Is Science a religion?

[love]

Is Science a religion?

[kuroyume0161]

No.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

No.

I'll second that.

[Godmode]

No.

[wollery]

What they said.

[geni]

Is Science a religion?

Not for any meaningful value of relgion or science.

[Dogdoctor]

Hmmm is this a trick question?
Science by definition deals with this world and has nothing to do with the supernatural such as god unless someone claims it is proveable or testable.
Basicaly NO

[l0rca]

religion

One entry found for religion.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

SCIENCE

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

[Kiless]

They certainly don't look the same in the dictionary.... got any reasoning behind your view of whether it is or isn't, love? That might get something going beyond the concensus of 'no'.

(BTW: No.)

[Cosmo]

:notm

'Cause all the cool kids are saying it, man!

[Ducky]

No.

[ranson]

I think the appropriate answer is "no".

[Jyera]

No

[Ragutis]

Science is a quest for truths... religion claims to be the only truth

Science welcomes critical examination and investigation... religion, not so much

Science yields results that are tangible, pertinent and practical ... religion makes you feel warm and fuzzy and keeps the boogie man away

Scientific claims can be reproduced, demonstrated and proven... religious claims need to be taken on faith

Scientific "truths" are real whether you believe in them or not... religious "truths" are totally subjective and often contradictory.

Science has no worship component and the only awe is at the complexities and wonders of the universe... religions have a being you better worship and be in awe of or HE's gonna put the smite-down on yo' punk self.


Nope... don't see the connection :D

[username]

Well, as everyone else said 'No.'

However, yes, there is one small sense in which I can see the two being likened. They both require faith.

Science (the real kind, not the pay for endorsement kind) requires faith that the research was done properly, that the results and conclusions based upon those results is respectable. Even with all of that science doesn't deal with 100% certainty, just probability. So, if science establishes the probability of someting as being 99.9% then we must have .1% faith to accept it.

So, both require faith, it is just that good science requires us to trust the words of people we don't know much less than religions which say "Our god exists, trust us" and offer as proof the fact that we exist on a planet which also exists.

Outside of faith I see no corollary.

[Flange Desire]

NO
Why would you ask a strange question like that?
Is it not obvious?

[Spidey13]

No.

For those who speak Spanish, "no."

[Complexity]

No.

[ImaginalDisc]

Science (the real kind, not the pay for endorsement kind) requires faith that the research was done properly, that the results and conclusions based upon those results is respectable. Even with all of that science doesn't deal with 100% certainty, just probability. So, if science establishes the probability of someting as being 99.9% then we must have .1% faith to accept it.

Outside of faith I see no corollary.

I beg to differ about this idea that we have to trust what scientists do, just because. Tests are repeatable. given the resources, you can do them. progress in one field of science usually has meaning in other fields. The advances in phsyics that allowed for the sanning tunneling electron microscope opened up new worlds for biologists. It's a self checking system. If one group got something wrong, another group would come along and find it.

Faith is not required.

[Mercutio]

Well, as everyone else said 'No.'

However, yes, there is one small sense in which I can see the two being likened. They both require faith.

Science (the real kind, not the pay for endorsement kind) requires faith that the research was done properly, that the results and conclusions based upon those results is respectable. Even with all of that science doesn't deal with 100% certainty, just probability. So, if science establishes the probability of someting as being 99.9% then we must have .1% faith to accept it.

So, both require faith, it is just that good science requires us to trust the words of people we don't know much less than religions which say "Our god exists, trust us" and offer as proof the fact that we exist on a planet which also exists.

Outside of faith I see no corollary.I agree for the most part, except for something rather extraordinary...on NPR yesterday was a story of human cloning research. The story, though, was about the possible (highly probable--oh, hell, they did it) fraud on the part of a Korean researcher who had claimed to have cloned human stem cells. Turns out, it looks like he merely cloned some microphotographs and claimed these were cloned cells.

Certainly, people believed the research when it first came out. Entire research lines were discontinued because this guy had gotten there first. But science is not an individual effort, and the results of science do not depend on one person's skill or ability. If one person can perform an experiment and get a particular result, so can another. When others did not replicate this guy's results, suspicions arose. An investigation began...

So...the faith involved in science is of a far different variety than that involved in religion, in my opinion. We do have a faith in reason, a faith in evidence, a faith in Occam's razor and in natural explanations...but not a faith in individual scientists or their methodology. There, to (reluctantly) quote Ronald Reagan..."trust...but verify". We do not have holy texts in science. Any text, any favorite theory, any heartfelt belief, is subject to review and refutation. Our faith does not extend that far.

[DoubtingStephen]

Is Science a religion?

Science is a religion in much the same way as a rock is a bowl of peaches in light syrup, in other words, not at all.

Religion is based on imaginary stories that are intentionally fabricated so that they can not be verified. It is nonsense raised to the level of the ridiculous. To practice religion properly you must agree to abandon facts and cling desperately to a shared, neurotic ignorance.

Science abandons ignorance and does not cling to anything that can not be demonstrated and repeated using known variables.

[Fungrim]

Is science a religion? - No.

Is sceptisism a religion? - No.

Is the evolutionary theory a religion? - No.

Is atheism a religion? - No.

Are these questions meaningful? - No.

[Bone_Vulture]

For those who speak Spanish, "no."

For those who speak Finnish, "no ei todellakaan". :hit:

[Consternatio]

No.

[logical muse]

Yes.

[logical muse]

Oops, I meant No!

[The Don]

Pour les Francophones:

Non,

C'est facile n'est pas ?

[MRC_Hans]

Nej.

[Jorghnassen]

Mhai. But for those who fall for scientism, sort of.

[Tricky]

Is science a religion? - No.

Is sceptisism a religion? - No.

Is the evolutionary theory a religion? - No.

Is atheism a religion? - No.

Are these questions meaningful? - No.
Is Love a religion?

[Fungrim]

Is Love a religion?
Was that "love" as in the poster or "love" as in the feeling? Or... both? :jaw-dropp Oh, I get so confused at times...

[Beth]

Is Science a religion?

For some people, yes.

[Upchurch]

For some people, yes.
But for people who understand all the terms involved, no.

[Tricky]

Was that "love" as in the poster or "love" as in the feeling? Or... both?
Yes

[Tricky]

But for people who understand all the terms involved, no.
Science is of course not a religion, however, it is possible for people to take religious attitudes to things they call science. There are some... uh... sci-fi devotees who have faith that science will some day solve all the world's problems. This is not accompanied by any of the things which characterize real science, such as critical thought, testing and such (though it often does make predictions) so it cannot truly be called science.

If a person decided to worship history and believe that historical figures were actually supernatural beings*, then you might say that they had a history-based religion, but it would not make history a religion because they do not use the procedures that historians use to verify accuracy.



*Come to think of it, thats what a lot of religions do.

[HeyLeroy]

NO!I vote with the quorum.

[wollery]

NO!I vote with the quorum.Quorum? So far it's been unanimous, unless I've missed one.

[l0rca]

I beg to differ about this idea that we have to trust what scientists do, just because. Tests are repeatable. given the resources, you can do them. progress in one field of science usually has meaning in other fields. The advances in phsyics that allowed for the sanning tunneling electron microscope opened up new worlds for biologists. It's a self checking system. If one group got something wrong, another group would come along and find it.

Faith is not required.

I nominate posts that debate this question in the thread to be the most important of all the others within.

There are many realms in science where we place faith, because we may not have any directly empirical way to establish something as a fact.

But the amount of faith required to "believe in science" is so low that the word faith can be replaced by common sense...

...that is of course, assuming that you are educated enough to understand.

Many people aren't educated or amorous of science enough to truely understand many of its concepts. What people tend to do is put faith that if they did the research, they'd figure out what science was telling them all along.

Religion's faith is essential, however, and it seems that the more one investigates the controversies of religion, the more faith is required. So much faith is required, that a sense or form of double-think might be needed.

However most people do not investigate their religion or research our science, making the amount of faith one puts into each of a high, and at that point an indestinguishable amount. Factor into this their own naivety, and all psuedoscience, quack philosophy, and the false-but-popular information, and we begin to see how both science and religion could be seen by the common man as institutions of equal credit.

[Steve]

Nyet

[Huh-What?]

Love,

Are you going to come back to this thread and let us know why you asked?

p.s. NO

[Achán hiNidráne]

No, Non, Nyet, Nein, Iie, Lo, La, Hapana, Bu shi, Ji nahi...

How many times do we have to say it?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Love,

Are you going to come back to this thread and let us know why you asked?

p.s. NO

Well, that would mean he'd have to debate us, and that might make him feel depressed which would lead to cancer.

[Kitten]

The simple answer is: no. Scientific knowledge isn't certain-- religion is. That's the big difference for me. Theory verses dogma. Adaptable verses absolute.

However, I can see how, for me, science sometimes serves the same purpose that religion does for others. I define my universe and my place in the universe in scientific terms the same way that others define them in religious terms.

Socially, skepticism and science often serve the purpose that religion might if I were a different person. I don't attend church events-- I attend scientific and skeptical events.

Also, read my sig quotation (by Naguid Mahfouz) below. I was very struck by the character in his Palace Walk trilogy that was thinking that very quotation...

