what you are talking about. Retrospective studies that test predictions would appear to include predictions, and therefore outside what Lewis says is all science is. Hence it supports my position that Lewis is ignorant of science.
Coyne calls these retrodictions rather than predictions, and uses them as evidence of evolution in his book.

I'm not sure how widespread the term "retrodiction" is in science.
 
It says every, stiggy:

Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.'

EXACTLY! Every scientific statement, especially those which predict are based on observation. I even gave a meteorological example.

He is just plain wrong, as some scientific statement make predictions, for example.

So you think Lewis was wrong, since you think scientific predictions are NOT based on observation? How do you THINK they are made? By guessing? By magic?

I was talking about using relativity to predict the orbit of Mercury, or evolution to predict the distribution of fossil.

Yeah, right. Explain how that is done without any observation.
 
Since Lewsi gave an example of observing stars you presumed he is ignorant of how science tests predictions which is not the case. An astrophysicist could test a prediction about star formation, for example, by observing the historical data recorded through the telescope. Right? The telescope is looking back in time so it should offer evidence for how stars form.
I see nothing in what Lewis said to suggest he has a clue about predictions. He made a statement about "Every scientific statement" being an observation. That is wrong, because there are scientific statements about predictions.

I think Lewis‘ comment was intended to downplay science relative to more important things like morality or ethics or philosophical questions about life, etc, —questions science can neither quantify nor test.
It is possible he is aware of predictions, but pretending they are not part of science, I fully accept that. That makes him dishonest, rather than ignorant.

IOW, science is important but not the most important thing. Science may give us modern medicine but it also gave us the nuclear bomb. What good is it if we can cure infection if there is no wisdom to prevent us from blowing each other up? Thus humans possessing a moral consciousness, honor, integrity, empathy, for example, is better than anything science can discover.
Fine. None of that alters the fact that Lewis was wrong when he said "Every scientific statement" is just a observation.
 
I see nothing in what Lewis said to suggest he has a clue about predictions.

So you think the Oxford don was too stupid to know about the existence of weather forecasts?

He made a statement about "Every scientific statement" being an observation.

EXACTLY! Every scientific statement, especially those which predict are based on observation. I even gave a meteorological example.

It is possible he is aware of predictions, but pretending they are not part of science, I fully accept that.

You ACCEPT the fact that C.S. Lewis was too stupid to understand that meteorologists predict the weather based on observations?

That makes him dishonest, rather than ignorant.

No, it makes YOU ignorant that you would assume with no evidence whatsoever that Lewis had never heard tale of a weather report.

Fine. None of that alters the fact that Lewis was wrong when he said "Every scientific statement" is just a observation.

He didn't say that. Now who's being dishonest?
 
Back
Top