It was Robert Mann speaking again. I failed to mention in my previous post how good he is at speaking, though Jeff Shallit remembered. Prof. Mann was engaging and animated. I can see why he's won teaching awards.
That's not to say his lecture made a whole lot of sense to me.
He talked a lot about knowledge bootstrapping. About how we observe the world, and make inferences about how it works. But then those inferences sway how we gain more knowledge. He gave the examples of the fractional charge of quarks, and the wave/particle duality of light. But I had trouble understanding how - exactly - they illustrated the point. Basically, we have no method for attaining knowledge with 100% certainty.
I agree with him that we can't know anything about the world for sure. Yes, we can prove theorems in the insular world of mathematics, but we have no way to prove that the basic axioms of mathematics have any bearing on how the world works.
So can we make progress? Almost certainly. Science is about discovering patterns in nature. We don't have any guarantees, but there seems to be a lot of regularity in the universe. Once we gain confidence in a set of observations (that they are repeatable), then we form a theory to represent that new knowledge. That theory is tested against new observations, and if it holds up, science agrees that this is the best understanding that we have. And all the while, in the backs of our minds we know that the theory could be wrong. There simply is no way, in principle, that we can be absolutely sure.
Back to Prof. Mann's talk. He proclaimed three aspects to Occam's Razor,
- Simplicity: "All else being equal, the simplest explanation is the most likely."
- Credulity: "All else being equal, things probably are as they seem."
- Testimony: "All else being equal, things probably are as reported."
Occam's razor is really just a back-of-the-envelop way of assessing the relative likelihoods of competing theories, and is usually only used in the context of item 1 above. I don't see the purpose for points 2 and 3, since they should both be included in the first point. But this list IS a way of making all three seem like they are on equal footing. As if to say that testimony is as compelling as simplicity. In the context of "Christianity 101", the message is that it's OK to put stock in someone's subjective experience, even if it contradicts some laws of physics (eg. miracles).
Prof. Mann didn't really talk about whether God exists. In my final analysis, it seemed Prof. Mann's take-home message was
We can't know anything for sure, so God seems like as good an explanation as any.That's not an actual quote, but my distillation. It's like his goal was to open up a crack of doubt about knowledge, and then suggest God is as intellectually sound as any other hypothesis. This view of epistemology brushes over the quantitative aspects of our observations... not all hypotheses are equally valid in light of evidence. In particular, with what we see in human psychology, it's not surprising that people believe in agency behind the universe, in God. We have well-established psychological biases that constantly push us in that direction. These are the same biases that make us compulsive gamblers and angry at our computers. Our best science says that we should be suspicious of our intuitions. That goes a long way in explaining religion.
He repeatedly stated that theology is progressing. With what? Would he agree that Islam is progressing too? I think he means that religious opinions are slowly changing. They are being forced to, by science.