[ceo_esq]

Science per se is not a religion. Scientism, however (per the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "the view that only the methods of the sciences are legitimate in seeking knowledge, and that only the things recognized by the sciences as real are real"), comes a bit closer.

[Melendwyr]

Science per se is not a religion. Scientism, however (per the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "the view that only the methods of the sciences are legitimate in seeking knowledge, and that only the things recognized by the sciences as real are real"), comes a bit closer. No, that's just rationality, which is about as far as you can get from religious thought.

[ceo_esq]

No, that's just rationality, which is about as far as you can get from religious thought.

No. It's simply a different epistemology. And lest you mistakenly identify rationality with science, recall that they are quite distinct things.

[Melendwyr]

It's simply a different epistemology. Yes: one deals with a common-sensical and rational concept of truth, while the other does not. That's why they're completely different things.And lest you mistakenly identify rationality with science, recall that they are quite distinct things. Science is just systematic rationality, ceo.

[ceo_esq]

Yes: one deals with a common-sensical and rational concept of truth, while the other does not. That's why they're completely different things.

Why is scientism necessarily more rational, strictly speaking, or common-sensical than other philosophies?


Science is just systematic rationality, ceo.

Science is a systematically empirical method, and scientific knowledge is empirical knowledge. But empirical and rational methods are very different approaches, and rational knowledge is very different from empirical knowledge. If you think they are substantially the same, such that "science is just systematic rationality", then I daresay your conceptions of both are a bit muddled.

[brodski]

Is Love a religion?

What's "love" got to do with it? :p (sorry)

Oh and to answer the OP no.


science has;
no focus for, or collective act of worship, (part of the UK legal definition of a "religion or similar philosophical belief")
no requirement for blind faith,
no holy texts
and no deity.

Next question?

[jj]

Science is testable.

Religion isn't.

End of discussion.

[brodski]

Science is testable.

Religion isn't.

End of discussion.

Oh, i don't know, some religions make some testable claims.
its what happens once those testable claims have be shown to be false which further distinguishes a science from a religion.

[Iacchus]

Is Science a religion?Well, if they could ever get around to extracting it (Science that is) from the space between their ears, I would say no. However, I don't see that happening anytime real soon. :p

[l0rca]

Science is a systematically empirical method, and scientific knowledge is empirical knowledge. But empirical and rational methods are very different approaches, and rational knowledge is very different from empirical knowledge. If you think they are substantially the same, such that "science is just systematic rationality", then I daresay your conceptions of both are a bit muddled.

Just to clarify some things.

Science is not at all times empirical. Although it relies on empirical evidence, we have theories in science that can not be empirically proven. So then, science does use rational methods to arrive at some answers, although it tries its best to not rely on pure rationalizing to get the job done. Thankfully, science comes with warning vocabulary; we call things "theories" to denote something that may or may not be positively true.

"Science is just systematic rationality," isn't what I'd consider a silly statement, but it is an inarticulate one (if I'm right with what Melen was thinking; if I'm not pinning him down correctly, then I'll have to fully disagree with him).

To be rational is to be "agreeable to reason" (definition I'm using: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rationality). Science strives very hard to be reasonable, especially when new discoveries are controversial.

But (and this is where I think I agree with you), although "rational" and "reason" are words that tend to connotate logic, they do not denote it. "Rational" and "reason" are words that can operate perfectly fine to compliment ideas that do not provide any evidence or logic at all, unlike science.

Many people like to argue that science is just a process, but the motivation of that process is philosophy (science assumes and attempts to explain the world with natural explanations). A reasonable philosophy, yes, and I would certainly claim it is the most reasonable philosophy to date, but why that is seems to be elusive to state, and moreso I can not prove my opinion easily.

This all sort of reminds me of Hume.

Anyway, to provide my own rendition of Melen's statement, I would say that scientism is the most reasonable of all the philosophies because it refuses to venture into any territory which can not be backed by powerful evidence, therefore always staying agreeable, whereas other philosophies tend to stray a bit ahead (and some contradictory) from scientific knowledge, and come up with hypothesises and theories which are more easily argued against.

ETA: Grammar, and a statement here and there. I should really start using the "preview" button.

[Mercutio]

Well, if they could ever get around to extracting it (Science that is) from the space between their ears, I would say no. However, I don't see that happening anytime real soon. :p
This is quite possibly the most ignorant statement you have made here, and that is going some distance.

Science, as an organized empirical study of natural events, is characterized by its not being stuck in the space between our ears. Contrast this with the introspection of philosophers; each science began in philosophy, and emerged as an independent science only when it emerged from the space between ears to test its notions against the real world.

Maybe some day you will understand. However, I don't see that happening anytime real soon.

[Iacchus]

This is quite possibly the most ignorant statement you have made here, and that is going some distance.Ignorant in what sense? Would you deem this to be the most circular thing I've said as well?

Science, as an organized empirical study of natural events, is characterized by its not being stuck in the space between our ears. Contrast this with the introspection of philosophers; each science began in philosophy, and emerged as an independent science only when it emerged from the space between ears to test its notions against the real world.Yes, physical sensations which, are interpreted by the space between our ears. Hmm ... Sounds rather Bezerkely (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/b/berkeley.htm).

So, whatever happened to lifegazer anyway? :D

Maybe some day you will understand. However, I don't see that happening anytime real soon.Yes, I do in fact have a reasonable suspicion that the physical world exists.

[Melendwyr]

Science is a systematically empirical method, and scientific knowledge is empirical knowledge. But empirical and rational methods are very different approaches, and rational knowledge is very different from empirical knowledge. No. There is no rational approach to the universe that is not empirical, and there is no empirical method which is genuinely irrational.

I think you're confusing logic and rationality.

[l0rca]

Now for a post aimed at absolutely no-one in particular, only for the purpose of agreement of definition. Afterall, if we are going to agree on anything, let us do so on the meaning of words.

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism
- em·pir·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

My underlining. Note it says often without, instead of always without. This to me suggests that the word empirical is starting to become pejorated...

(Still I think the definiton tells us that science is not strictly empirical, and will at times venture a safe theory or two.)

[hammegk]

Science, as an organized empirical study of natural events, is characterized by its not being stuck in the space between our ears.
Without the space between our ears, where is it? :)

[ceo_esq]

I think you're confusing logic and rationality.

Yet we could validly describe logic (rather than science) as "systematic rationality". Logic, which is based purely on reason, is systematic rationality par excellence.

[Mercutio]

Without the space between our ears, where is it? :)
Necessary, hammy, but not sufficient.

[Melendwyr]

(Still I think the definiton tells us that science is not strictly empirical, and will at times venture a safe theory or two.) If something cannot be tested, it isn't science. Tests are empirical by their very nature. Therefore, that which is not empirical is not science.

It is possible to be empirical without being scientific, but one cannot be empirical well without being scientific. Science is nothing more than the methods we use to determine the validity of statements about the world taken to their logical ends and formalized. Whenever we wish to learn about the world, we do what we now call science. When we don't wish to learn about the world, we apply other standards of truth and utilize other methods to find to conclusions we wish to find.

Human beings have a tendency to find what they seek, whether it exists or not. When they seek the truth, they use science: rational thought, evidene gathering, testing hypotheses, reason.

[Iacchus]

It is possible to be empirical without being scientific, but one cannot be empirical well without being scientific. Science is nothing more than the methods we use to determine the validity of statements about the world taken to their logical ends and formalized. Whenever we wish to learn about the world, we do what we now call science. When we don't wish to learn about the world, we apply other standards of truth and utilize other methods to find to conclusions we wish to find.So, the Scientist which examines the evidence (in the space between his ears, that is) is not a part of Science? So, the Scientist which concludes they should run futher tests (in the space between his ears, that is) is not a part of Science?

[Melendwyr]

Yet we could validly describe logic (rather than science) as "systematic rationality". Logic, which is based purely on reason, is systematic rationality par excellence. Wrong. Logic is the mathematical description of the relationships between concepts. Reason is the application of logic to the available data to produce conclusions.

Reason is not possible without logic, but it is possible to be logical without possessing reason. I own several electronic calculators whose functioning is utterly logical, but they cannot reason - they merely compute.

[Mercutio]

So, the Scientist which examines the evidence (in the space between his ears that is) is not a part of Science? So, the Scientist which concludes they run futher tests (in the space between his ears that is) is not a part of Science?
Look at the history of psychology, Iacchus. Wundt, James, and the early psychologists utilized introspection as their methodology. This was abandoned fairly quickly, because it is simply a terribly unreliable, and thus invalid, method of examining our experience.

We have tried what you suggest, and found it wanting. Badly.

Those who examine the evidence between your ears these days do so using vastly different methodologies, and with considerably more success. Neurology, psychophysiology, cognitive neuroscience, these sciences know much more about the workings of your brain than you would ever be able to discern through introspection.

[Year Zero]

Is Science a religion?


English: No
Spanish: No
French: Non
Italian: No
Japanese: Iie
Arabic: La
Russian: Het
German: Nein
Serbo-Croatian: Ne
Polish: Nie



Does that answer your question to full satisfaction?

Science is a methodology for explaining natural phenomena.

