The scientific method rejects the presupposition of truth. — VagabondSpectre
One way we can tell is by measuring the continual expansion/separation between observable bodies of matter, and by charting their positions, speeds and distances we can predict how long it took for them all to arrive at where they are from the central point of expansion. — VagabondSpectre
Another way we can try to tell the age of the universe is by figuring out the age of the oldest observable stars and star clusters. — VagabondSpectre
"Reasonably dispute"? Basically nothing. — VagabondSpectre
How do we distinguish justified belief from genuine knowledge? — aletheist
Well, how do we? If justification is insufficient to warrant the claim of knowledge, then what is? — SophistiCat
What presuppositions must one adopt in order to predict past behavior on the basis of present measurements? — aletheist
What presuppositions must one adopt in order to estimate the age of the oldest observable stars and star clusters? — aletheist
Your bias is showing; you are imposing your own presuppositions as rational requirements that everyone must adopt, without identifying them let alone providing justification for them. — aletheist
This is a very meaningless statement. We know that an event X occurred, but we don't know what X was. Every time we attempt to describe X, we are probably wrong, so how can we even make the claim that X occurred? X has absolutely no meaning because we don't know what X is. It's like saying I know that there is something there, but I have absolutely no idea what it is. What's the point in even naming it X, if it could be absolutely anything? Why not call it what it is, the unknown, instead of creating the false impression that there is something known here? — Metaphysician Undercover
What presuppositions must one adopt in order to predict past behavior on the basis of present measurements? — aletheist
Causation. — VagabondSpectre
What presuppositions must one adopt in order to estimate the age of the oldest observable stars and star clusters? — aletheist
Proven theories pertaining to astrophysics. — VagabondSpectre
"The Moon orbits the Sun". "Oh but what presuppositions must one adopt in order to asses the position of the moon?". "Reasonable ones." — VagabondSpectre
How does causation, all by itself, warrant beliefs about past behavior on the basis of present observations? — aletheist
How can we "prove" any theories about the past, entirely on the basis of present observations? — aletheist
I have no problem with relying on our best theories about how the universe currently works to make fairly definitive statements about the present, and even some predictions about the future (which we can subsequently test to see if they are borne out). The issue is uncritically adopting the same level of confidence when making fairly definitive statements about the past, especially the very distant past; e.g., "The moon began orbiting the earth 4.5 billion years ago." — aletheist
I asked you first. :) It was a sincere question — aletheist
No doubt every person has some beliefs that are justified yet false, which therefore do not qualify as genuine knowledge. Hence modesty seems to be the proper attitude about them. — aletheist
Causation is just one of those things that keeps showing to be true via experience and observation. — VagabondSpectre
We take the causal relationships that we observe and in the same way we use them to make future predictions, we simply reverse them to infer the past. — VagabondSpectre
The reason why we can use observations of the present to predict (and thereby understand) the future is because the present and the future are connected. The past and the present are also connected, via causation. It's an axiomatic truth that is unproductive and unreasonable to deny. — VagabondSpectre
When deciding whether some belief warrants the claim of knowledge, justification is the only criterion that needs to be met. — SophistiCat
When you single out one particular belief, surely you have more than this platitude in mind? — SophistiCat
We know the rapid expansion of heat and energy happened; an explosion. — VagabondSpectre
We have a very good description of what the big bang was, we just don't know have a complete and full description with receipt — VagabondSpectre
Ask a physicist, and they're likely to tell you that we're as certain that a big bang of some sort occurred as we are certain that the earth is round. — VagabondSpectre
"Expansion of heat and energy" is a nonsense phrase. It doesn't make any sense at all to say that heat or energy expands. This idea just comes about from the inadequacies of general relativity to provide us with the means to understand what really has happened. — Metaphysician Undercover
That the past, present, and future are connected does not entail that that the laws of nature are invariant throughout all time. Such a conclusion requires the presupposition of causal determinism, which many people (quite reasonably) reject. — aletheist
Basically you're suggesting that even though empirical science has given ample evidence to warrant accepting the big bang, they might be wrong because of some sort of magical interference. — VagabondSpectre
So long as the technology which is built using the laws we hope are constant keeps working, it's good enough for me. — VagabondSpectre
You are not even trying to understand the point that I am actually making. — aletheist
You're saying that since we cannot be sure causation happened in the past like it does in the present, we cannot be sure evidence of past events is meaningful or points to what really happened. — VagabondSpectre
We have no good reason to presume that physical constants were different in the past, except possibly in the very hot and dense early universe where the big bang description still applies. — VagabondSpectre
Arbitrarily presuming that the laws of physics suddenly changed at some point (in order to avoid a conclusion we don't like: the rapid expansion model) goes against the preponderance of observational evidence we do have. — VagabondSpectre
It's not nonsense at all. Explosions are the rapid expansion that results from a sudden release of heat and energy. — VagabondSpectre
But what are you really saying here. "General relativity is inadequate"? What are it's inadequacies? — VagabondSpectre
"The heat-expansion event" is just short hand for saying that approximately 13.7 billion years ago, all the matter and energy that is in the observable universe was in a very hot and very dense state as it expanded outward. — VagabondSpectre
