Is science humble in relation to absolutes?

[Undesired Walrus]

In my personal experience, an increasing number of people -who have no religous or supernatural beliefs yet are favourable towards philosophy- become increasingly hostile toward scientists such as Dawkins, regarding him as an absolutist, that is- a man who is willing to be fooled by the material world he observes around him, and not consider the possibility of solipsism. This often leads to claims that science is a religion like any other, and one can only be agnostic in this life.

With that, what is science to you? Is it the study of the world we see around us, something that has nothing to say about absolute reality?

For me, I believe one can make a comparison to history. If Dawkins makes absolutist claims about the universe, do not historians make absolutist claims about history? The latter claim is surely absurd.

With regards to solipsism, it strikes me as pointless to become frustrated with those who do not tolerate it. If it were true, that only you existed, would it not have been a futile exercise to be concerned about others who regarded it as nonesense?

Are scientists absolutists?

[Kuko 4000]

Regarding: "Is science humble in relation to absolutes?" and Dawkins.

Well, he is definitely "humble" in that respect. He even stresses the point in many interviews.

[blutoski]

In my personal experience, an increasing number of people -who have no religous or supernatural beliefs yet are favourable towards philosophy- become increasingly hostile toward scientists such as Dawkins, regarding him as an absolutist, that is- a man who is willing to be fooled by the material world he observes around him, and not consider the possibility of solipsism. This often leads to claims that science is a religion like any other, and one can only be agnostic in this life.

With that, what is science to you? Is it the study of the world we see around us, something that has nothing to say about absolute reality?

For me, I believe one can make a comparison to history. If Dawkins makes absolutist claims about the universe, do not historians make absolutist claims about history? The latter claim is surely absurd.

With regards to solipsism, it strikes me as pointless to become frustrated with those who do not tolerate it. If it were true, that only you existed, would it not have been a futile exercise to be concerned about others who regarded it as nonesense?

Are scientists absolutists?

I think they're ordinary people, for the most part. Most don't think about these things at a meta level. It's hard to use this example to generalize, since most scientists are religious (at least in the US and Canada - it may be different in other countries).

When Dawkins is talking about religion, he is not making scientific statements, but philosophical ones, and he is a layperson just like you, me, and uncle Fred.

In other words: scientists make absolutist statements about as often as non-scientists, in my experience.

There's also something tangential called scientism that has a more absolutist tone, and it's possible that Dawkins as an individual may be a type specimen, but that's a different debate.

[CapelDodger]

In my personal experience, an increasing number of people -who have no religous or supernatural beliefs yet are favourable towards philosophy- become increasingly hostile toward scientists such as Dawkins, regarding him as an absolutist, that is- a man who is willing to be fooled by the material world he observes around him, and not consider the possibility of solipsism. This often leads to claims that science is a religion like any other, and one can only be agnostic in this life.

What's not to like about ignoring solipsism? It's a barren concept, worth ten minutes of adolescent wonderment.

With that, what is science to you? Is it the study of the world we see around us, something that has nothing to say about absolute reality?

Science is a technique for gaining understanding of the real world. Philosophy is a retreat from the real world, with solipsim as its panic-room.

For me, I believe one can make a comparison to history. If Dawkins makes absolutist claims about the universe, do not historians make absolutist claims about history?

Real historians don't.

The latter claim is surely absurd.

Quite. That's why it isn't true.

With regards to solipsism, it strikes me as pointless to become frustrated with those who do not tolerate it.

Solipsism is pointlessness personified.

If it were true, that only you existed, would it not have been a futile exercise to be concerned about others who regarded it as nonesense?

Wasn't typing that a futile exercise?

Are scientists absolutists?

No. But they are only human.

[Undesired Walrus]

What is it you regard so adolescent about solipsism Capel?

[paximperium]

What is it you regard so adolescent about solipsism Capel?
Solipcism is mental masturbation at its penultimate level. It may make the claimant feel smart but it is for all extent a useless and untestable claim.

I've yet to meet a solipcist who is actually willing to test out their little hypothesis by jumping out a window and testing to see if reality is "just in the mind."

[KingMerv00]

Are scientists absolutists?

No, they are pragmatists. They see that science is apparently the best way to understand and manipulate reality. If a better option came along, they'd probably take it.

[Roboramma]

Solipcism is mental masturbation at its penultimate level. It may make the claimant feel smart but it is for all extent a useless and untestable claim.

I've yet to meet a solipcist who is actually willing to test out their little hypothesis by jumping out a window and testing to see if reality is "just in the mind."
Maybe because it would be stupid to do so? I don't think many suggest that they know that "it's all in the mind", but rather, that it could be.
Given that, unless they deem the likelihood of that 'could be' much higher than I can imagine, the benefit of jumping out that window (and possibly finding out) are much much outweighed by the cost: that it if isn't all in the mind, they will die.

[paximperium]

Maybe because it would be stupid to do so? I don't think many suggest that they know that "it's all in the mind", but rather, that it could be.
Given that, unless they deem the likelihood of that 'could be' much higher than I can imagine, the benefit of jumping out that window (and possibly finding out) are much much outweighed by the cost: that it if isn't all in the mind, they will die.
So solipcism applies or is of any relevance to anyone only for things with minimal or no repercussions?

Did I mention mental masturbation?

[sol invictus]

In my personal experience, an increasing number of people -who have no religous or supernatural beliefs yet are favourable towards philosophy- become increasingly hostile toward scientists such as Dawkins, regarding him as an absolutist, that is- a man who is willing to be fooled by the material world he observes around him, and not consider the possibility of solipsism. This often leads to claims that science is a religion like any other, and one can only be agnostic in this life.

If those people were in charge instead of scientists, we'd still be living in trees.

[Dancing David]

In my personal experience, an increasing number of people -who have no religous or supernatural beliefs yet are favourable towards philosophy- become increasingly hostile toward scientists such as Dawkins, regarding him as an absolutist, that is- a man who is willing to be fooled by the material world he observes around him, and not consider the possibility of solipsism. This often leads to claims that science is a religion like any other, and one can only be agnostic in this life.

With that, what is science to you? Is it the study of the world we see around us, something that has nothing to say about absolute reality?

For me, I believe one can make a comparison to history. If Dawkins makes absolutist claims about the universe, do not historians make absolutist claims about history? The latter claim is surely absurd.

With regards to solipsism, it strikes me as pointless to become frustrated with those who do not tolerate it. If it were true, that only you existed, would it not have been a futile exercise to be concerned about others who regarded it as nonesense?

Are scientists absolutists?

Um one vocal person defines a category of people. What do you want to call that?

Solipism, materialism, idealism, they are all the same in the end run.

[Perpetual Student]

...

With that, what is science to you? Is it the study of the world we see around us, something that has nothing to say about absolute reality?

...

Are scientists absolutists?

Over the centuries, we have seen many "scientific" dogmas overturned and replaced by new ones. Most scientists today preface their descriptions of reality with phrases like, "as far as we know" or "current theories indicate..."
In other words they have learned (the hard way) that our current take of reality is the best we have and not necessarily the final word.
However the evidence is very strong that we are at a stage in the development of human knowledge that central dogmas like evolution, relativity, DNA theory, cosmic expansion, etc. are pretty close to the final reality and are not likely to change. Within those central dogmas views about many details may be changeable (e.g. the evolutionary chain of hominids and humans over the last million years). Nevertheless, having strong confidence in current descriptions of reality is not religion or absolutism. By its very nature of relentless inquiry and requirement for evidence, science is always open and prepared for change, big and small.