[Iacchus]

Look at the history of psychology, Iacchus. Wundt, James, and the early psychologists utilized introspection as their methodology. This was abandoned fairly quickly, because it is simply a terribly unreliable, and thus invalid, method of examining our experience.Does this require treating the person under examination as a mere object then?

We have tried what you suggest, and found it wanting. Badly.Really? Does this include the work of Jung?

Those who examine the evidence between your ears these days do so using vastly different methodologies, and with considerably more success. Neurology, psychophysiology, cognitive neuroscience, these sciences know much more about the workings of your brain than you would ever be able to discern through introspection.It's just too bad that they can't extract the whole thing from the arena in the space between our ears.

[Mercutio]

Does this require treating the person under examination as a mere object then?
Typically not.

Really? Does this include the work of Jung?
Jung was not a psychologist, so no. He was a psychoanalyst, which is its own area, riddled with unfalsifiable and thus untestable notions. Jung's stuff is, as you no doubt know, very popular with New Age devotees, and essentially dismissed by scientific psychology, because it simply does not hold up to examination.

It's just too bad that they can't extract the whole thing from the arena in the space between our ears.
Wow. You dismiss it all entirely, while remaining completely ignorant of their methods and/or their findings. As I said before, your introspective methodology was given a fair trial; the reason it is no longer used is simply that it is not useful. There is no a priori bias against introspection in psychology or neuroscience; it is dismissed only because it is so unreliable as to be useless, and because inherent perceptual biases lead to systematically inaccurate conclusions.

Next time, try to learn something about an area of science before you dismiss it out of hand.

[kuroyume0161]

Without the space between our ears, where is it? :)

Not to be too facetious (sorry), but, eh hem, between all of us, maybe, just possibly? ;)

[Iacchus]

Typically not.Yet you folks continue you to insist that "I," nor anyone else really exists, outside of the parameters of a "physical body" that is. In which case you are really only addressing the symptoms, as if it were a result of an electro-chemical imbalance, without addressing any psychological depth or meaning. And, while you might consider this science, it is not psychology, not in the truest sense.

[kuroyume0161]

Yet you folks continue you to insist that "I," nor anyone else really exists, outside of the parameters of a "physical body" that is. In which case you are really only addressing the symptoms, as if it were a result of an electro-chemical imbalance, without addressing any psychological depth or meaning. And, while you might consider this science, it is not psychology, not in the truest sense.

Actually, we state, more correctly, that we exist within the parameters of a physical reality (one that we can measure and agree exists independently of each individual 'mind'). We address that which can be known, objectively, and leave that which cannot to people like you! ;)

[Iacchus]

Actually, we state, more correctly, that we exist within the parameters of a physical reality (one that we can measure and agree exists independently of each individual 'mind'). We address that which can be known, objectively, and leave that which cannot to people like you! ;)Where is the objectivity though, in a reality in which you have become fully immersed? And, aside from the ability to rise to the surface, and flop outside of it occasionally, how is it that fish can determine theirs is not the ultimate reality? Hey, anyone notice the dolphin(s) in the picture there? ;)

So, what exactly do you stand outside of when determining your reality? It sounds purely subjective to me. :)

[Iacchus]

Oh, and by way, a dolphin(s), in the spiritual sense, can be used to describe the nature of the mystic. ;) Whereas here, the natural world is represented by the sea, and the spiritual world is represented by that which rises above it. Hmm ... I wonder if this is why I have had dreams before, where sharks were swimming through the middle of my living room!

Oh, and then there was this dream (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=648176#post648176) ...

Hey Zeus! ...

Which of course brings up this dream I had. Where I was walking out of the local supermarket. It was a bit rundown looking but, didn't look altogether different from the one that used to be down the street. It was earlier in the evening but had already gotten dark outside. And there two men scuffling out in the parking lot and it was beginning to get ugly. And I'm thinking, "Man this isn't right," and I looked straight up and shouted, "Hey Zeus!" ... While thinking, "Maybe you better do something about this." And yes, I was thinking Zeus, except when I said it it sure sounded like the Spanish pronunciation of Jesus! ;)

Well come to find out I wasn't exactly where I thought I was and, all of a sudden I started coming up from the depths of the ocean, and I mean the depths. And, in what seemed like an eternity to reach the surface (at an accelated rate), it wasn't long before the sea began turning into a brilliant blue-green color. And right up above the surface rested this huge brilliant sun that illuminated everything. And I'm thinking, "Well it's obvious I've invoked some deity here, I'm just not sure I'm ready to look God straight in the face, not at this rate anyway. And don't get me wrong, it was beautiful!

So I was hoping the sensation of surfacing would stop, but no, on it continued, although it seemed like I had already gone way past the point where I should have reached the surface -- the sun was just too brilliant and the sea was too luminescent -- and I'm thinking, "Well, this is just a bit too eerie for me and, as much as I don't wish to offend God, I think I better try to get out of here." So, I pretty much wrenched myself awake and that was the end of it.

[Iacchus]

All of which might give some indication as to what is meant by the book of Revelation here ...

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. ~ Revelation 21:1-2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=21&version=9)

[kuroyume0161]

Where is the objectivity though, in a reality in which you have become fully immersed? And, aside from the ability to rise to the surface, and flop outside of it occasionally, how is it that fish can determine theirs is not the ultimate reality? Hey, anyone notice the dolphin(s) in the picture there? ;)

So, what exactly do you stand outside of when determining your reality? It sounds purely subjective to me. :)

There is no spoon, er, outside to argue. No matter how you slice it, we (as distinguished from the subjective 'you') can make objective observations of our existence that hold (scientifically, under extremely precise and rigorous measurements and models). Whether immersed or 'projected', the reality worth noting is the reality that we can all (or most of us) agree exists despite our subjectivity.

Yes, this could all be the Matrix or outside-in/inside-out, but it is quite clear that there is a realm over which our fantastic wishes and desires have no dominion and, when we forget, lead to consequences over which we have no control.

[Iacchus]

There is no spoon, er, outside to argue. No matter how you slice it, we (as distinguished from the subjective 'you') can make objective observations of our existence that hold (scientifically, under extremely precise and rigorous measurements and models). Whether immersed or 'projected', the reality worth noting is the reality that we can all (or most of us) agree exists despite our subjectivity.Yes, fish do travel in schools don't they? ;)

Yes, this could all be the Matrix or outside-in/inside-out, but it is quite clear that there is a realm over which our fantastic wishes and desires have no dominion and, when we forget, lead to consequences over which we have no control.So, then, where do all our fantastic wishes and desires arise ... if, not from the same reality?

[Iacchus]

Yes, this could all be the Matrix or outside-in/inside-out, but it is quite clear that there is a realm over which our fantastic wishes and desires have no dominion and, when we forget, lead to consequences over which we have no control.Yes, there is a reality and, a truth to that reality. So, which reality sounds greater to you? Indeed, doesn't this sound like something only "a mind" can maintain?

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, there is a reality and, a truth to that reality. So, which reality sounds greater to you? Indeed, doesn't this sound like something only "a mind" can maintain?

Hardly. The universe exists. There is no evidence that it's a construct floating around in the mind of some being. It is self sustaining, and self evident. Merely because something exists is not evidence that it has a maker, rather it is evidence that it has a cause.

You're going backwards Iacchus, we already addressed the mind/matter deabte. I even linked you the Essay by Locke giving you *more* ammunition, because post Darwinian philosphy has already moved beyond this issue. A designerless universe is no longer considered philisophically impossible. Philosophy has moved on from your arguements.

[Moochie]

Is religion science?

M.

[Pyrrho]

In keeping with the modern fad of blurring the meanings of words to induce cognitive dissonance and a much sought-after sense of dissociation so as not to have to deal with reality, it must be noted that every word in modern use derives from the original grunt uttered by the first proto-human. In that sense, "science" is "religion". Also in that sense, "science" is "ugh".

This is also how "credulous" is equivalent to "skeptical".

Ugh.

[Melendwyr]

The universe exists. There is no evidence that it's a construct floating around in the mind of some being. The hypothesis that it's a mental construct is not incompatible with the statement that the universe exists.

[Moochie]

And your meaning?

M.

[brodski]

The hypothesis that it's a mental construct is not incompatible with the statement that the universe exists.

So what? Ok, so maybe the universe is "just" a mentel construct, what practical differnce does it make? It still obeys predictible laws which no ammount of thought or wishing will change.

[ImaginalDisc]

The hypothesis that it's a mental construct is not incompatible with the statement that the universe exists.

It's not logically incompatible, true. There is no evidence that it's a mental construct however.

[jj]

Without the space between our ears, where is it? :)

Why don't you tell us?

[jj]

In keeping with the modern fad of blurring the meanings of words to induce cognitive dissonance and a much sought-after sense of dissociation so as not to have to deal with reality, it must be noted that every word in modern use derives from the original grunt uttered by the first proto-human. In that sense, "science" is "religion". Also in that sense, "science" is "ugh".

This is also how "credulous" is equivalent to "skeptical".

Ugh.


Oooga chucka
Oooga chucka!

:)

Was that a little bit of Derridision? :)

[Mercutio]

In keeping with the modern fad of blurring the meanings of words to induce cognitive dissonance and a much sought-after sense of dissociation so as not to have to deal with reality, it must be noted that every word in modern use derives from the original grunt uttered by the first proto-human. In that sense, "science" is "religion". Also in that sense, "science" is "ugh".