By the law of conservation of energy, energy does not expand. — Metaphysician Undercover
General relativity leaves us with the notion of spatial expansion, which is nonsense. This indicates that general relativity is inadequate for understanding the nature of the universe. — Metaphysician Undercover
And I'll say it again, that's just unintelligible nonsense. What's the point in describing something as unintelligible nonsense rather than just saying "we don't know", other than to create the deceptive impression that one knows what one is talking about, when this is really not the case. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, not causation in general; rather, the specific laws of nature as we observe them operating today. — aletheist
We also have no good reason to presume that they were exactly the same over that entire vast period of time. — aletheist
If you think about it, the laws of nature define causation. — VagabondSpectre
Except for the fact that the laws of physics haven't yet changed under our watchful eyes. they remain stoicly and suspiciously consistent. — VagabondSpectre
It's more reasonable to assume the laws didn't suddenly change in the past because they don't suddenly change right now. If the laws kept suddenly changing, then I would be with you in assuming that in the past they did change. — VagabondSpectre
Besides, our understanding of the laws of nature has changed quite radically over the last century or two. Furthermore, there is no way for us to tell for sure whether the tiny deviations that our instruments routinely detect from our precise mathematical predictions are entirely due to measurement error, as we usually assume, or actually reflect continuing evolution and/or random fluctuations of the laws of nature themselves.Who said anything about sudden changes? Another possibility is that the laws of nature have evolved gradually over time. — aletheist
No, we hypothesize laws of nature to explain causation; or rather, what we presuppose to be causation, rather than just random events. — aletheist
How long have we been capable of carefully monitoring the universe's adherence to the currently accepted laws of physics - 100 years or so? Compared to the corresponding estimate for the age of the universe, it is less than the blink of an eye. Proportionally, it is like saying that because we do not observe any significant changes in 10 seconds, a person who is 43 years old probably has not changed at all since the day he/she was born. — aletheist
Who said anything about sudden changes? Another possibility is that the laws of nature have evolved gradually over time. — aletheist
Until completely random stuff starts happening, I'll choose not to assume they did simply because i might want to avoid conclusions I dislike. — VagabondSpectre
As above, if they evolve overtime and we notice that evolution, that's when we should overturn our existing axioms and adapt them accordingly. — VagabondSpectre
As I have already tried to make clear, my comments have nothing to do with the conclusions of modern science, or whether I like them. I am pointing out the presuppositions that underlie them, which most people - including you, apparently - adopt uncritically. This is a philosophy forum, after all. — aletheist
What if they are evolving so slowly at this point that it would take thousands of years before the change is large enough to exceed our usual measurement errors? What if they evolved faster in the very distant past? How would we be able to tell? Again, I have no problem with applying the laws of nature as we currently understand them to the present and (short-term) future; the issue is assuming that they were the same billions of years ago. — aletheist
The big bang is the model of what happened if the laws of physics are more or less consistent throughout time. — VagabondSpectre
The longer our instruments continue to measure no change in the psychical constants we have identified, the weaker the presupposition that they suddenly changed becomes weaker and weaker. — VagabondSpectre
So general relativity, a theory with mountains of evidence to confirm it, is "nonsense" because you don't like the notion of spatial expansion. Wonderful argument. Top marks. — VagabondSpectre
If you're honest with yourself I think you will realize that the rapid expansion description of the universe isn't "just unintelligible nonsense". — VagabondSpectre
Why not call [the Big Bang] what it is, the unknown, instead of creating the false impression that there is something known here? — Metaphysician Undercover
OK then, if you want to discuss philosophy instead of just throwing around catch phrases like "Big Bang", "space itself is expanding", and "rapid expansion of heat and energy", as if there's something real that these phrases represent, then let's have a go, and see if these phrases really refer to something intelligible or not — Metaphysician Undercover
It seems to me that we have to make a distinction of some kind between justification that warrants belief and justification that warrants knowledge. Otherwise, the two concepts would be indistinguishable, which is obviously not the case. — aletheist
I am not really singling out one particular belief, but one particular kind of belief - definitive scientific pronouncements about the very distant past. For the reasons that I just posted, I think that there is inadequate warrant for claiming to have knowledge in such cases. — aletheist
Some YEC's (and I'm not saying that aletheist is one) claim that the speed of light in a vacuum was faster in the past in order to account for the "starlight problem." However, one rejoinder to this line of argument is that, as c factors into the energetics of nuclear reactions via E = mc^2, nuclear processes would have been greatly more energetic with higher values of c, and would have reduced the Earth to a cinder, or something to that effect.By the way, if the laws or constants did change in the past, there would have been evidence of it that we would have readily noticed. The structures of our theories are highly integrated and there's a lot of consilience in the observations, so that changing one or two things in the structure is almost impossible without conflict with already available evidence. But that's only if we change one or two things. There are still infinitely many ways in which the world could conspire to be very different while still maintaining the appearances. — SophistiCat
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.