This is also how "credulous" is equivalent to "skeptical".

Ugh.
Interestingly, this explanation is yet another similarity between science and religion. The bible states that Adam named all the animals...by extension, he labeled all the other concepts as well. "Science" and "religion" are both defined as "that thing Adam named." Along with "dirt", "cloud", "headache", "cat", "haemoglobin" and "lint".

I do believe I just found the dictionary Iacchus uses.

[ImaginalDisc]

Interestingly, this explanation is yet another similarity between science and religion. The bible states that Adam named all the animals...by extension, he labeled all the other concepts as well. "Science" and "religion" are both defined as "that thing Adam named." Along with "dirt", "cloud", "headache", "cat", "haemoglobin" and "lint".

I do believe I just found the dictionary Iacchus uses.

Actually, David Brin wrote an encyclopedia article based on that dictionary reference. :-p

He pointed out that god telling Adam to go name the beasts is the only command god gave humanity before the fall, aside from leave that tree alone, and it's the only commandment in the bible which has nothing at all to do with man comming back in harmony with god, or being saved from sin.

In essence he arguess, you can use biblical sources to say that human beings were created in order to name the beasts, to understand the universe, and to do science.

[Morrison's Lament]

What about the tower of Babel, Merc? Didn't that turn the whole language thing on it's head or did it just create dialects (mythically speaking, of course)?

--- G.

[hammegk]

Why don't you tell us?
Why don't you? Possible Answer: Because jj is "space" between the ears. ;)

[Iacchus]

Hardly. The universe exists. There is no evidence that it's a construct floating around in the mind of some being. It is self sustaining, and self evident. Merely because something exists is not evidence that it has a maker, rather it is evidence that it has a cause.So, what maintains all the information then, that tells everything what to do?

You're going backwards Iacchus, we already addressed the mind/matter deabte. I even linked you the Essay by Locke giving you *more* ammunition, because post Darwinian philosphy has already moved beyond this issue. A designerless universe is no longer considered philisophically impossible. Philosophy has moved on from your arguements.As if to say, the Big Bang just happened to create itself on the fly?

[Iacchus]

So what? Ok, so maybe the universe is "just" a mentel construct, what practical differnce does it make? It still obeys predictible laws which no ammount of thought or wishing will change.I don't believe this is what's in dispute here, at least in my opinion.

[Iacchus]

I do believe I just found the dictionary Iacchus uses.No, not unless you consider what came prior to that and named Adam. ;)

[Mojo]

No, not unless you consider what came prior to that and named Adam. How about considering what came before that?

Or considering who named the alleged entity which allegedly named Adam?

[Iacchus]

How about considering what came before that?

Or considering who named the alleged entity which allegedly named Adam?Indeed, what is information without its source? And, if all things come from the same place, at least according to the proponents of the Big Bang, how many sources do we really need? So, might I suggest that who or, whatever it is that named/defined Adam is the same source?

[Mojo]

Indeed, what is information without its source? And, if all things come from the same place, at least according to the proponents of the Big Bang, how many sources do we really need? So, might I suggest that who or, whatever it is that named/defined Adam is the same source?You do realise that Adam is just a character from a creation myth, don't you?

[Iacchus]

You do realise that Adam is just a character from a creation myth, don't you?Actually, I do not know this to be a fact. Neither does it in anyway, explain how we define the nature of reality.

[arias]

Is Science a religion?

Is NOT collecting stamps a hobby?

[hammegk]

No, nor is science in the business of "not doing something".

Collecting stamps might become one's religion.

[ImaginalDisc]

So, what maintains all the information then, that tells everything what to do?


Nothing. The universe requires no director. It's a collection of matter and energy regulated by fundamental laws of phsyics, chemistry and biology. No one's at the helm.

As if to say, the Big Bang just happened to create itself on the fly?

Yeah, that's about right. Ice crystals form in cold water spontaneously, what's so difficult about considering that the universe formed without direction?

[Iacchus]

Nothing. The universe requires no director. It's a collection of matter and energy regulated by fundamental laws of phsyics, chemistry and biology. No one's at the helm.

Yeah, that's about right. Ice crystals form in cold water spontaneously, what's so difficult about considering that the universe formed without direction?Lame (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49332) ... ;)

[ImaginalDisc]

One word rejoinders on the internet make baby Turing cry. If you have a rebuttal, enlighten us, oh guru.

[l0rca]

What about the tower of Babel, Merc? Didn't that turn the whole language thing on it's head or did it just create dialects (mythically speaking, of course)?

--- G.


Are you talking to me? If so, I dont understand what your question pertains to on this issue...

[Morrison's Lament]

Sorry, I meant Mercutio, regarding the whole original naming deal.

--- G.

[ceo_esq]

Wrong. Logic is the mathematical description of the relationships between concepts. Reason is the application of logic to the available data to produce conclusions.

Pure rationality has nothing to do, formally speaking, with "available data"; it is essentially concerned with a priori truths, i.e those which may be apprehended in the reason alone (such as logical relationships) - not a posteriori or empirical truths such as those discerned by science. Logic is a strictly rational discipline, as I suggested. Science isn't.

[Huntster]

Is Science a religion?

In reality, no.

For some people, yes.

[Melendwyr]

Logic is a strictly rational discipline, as I suggested. Logic is a strictly empirical discipline, as you have utterly failed to comprehend.

[ceo_esq]

Logic is a strictly empirical discipline, as you have utterly failed to comprehend.

Melendwyr, you are simply mistaken here. Even an introductory course in logic would have corrected your impression:
"Logic is not an empirical science. Experimental observation is not part of its methodology." (source (http://philosophy.hku.hk/courses/plogic/logic-intro.pdf))

"Logic is not an empirical science." (source (http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/pptintroduction.html))

"Logic may be defined as the science of reasoning. However, this is not to suggest that logic is an empirical (i.e., experimental or observational) science like physics, biology or psychology. Rather, logic is a non-empirical science like mathematics." (source (http://people.umass.edu/gmhwww/110/pdf/c01_3-99.pdf))
By all appearances, you have no formal familiarity with logic, epistemology, or philosophy of science. There are people here on the forum who do have a background in such matters, but in order for you to benefit from their participation, it would help if you stopped insisting that you know what you're talking about. Otherwise, you'll just end up repeatedly demonstrating that you don't.

[BillHoyt]

Oy! Science a religion? No. :rolleyes:

[Melendwyr]

Melendwyr, you are simply mistaken here. Try thinking, ceo. It works wonders.

Observations of mental phenomena do not become unempirical merely because they take place inside of our heads. We constantly rely on information processing conducted by our nervous systems. It makes no difference if we use an artificial electronic computer to analyze data or natural biological cpmputers. The process requires us to observe the behavior of a physical system.

Disagree? Offer a single example of logical processing that isn't empirical.

[l0rca]

Offer a single example of logical processing that isn't empirical.

Not that I'm trying to undermine ceo_esq's fun of doing it himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

[Melendwyr]

Sorry, mercuryturrent, but there's nothing in that article that constitutes an example of nonempirical logical processing.

[BillHoyt]

Melendwyr, you are simply mistaken here. Even an introductory course in logic would have corrected your impression:
"Logic is not an empirical science. Experimental observation is not part of its methodology." (source (http://philosophy.hku.hk/courses/plogic/logic-intro.pdf))

"Logic is not an empirical science." (source (http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/pptintroduction.html))

"Logic may be defined as the science of reasoning. However, this is not to suggest that logic is an empirical (i.e., experimental or observational) science like physics, biology or psychology. Rather, logic is a non-empirical science like mathematics." (source (http://people.umass.edu/gmhwww/110/pdf/c01_3-99.pdf))
By all appearances, you have no formal familiarity with logic, epistemology, or philosophy of science. There are people here on the forum who do have a background in such matters, but in order for you to benefit from their participation, it would help if you stopped insisting that you know what you're talking about. Otherwise, you'll just end up repeatedly demonstrating that you don't.

Have to disagree with your sources, sir. Twentieth century developments in the philosophy of science recognize retroductive logic, which integrates the scientific method back into the logic systems from which it grew, originally as a branch of philosophy. 20-th century philosophy of science (http://philsci.com/book7-6.htm)

[l0rca]

Sorry, mercuryturrent, but there's nothing in that article that constitutes an example of nonempirical logical processing.

I posted this earlier, but it seems you didn't bother to look at the definition.

Empirical
2 entries found for empirical.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism
- em·pir·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Notice definition sections #2 and #3, and juxtapose them to these quotes from the article (feel free, if you are suspicious, to re-read the article to make sure I am not taking the quotes out of context):

Theoretical physics is physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions rather than experimental processes.

^This quote lets us know that theoretical physics does not employ the experimental process. This quote also lets us know that theoretical theories are abstract. You can find the definition for abstract here: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/abstract

Notice how the definition of 'abstract' has little to do with empirical things.

Some physical theories are backed by observation, whereas others are not.

^This quote lets us know that there are theories in theoretical physics that do not rely on observation.

If you think really hard and read everything, you'll notice that theoretical physics may not observe, or experiment in order to come up with mathematical, thereby logical ideas. This means, according to the definition of empirical, that theoretical physics is not an empirical logic. Theoretical physics is also a form of science, which means that theoretical physics is not an empirical science.


ETA: I have a curse of prematurely posting things.

[Melendwyr]

Theoretical physics is physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions rather than experimental processes. And how are those models generated? How are the abstractions dealt with?
This quote lets us know that there are theories in theoretical physics that do not rely on observation. They instead rely upon mathematical abstractions derived from previous models - it's the abstractions that they study, and they can only study them empirically.

I don't think you read my earlier request, mercury. Look very carefully at what I'm asking you to demonstrate.

[l0rca]

I don't think you read my earlier request, mercury. Look very carefully at what I'm asking you to demonstrate.


True, all I pointed out was how theoretical physics is not an empirical logic or science.

What you were asking, I admit, was to show you an example of logical thinking completely independant of experience, or the empirical.

I guess the question I should be concerned with on this topic is this:

Even if science attempts to answer questions about the world that it recieves empirically, does it necessarily rely on an empirical process to explain it with logic?

My answer to that is no, and I stand by the example I provided. Although theoretical physics attempts to answer questions about the universe it has observed, it does not use empirical science or logic to answer them.

[Melendwyr]

True, all I pointed out was how theoretical physics is not an empirical logic or science. It relies on logical operations. You have yet to demonstrate even one case where logical operation can be separated from the empirical world.

Offer an example demonstrating how logic can be nonempirical.

[l0rca]

You have yet to demonstrate even one case where logical operation can be separated from the empirical world.


You're not using the definition I provided. You're using the philosophical definition of empirical, which states that all experience is derived from the senses, and in turn all reasoning or knowledge is a product of that experience. I agree with that, but empirical has another definition.

What we have here is an argument of how far each definition extends itself when we use it to ask if scientists use "strictly empirical methods". Philosophically, it is impossible for science, or any practice, to use a non-empirical method: everything we do is strictly emprical, even illogical reasoning is empirical. Believing in god is empirical.

But according to the layman definition, the definition I provided, "empirical" may mean strong reliance on observation and experiment. To which is not necessarily a component of science.

So I suppose you could argue that science is always empirical, in the way that everything else thought of is empirical, or accept a more specific definition, and admit science is not accodingly a strictly empirical method.

[Melendwyr]

You're not using the definition I provided. Your criticism isn't addressing the definition I'm using.

But according to the layman definition According to the "layman definition", ID is a theory.

[BillHoyt]

True, all I pointed out was how theoretical physics is not an empirical logic or science.

What you were asking, I admit, was to show you an example of logical thinking completely independant of experience, or the empirical.

I guess the question I should be concerned with on this topic is this:

Even if science attempts to answer questions about the world that it recieves empirically, does it necessarily rely on an empirical process to explain it with logic?

My answer to that is no, and I stand by the example I provided. Although theoretical physics attempts to answer questions about the universe it has observed, it does not use empirical science or logic to answer them.
Please, can we all drop this habit of using dictionary definitions for questions such as these? We only get into semantic games with this approach.

Step back a moment and look at what theoretical physics is. First, it is a branch of physics, connected to all the others. It is separated from the others because it affords an opportunity to address problems without directly conducting either lab or field experiments. BUT it relies on the empirical findings of the rest of physics for its "reality therapy," the necessary ingredient of science. While the theoretical physicists don't actually toss the pasta against the wall, they rely on the results of the empirical branches to test theoretical results. To look at the logical framework it seeks to build, all the premises it uses are eithernbuilt or derived from empirical results.

It is a branch of physics, which is a branch of the sciences, which were once upon a time a branch of philosophy.

How did this thread get so far away from the original, albeit idiotic, question: is science a religion?

[Tricky]

How did this thread get so far away from the original, albeit idiotic, question: is science a religion?
Threads have free will?

[l0rca]

Please, can we all drop this habit of using dictionary definitions for questions such as these? We only get into semantic games with this approach.

If there are two definitions to a word, and someone acknowledges the confusion that can become of it, it's a "game" to approach the definition with a dictionary?

[l0rca]

Your criticism isn't addressing the definition I'm using.

...

According to the "layman definition", ID is a theory.

The definition you're using, as I pointed out, implies a very obvious fact about everything, and doesn't further any argument on why science is always reliant on evidence. Science isn't always strictly evidential, was my point. I stepped in here (again) because I was under the impression you were confusing the two definitions of empirical. Earlier, you posted:


If something cannot be tested, it isn't science. Tests are empirical by their very nature. Therefore, that which is not empirical is not science.



You see, you said "that which is not empirical is not science." According to the philosophic definition you now claim to be emploring, you should have said "Therefore, that which is not empirical is non-existant". But you didn't. You seemed to have equated scientific method with the lay-man definition of empirical. But that was back a few posts. Fastforwarding, you're using the philosophical definition, and claiming because the philosophical definition fits science, so must the lay-mans. It looks to me like you're confusing the two.

[Huntster]

Please, can we all drop this habit of using dictionary definitions for questions such as these? We only get into semantic games with this approach....

The use of the dictionary should end the semantic games.

Just as the laws of physics, biology, etc have been mentioned, the dictionary defines the law of words. It should be able to provide a foundation to end honest confusion regarding words and meaning as well as end semantic games which are so prevalent in discussion forums, and used by those with no other basis of debate.

Why should we be held to the laws of science and be allowed to butcher the language?

[Melendwyr]

The definition you're using, as I pointed out, implies a very obvious fact about everything, Except that's not the sense I'm using.

I think we're done here.

[Iacchus]

Why should we be held to the laws of science and be allowed to butcher the language?Because some of us would rather mince words? Just kidding! :D

[Kiless]

Threads have free will?

ARGH! Not again!!
http://www.nato-ladder.com/forums/images/smilies/do_killtard.gif

[kuroyume0161]

Why should we be held to the laws of science and be allowed to butcher the language?
It is not butchery as much as (dare I say it) evolution. Believe or not (and this is not Ripley speaking), languages change over time. The English we use today, well, 'tis not the pennings oft made anon. Have you ever read Chaucer? That, eeks, is English (which comes from Englisc <- Engles <- Angles (as in Anglo-Saxon?)) despite the near indistinguishability from German. And Shakespeare requires much ado to understand many of the terms and words of that time.

I'm not arguing, just explaining. This is an inherent problem with language. It is imprecise and words are used 'willy-nilly' (and I echo Randi's explanation here as being carted around to new meanings against their will). Alternatively, words are either invented or coopted into situations of speciality. Science and mathematics are some of them. For instance, Isaac Newton (that damnable atheistic scientist) was a great mathematician. So was, purportedly, Leibniz. There is still controversy as to whether they discovered the Calculus independently or via a little extraction of information between. Either way, they both developed the same mathematics. And they employed completely different terminology and variances in symbology. Fluxions for Newton, infinitesimals for Leibniz.

My point is that science hasn't butchered the language, but instead employed certain words in more precise ways. The same can be said of mathematics, logic, medicine, and engineering. When someone speaks of a scientific theory, they are refering to a specific use of the word 'theory' that is separate from the popular usage or other specific cooptive employments. It is a fate of language that new words are not invented for every new use, but that words and even phrases take on new meanings for whatever purposes. ETA: Note that these new meanings come in a variety of precision. For science, there is a rather precise definition of 'theory'. Same for, example, 'limit'. In regular language, it has one meaning, but in mathematics, it is not just that. It has specific meanings for specific fields of mathematics. Go figure...

Very few words in any language have one exact meaning and use. Look at 'word'. It can be part of a sentence, or part of a computer storage, or ... I count 10 definitions with a long list of subdefinitions just for the noun use of 'word'. And don't forget 'word up'. ;)

Language is an interesting subject.

[BillHoyt]

If there are two definitions to a word, and someone acknowledges the confusion that can become of it, it's a "game" to approach the definition with a dictionary?
I see kuroyume0161 has already answered about as I would have answered. When one is asking specialized questions about specialized meanings, one can't consult general dictionaries. General dictionaries are intended to convey the denotations and connotations of the general usage of words. This is why specialized dictionaries exist. They fill in the gaps left by general dictionaries.

[ceo_esq]

Try thinking, ceo. It works wonders.

Observations of mental phenomena do not become unempirical merely because they take place inside of our heads. We constantly rely on information processing conducted by our nervous systems. It makes no difference if we use an artificial electronic computer to analyze data or natural biological cpmputers. The process requires us to observe the behavior of a physical system.

Ah, now I remember. You were the poster who, in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47211) thread, tried to argue that mathematical truths are contingent and empirical ones, and so forth. You have some very curious notions about such things which were not shared by any other poster or authority cited in that thread, and apparently you employ the relevant concepts in unusual senses that inspire you to conclusions rejected by everyone, or virtually everyone, who actually thinks about such things for a living.

There's no real point in continuing to argue with you regarding logic, mathematics, the nature of the empirical versus the rational, etc. I think you (on the one hand) and the rest of the world (on the other hand) will simply have to agree to disagree.

[Melendwyr]

If by "people who think about such things for a living", you mean philosophers, I'd say you're welcome to them. If you refer to computer scientists and cognitive psychologists, then I'd say you've somehow managed to ignore the last half-century of work done in those areas, ceo.

There's a reason that quality ideas produced within philosophy tend to be absorbed by other fields. I don't think that's a risk you'll have to face.

[ceo_esq]

If by "people who think about such things for a living", you mean philosophers, I'd say you're welcome to them.

Let's try logicians and mathematicians. Which ones support your assertions about the "strictly empirical" nature of pure mathematics and logic?


If you refer to computer scientists and cognitive psychologists, then I'd say you've somehow managed to ignore the last half-century of work done in those areas, ceo.

I suppose we'll find out when you deign to cite some corroborative texts from those disciplines.

[Melendwyr]

Let's try logicians and mathematicians. Which ones support your assertions about the "strictly empirical" nature of pure mathematics and logic? What, Turing isn't good enough for you?

[l0rca]

I see kuroyume0161 has already answered about as I would have answered. When one is asking specialized questions about specialized meanings, one can't consult general dictionaries. General dictionaries are intended to convey the denotations and connotations of the general usage of words. This is why specialized dictionaries exist. They fill in the gaps left by general dictionaries.


There is no special or unique definition of the word 'empirical' outside of the standard dictionary's definition and the philosophical one. There is no "specially scientific" definition of empiric. But I'll satisfy the argument entirely by providing two references of definitions of empirical/empiricism regarding science, and doing so inevitably favors the standard definition.

2 a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences -- http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/empirical

Empirical methods have dominated science until the present day.[...] However, in the past couple of decades quantum mechanics, constructivism, and Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions have created some challenges to empiricism as the exclusive way in which science works and should work. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical#Empiricism_and_Science

The argument on whether science is purely empiric so far as I'm concerned is closed. Melen is trying to artfully dodge out of being called wrong this time, and frankly I'm tired of chasing him around the bush.


I'd love to have a good argument on the evolution of lexicon and the differences between prescriptive and descriptive language, but I think someone should start a new thread, since such a topic deserves its own.

[Melendwyr]

2 a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences What part of mathematical model-making isn't experimental, mercuryturrent? It's the models that are being studied in theoretical physics - any conclusions about the world we draw from them are just inferences. Inferences that take second stage to empirical data about the world itself.

Studying the models is an empirical process. That's why they actually have to, you know, run them.

[ceo_esq]

What, Turing isn't good enough for you?

If you already quoted or linked to directly corroborative passages from Turing's work and I overlooked it, then I apologize. Kindly direct me to the relevant post. Turing would certainly be a start (although since you referred to the "last half-century" I assumed you had figures more recent than Turing in mind).

[hammegk]

Quasi-empiricism
One parallel concern that does not actually challenge the schools directly but questions their focus is the notion of quasi-empiricism in mathematics. This grew from the increasingly popular assertion in the late 20th century that no one foundation of mathematics could be ever proven to exist. It is also sometimes called 'postmodernism in mathematics' although that term is considered overloaded by some and insulting by others. It is a very minimal form of social realism/constructivism that accepts that quasi-empirical methods and even sometimes empirical methods can be part of modern mathematical practice.

Such methods have always been part of folk mathematics by which great feats of calculation and measurement are sometimes achieved. Indeed, such methods may be the only notion of "proof" a culture has.

Hilary Putnam argued that any theory of mathematical realism would include quasi-empirical methods. He proposed that an alien species doing mathematics might well rely on quasi-empirical methods primarily, being willing often to forgo rigorous and axiomatic "proofs", and still be "doing mathematics" - at perhaps a somewhat greater risk of failure of their calculations. He laid out a quite detailed argument for this in New Directions (ed. Tymockzo, 1998).


from http://www.answers.com/topic/philosophy-of-mathematics


LOL. PoMo math!

[l0rca]

What part of mathematical model-making isn't experimental, mercuryturrent? It's the models that are being studied in theoretical physics - any conclusions about the world we draw from them are just inferences. Inferences that take second stage to empirical data about the world itself.

Studying the models is an empirical process. That's why they actually have to, you know, run them.

Let's not again remove the word empirical from its definition. There are fields in theoretical physics which do not rely on empirical testing or evidence. The definition I'm relying on is the one I've posted twice in here. I see no better official definition, and I'm not willing to change my mind of what a word means because someone thinks it could use a tune-up.

The String Theory is a sore thumb in this example. Keep in mind that I'm not arguing here that String Theory did not arise from studying empirically-related fields of science, or that String Theory wouldn't enjoy some evidence fitting its conjectures. But string theory mathematics do not rely on empirical backing for their formulas to work. String theory relies on mathematics, which at times finds itself several degrees away from what we would consider empirical. Nevertheless, if we were to ask a string theory mathematician where his empirical data is, he wouldn't be able to produce it.

Quasi-empiricism
One parallel concern that does not actually challenge the schools directly but questions their focus is the notion of quasi-empiricism in mathematics. This grew from the increasingly popular assertion in the late 20th century that no one foundation of mathematics could be ever proven to exist. It is also sometimes called 'postmodernism in mathematics' although that term is considered overloaded by some and insulting by others. It is a very minimal form of social realism/constructivism that accepts that quasi-empirical methods and even sometimes empirical methods can be part of modern mathematical practice.

Such methods have always been part of folk mathematics by which great feats of calculation and measurement are sometimes achieved. Indeed, such methods may be the only notion of "proof" a culture has.

Hilary Putnam argued that any theory of mathematical realism would include quasi-empirical methods. He proposed that an alien species doing mathematics might well rely on quasi-empirical methods primarily, being willing often to forgo rigorous and axiomatic "proofs", and still be "doing mathematics" - at perhaps a somewhat greater risk of failure of their calculations. He laid out a quite detailed argument for this in New Directions (ed. Tymockzo, 1998).

In a day or so I'll try to see if I can recover and produce for us an article dealing with mathematics and empiricism throughout history.

Anyway, dealing with mathematics and its need to provide empirical evidence, I'm on the fence. There certainly was enough math that "predicted" what we would find empirically. But on the other hand, through the centuries, mathematicians have found that big math may take on "angles" of understanding, where more than one equation fits for an answer, but wheras evidence would yeild only one equation, or at times a different equations altogether to ring true in reality.

Some people might argue that because empirical data at times slaps math in the face, that empirical data might just as easily be wrong. That's true: evidence doesn't come with a "this is absolutely true" warranty on it. Empirical date may also be viewed from a number of angles. This could be because our evidence is deceptively vauge, or because different mechanics than we might at the time detect are forming results very similar to what we're looking for.

Math's follies have a similar problem, and at times we've been sure enough to claim certainly that although the math is on, it's not on our reality. Math can produce results of a model that isn't linear to our reality. Though this doesn't necessarily mean that there are parallel universes, it almost garuntees that there's more than one way to construct a working universe. That's why math should rely on direct-empirical evidence. It can get off track of reality.

[Melendwyr]

Let's not again remove the word empirical from its definition. There are fields in theoretical physics which do not rely on empirical testing or evidence. This is the point you keep getting hung up on: NO, THERE ARE NOT. Theoretical physics studies MODELS, and then makes inferences about physics from the behavior of the models. The examination and interrogation of the MODELS is an observation-based, EMPIRICAL process.

Disagree? Then I'll request for the third time, SHOW US A CASE WHERE MATHEMATICS CAN BE PERFORMED WITHOUT RELYING ON THE EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS OF A PHYSICAL COMPUTATIONAL SYSTEM.

[l0rca]

This is the point you keep getting hung up on: NO, THERE ARE NOT. Theoretical physics studies MODELS, and then makes inferences about physics from the behavior of the models. The examination and interrogation of the MODELS is an observation-based, EMPIRICAL process.

Disagree? Then I'll request for the third time, SHOW US A CASE WHERE MATHEMATICS CAN BE PERFORMED WITHOUT RELYING ON THE EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS OF A PHYSICAL COMPUTATIONAL SYSTEM.

You're confusing the definitions of empircial, still. I give up on you.

[hammegk]

.... SHOW US A CASE WHERE MATHEMATICS CAN BE PERFORMED WITHOUT RELYING ON THE EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS OF A PHYSICAL COMPUTATIONAL SYSTEM.
What do you consider empirical about the Peano postulates? Or the highest (for me, lowest) flights of, say, theoretical topology?

[hammegk]

Maybe someone else should ask him.her.it.Mel. Was the request for clarification too difficult? Or too easy?

[BeholdTheTruth]

If science is not a religion, then how come no less a great scientist than Max Planck said in 1949, "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning."

Perhaps the question of what is a religion is a question much broader and deeper than what most scientifically inclined folks are up to to considering? And perhaps that is because they are as afraid of a scary answer that might undermine their faith in science as much as most believers are afraid of an answer that might undermine their sacred beliefs in what is and is not sacred?

[l0rca]

If science is not a religion, then how come no less a great scientist than Max Planck said in 1949, "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning."

Perhaps the question of what is a religion is a question much broader and deeper than what most scientifically inclined folks are up to to considering? And perhaps that is because they are as afraid of a scary answer that might undermine their faith in science as much as most believers are afraid of an answer that might undermine their sacred beliefs in what is and is not sacred?

It sounds like you're willing to redefine religion on an anecdote about Max Planck. Perhaps we'll recieve some Isaac Newton next? Or perhaps god does not play dice? I do love anecdotes. They're so logically sound.

[BeholdTheTruth]

It sounds like you're willing to redefine religion on an anecdote about Max Planck. Perhaps we'll recieve some Isaac Newton next? Or perhaps god does not play dice? I do love anecdotes. They're so logically sound.

I began by quoting Max Planck's views about the belief conserving nature of most establishment scientists-- an anecdote, yes, however, also the view of a great scientist about how difficult it is for those folks in any era's scientific establishment to accept an idea that goes against beliefs that most of the memebers of the establishment hold sacred.

The fact that you immediately dismiss Planck's remark in the exact way most fervent believers of most religious belief systems tend to immediately resist even for a moment an idea counter to their holy moleys is to me a reasonable indication that you have a strong need to rely on your required belief in a wholly non-religious view of science. And just the way most religionists need to hold on to their all too often fanciful view of deity

And speaking of Newton, you are advised to read Dr. Robert Laughlin's "A Different Universe". And if you can think dispassionately about the difficulties of trading old lamps for new -- whether religous doctrines or scientific ones, you may discover that the underlying paradigm of Newton's alchemy was the view that new scientfic and even religious discoveries can only emerge when old obstacles to such "revelations" are removed from one's view -- and views.

[c4ts]

Is Science a religion?

Not by any definition of the word "religion," nor by any of the ideas associated with religion. Most apparent similarities come from the way science is often taught (as a collection of things to memorize), and by the fact that it can provide explanations for things which had been previously (though differently) explained by religions.

[kuroyume0161]

I began by quoting Max Planck's views about the belief conserving nature of most establishment scientists-- an anecdote, yes, however, also the view of a great scientist about how difficult it is for those folks in any era's scientific establishment to accept an idea that goes against beliefs that most of the memebers of the establishment hold sacred.

And Max Planck spoke from a position of ridicule since his solution to a difficult problem was not standard acceptable practice - he fiddled with the maths to arrive at the solution rather than hypothesizing and experimenting. At the time, there was no 'theoretical physics' and such approaches were deemed more esoteric than empirical.

So, there is more here than just a generalized statement - it is one very personal to good old Max.

And speaking of Newton, you are advised to read Dr. Robert Laughlin's "A Different Universe". And if you can think dispassionately about the difficulties of trading old lamps for new -- whether religous doctrines or scientific ones, you may discover that the underlying paradigm of Newton's alchemy was the view that new scientfic and even religious discoveries can only emerge when old obstacles to such "revelations" are removed from one's view -- and views.

Revelations - religion type: receiving divine truth.

Revelations - scientific type: discovering that which was unknown.

Although these two definitions can be made to correspond, in distinction they talk about different things altogether. The former speaks of having 'truths' revealed through visions or scriptures. The latter of discovering facets of reality using observation and human intelligence to understand how things work.

Scientists do not pray or worship or sacrifice. They do not come by knowledge through divine revelation or any other antiquated mode of understanding (philosophy, for instance). Understanding is achieved by observing, hypothesizing, experimenting, and finding new theories and laws concerning our universe.

Humans are humans. We cling to the status quo and that which has already been established. This is the same for science, religion, governments, everything. But, you sir, are applying sweeping generalizations to arrive at your equation.

[Huntster]

...Scientists do not pray or worship or sacrifice....

Evidence?

[BeholdTheTruth]

Not by any definition of the word "religion," nor by any of the ideas associated with religion. Most apparent similarities come from the way science is often taught (as a collection of things to memorize), and by the fact that it can provide explanations for things which had been previously (though differently) explained by religions.

Using your much like any other religion's logic, Max Planck would never have made his discovery of quantum energy.

How can I say such an obvious un-scientific statement?

Simply because the establishment of QM required a redefinition/broadened definition of the word "energy".

BTW, if you are not capable of moving way from an old-fashioned definition of religion not in accord with the behavior of specimens (and speciwomans :-) who call themselves scientists, in favor of a broader definition of religion that more fully encompasses the data of observations such as those of Max Planck about an old generation of scientists with views x being replaced by a new generation of scientists with views y, then you appear to me to be at best some Einstein kind of scientist, i.e., one who religiously clings to his beliefs in spite of what eventually turns out to end up being progress in science. Note: progress that from time to time always requires revised definitions of terms and formulas and concepts in order to account for those annoying anamolies that the scientific establishment keeps sweeping under the rug because those anomalies threaten the definitions (and the jobs and often the positions of authority) that even most "Einsteins" sooner or later hold sacred.

[slingblade]

I thought this would be an easy answer to give.

I agree with those who suggest there's a basic difference between religion and faith, and science and knowing, but I think I find a little bit of line-crossing, at least semantically.

I believe that science will one day be able to explain things it can't explain now, as technology improves and knowledge increases. I see that as a statement of fact, because it's so non-specific, it could cover any new explanation or discovery made any time in the future.

But if I say I believe science will one day eradicate AIDS, I'm being much more specific and have to rely on literal faith in science: belief in something not yet seen, along with a smattering of hope, and a reliance on the past successful efforts of science in discovering cures. (if I do that last, am I committing a fallacy?)

I feel that sometimes there are religious aspects to science, which makes me wonder if there are not what we might call religious aspects to many things in life, which we just don't recognize as such?

But an aspect is not the thing itself, so I have to say that, IMO, science is not a religion, per se.

[kuroyume0161]

Evidence?
If you are trying to take the tack that 'scientists' may also be religious (e.g.: Christian, Muslim, ....), then you misinterpret my statement.

There is no 'praying' or 'worship' or 'sacrifice' in science. Oh, there may be people who 'worship' their own or other's ideas too much, but this again is something people do, not something that is part of science. And the only 'sacrifice' that I can think of in relation to science might be that of sacrificing other life pleasures in its pursuit or sacrificing your hypothesis for a better one. Again, nothing is sacrificially offered to appeal some science god.

Evidence of what, then? It is you (well, Jackel and the OP) who contends that science is religion. Therefore, you must supply the evidence for your claim! So far, the evidence is weak and has been refuted.

ETA: One last critique - Hunter, you're a Critical Thinker and I'm a Muse? Still trying to figure out how to fix mine, but if you can do so, yours needs to reflect your real state... ;)

[Roboramma]

But if I say I believe science will one day eradicate AIDS, I'm being much more specific and have to rely on literal faith in science: belief in something not yet seen, along with a smattering of hope, and a reliance on the past successful efforts of science in discovering cures. (if I do that last, am I committing a fallacy?)


We need to separate science from the products of science, and the products of science from the conclusions people draw from those products.

Even if there is something vaguely religious about your faith in science's ability to discover cures in the future (to AIDS specifically), there is nothing religious about the science itself. Nor is there anything scientific about your faith (actually, that might not be true - but if the faith is unjustified, there is nothing scientific about it. If, on the other hand, the faith is built upon empirical evidence, our understanding of the biology of human beings and the HIV virus, models of how science has progressed in the past, etc. and contains the admission that it may be misguided, then it could be scientific, but in that case I wouldn't call it religious).

One could build a religion around science, but that wouldn't make science a religion.

[BeholdTheTruth]

I thought this would be an easy answer to give.

I feel that sometimes there are religious aspects to science, which makes me wonder if there are not what we might call religious aspects to many things in life, which we just don't recognize as such?


THAT my friend is what I mean, but you said it a lot better than I ever could.


But an aspect is not the thing itself, so I have to say that, IMO, science is not a religion, per se.

OTOH, any aspect of x has some essence of x-ness, just as any aspect of y has some essence of y-ness. So perhaps the black dot in the white circle and white dot in the black circle of the two circles-with-in-a-circle geometry of the yin yang is a reminder that nothing is ever completely balck and white.

[l0rca]

I began by quoting Max Planck's views about the belief conserving nature of most establishment scientists-- an anecdote, yes, however, also the view of a great scientist about how difficult it is for those folks in any era's scientific establishment to accept an idea that goes against beliefs that most of the memebers of the establishment hold sacred.


Well yeah, you're right. But that's common knowledge. Generally, lots of scientific paradigms take a generation or two to become popular. I don't see how that idea should have us pursue a line of thinking that suggests "Perhaps the question of what is a religion is a question much broader and deeper than what most scientifically inclined folks are up to to considering?" Also, you started the anecdote with this line:

If science is not a religion, then how come...

Seriously man, would you take yourself seriously?


The fact that you immediately dismiss Planck's remark in the exact way most fervent believers of most religious belief systems tend to immediately resist even for a moment an idea counter to their holy moleys is to me a reasonable indication that you have a strong need to rely on your required belief in a wholly non-religious view of science. And just the way most religionists need to hold on to their all too often fanciful view of deity

I will dismiss all anecdotes and metaphors as primary ways to communicate an idea. Don't take it personally. I happen to believe that someone who makes an appeal to authority firstly, and secondly not make a logical connection with their post, should be dismissed.


And speaking of Newton, you are advised to read Dr. Robert Laughlin's "A Different Universe". And if you can think dispassionately about the difficulties of trading old lamps for new -- whether religous doctrines or scientific ones, you may discover that the underlying paradigm of Newton's alchemy was the view that new scientfic and even religious discoveries can only emerge when old obstacles to such "revelations" are removed from one's view -- and views.

My reply to this is partly irrelevant to the way I've been arguing with you, but it seems what you're arguing is simply misguided, and not out-and-out wrong (but I'll address that argument by addressing the other fellow here). Nevertheless, I looked at Amazon for a review of the book. It seems Dr. Laughlin, though a good scientist, isn't a very good writer. Maybe I'll read it one day, but I've got a few books I'm already reading, some science and some not; but also I feel that all I would be reading in it, according to how you promote it and others do, is an idea I already share.

[l0rca]

I believe that science will one day be able to explain things it can't explain now, as technology improves and knowledge increases. I see that as a statement of fact, because it's so non-specific, it could cover any new explanation or discovery made any time in the future.

But if I say I believe science will one day eradicate AIDS, I'm being much more specific and have to rely on literal faith in science: belief in something not yet seen, along with a smattering of hope, and a reliance on the past successful efforts of science in discovering cures. (if I do that last, am I committing a fallacy?)


In a way you are. Believing science is going to find a cure for AIDs because it has found a cure for other diseases is logically false because your reason for believing in it does not have a direct connection to any mechanic that will relate to scientists finding a cure (in this circumstance, the fallacy is a "Post Hoc," but probably fits into other categories as well, including generalisation). But I'm nitpicking here, since I casually share the same logically-false belief.


I feel that sometimes there are religious aspects to science, which makes me wonder if there are not what we might call religious aspects to many things in life, which we just don't recognize as such?


I don't disagree with what you mean, but I do with how you state it. Those things that relate science to religion, relate religion to politics, to gangs, to wars, to poker games. All of them involve the same nuances of human interraction. It's not an aspect of science or religion that is found "everywhere," its an aspect of our collective personality.


But an aspect is not the thing itself, so I have to say that, IMO, science is not a religion, per se.

Yeah, pretty much.

[Flange Desire]

I was hoping that love might post some comment or at least a vote
in this healthy thread.

As they say - "Whats love got to do, got to do with it"

[SirPhilip]

Is Science a religion?
No, but both have one similarity: both offer a sense of certainty where there is none. Naturalism and faith (s) can be very romantic in completely different ways. You'll often see someone demonizing Darwin's outlook, which in reality was likely a sublime fascination, especially considering he was the first to stumble opon it with full clarity. More often than the points they raise, disagreements between the two are often just the result of one person unable to understand why the other prefers the natural world and another, a greater phenomenal world, and assigns the word truth to either.

[BillHoyt]

No, but both have one similarity: both offer a sense of certainty where there is none. Naturalism and faith (s) can be very romantic in completely different ways. You'll often see someone demonizing Darwin's outlook, which in reality was likely a sublime fascination, especially considering he was the first to stumble opon it with full clarity. More often than the points they raise, disagreements between the two are often just the result of one person unable to understand why the other prefers the natural world and another, a greater phenomenal world, and assigns the word truth to either.
Science doesn't offer certainty; it offers provisional truths. It does so with epistemological privilege, sir, not with the "worldview," "competing narratives" postmodernism suggested by your post.

[billydkid]

God, I hate this question. Is a nose a shoe?

[BillHoyt]

God, I hate this question. Is a nose a shoe?
Given that they both often smell...


Isn't fallacious reasoning fun? :D

[SirPhilip]

Science doesn't offer certainty; it offers provisional truths. It does so with epistemological privilege, sir, not with the "worldview," "competing narratives" postmodernism suggested by your post.
Postmodernism? Me? Only as an art project, sir.

[drkitten]

No, but both have one similarity: both offer a sense of certainty where there is none.

Be fair, Bill. Many people mistakenly take a "sense of certainty" from science, even though science doesn't offer certainty. I've had a number of people of people tell me something is "theoretically impossible" as though that meant something beyond "so we need to develop another theory to explain it if, in fact, it happens."

More often than the points they raise, disagreements between the two are often just the result of one person unable to understand why the other prefers the natural world and another, a greater phenomenal world, and assigns the word truth to either.

Unfortunately, there's no valid epistemological basis for assigning the word "truth" to the "greater phenomenal world" SirPhilip suggests. If someone tells me that a circle is, to him, a square, our geometric disagreement is not merely one of esthetics.

[ImaginalDisc]

Be fair, Bill. Many people mistakenly take a "sense of certainty" from science, even though science doesn't offer certainty. I've had a number of people of people tell me something is "theoretically impossible" as though that meant something beyond "so we need to develop another theory to explain it if, in fact, it happens."

You're equivocating. People have confidence in science. I have confidence that if I drop my coffee mug, I will spill hot coffee into my lap. Ow. The cup floating away like a helium baloon would be bizzare, and theoretically impossible. That doesn't make my understanding of science a religion. If it actually happened, I would seek a cause, rather than shouting "Goddidit!"

[SirPhilip]

You're equivocating. People have confidence in science. I have confidence that if I drop my coffee mug, I will spill hot coffee into my lap. Ow. The cup floating away like a helium baloon would be bizzare, and theoretically impossible. That doesn't make my understanding of science a religion. If it actually happened, I would seek a cause, rather than shouting "Goddidit!"
This is true vision.

[SirPhilip]

Be fair, Bill. Many people mistakenly take a "sense of certainty" from science, even though science doesn't offer certainty. I've had a number of people of people tell me something is "theoretically impossible" as though that meant something beyond "so we need to develop another theory to explain it if, in fact, it happens."
Indeed. I'm mostly talking from personal experience; at an early age I found naturalism to be very comforting. I guess it started when it occured "Well, if matter can only change forms, ghosts can't appear out of nowhere, and I shouldn't be scared anymore...", and that resolved the whole thing in a snap. In retrospect though, inwardly I wasn't really being honest. If nature teaches us anything, it's constant change is the only truth, and are certain things really unchangable and immutable? I had no way of answering that.

[drkitten]

You're equivocating. People have confidence in science.

No, I'm being precise. Intelligent people have confidence in science.

There are, however, lots of dumb people who have a sense of "certainty" in science. That their position is ignorant, unsupportable, and dangerous does not make it any less strongly held.

See, for example, this definition (http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html) of "scientism":


Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Note in particular the claim as part of this position that science provides access to "the truth"; by definition, this is not confidence, but certainty.

Even Richard Dawkins, himself a passionate defender that science (broadly defined) is not a religion, admits that some of its practitioners treat is as such (http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html):


One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.

Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence.However, the fact that this sometimes happens doesn't alter the principle that, when they do so, they do it with shame and not with pride. The method of science is so designed that it usually finds them out in the end.

It takes a certain amount of epistemological sophistication to recognize the difference between "the best current scientific theories" and "the truth" -- even C.S. Peirce, who was no fool otherwise, failed to make this distinction properly : defining truth as "whatever scientists say it is when they come to the end of their labors," ignoring the both the mathematical facts that infinite processes may not converge and that the unfortunate practical fact that scientists might converge on the wrong answer.

It's attitudes like this that lead to the common theist claim that science is a religion -- there's almost no way to read Peirce's comment except as a statement of faith, akin in spirit to the Nicene Creed. Feel free to disagree with Peirce and his fellow travellers. I do myself. But don't bother denying their existence -- rewriting history almost never works.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, I'm being precise. Intelligent people have confidence in science.

There are, however, lots of dumb people who have a sense of "certainty" in science. That their position is ignorant, unsupportable, and dangerous does not make it any less strongly held.


If someone believes in a misunderstanding of science, then, by definition, they do not believe in science. Rather, they believe in a pseudoscience.

[SirPhilip]

Also there is an implication that is rarely, if ever brought up in regard to "truth": human nature and the natural world are interwined. It's not like you fundamentally have one (observer) questioning the other (observed). It's a strange kind of a paradox itself how material things arise that give conception to "impossible" and immaterial things, and yet the ability to imagine anything and the ability to reason are primary requirements of apprehension of anything.

[drkitten]

If someone believes in a misunderstanding of science, then, by definition, they do not believe in science. Rather, they believe in a pseudoscience.

This is unnecessarily narrow, unhelpful, and, quite frankly, specious.

I've never been to Istanbul, so I'm fairly confident that I misunderstand it in some details. Heck, I regularly get lost in parts of my own native city -- but parts that I rarely visit, so I fail to comprehend the details of the street layout.

By definition, if I have a misunderstanding of Istanbul, then I don't believe in Istanbul? Is the city in which I believe that I live and work merely a pseudocity?

On a more philosophical basis -- one of the fundamental tenets of many kinds of Christianity is that humans cannot fully understand God; that He is beyond human knowledge and understanding. Does this mean that Christians do not, in fact, believe in God?

You're applying a double standard here -- your standards for "belief in science" are tighter than any rational person would demand for belief in any other concept. In particular, if a Christian can believe in a God that he does not understand, so could a "scientism"-ist (we really need a word for that) believe in a science that she does not fully understand.

[Melendwyr]

If someone believes in a misunderstanding of science, then, by definition, they do not believe in science. Rather, they believe in a pseudoscience. This is very true. It's equally true that if you ask people what they believe in, they'll never say 'pseudoscience', but always 'science'. Based merely on self-reports, no one believes in pseudoscience.

[drkitten]

Also there is an implication that is rarely, if ever brought up in regard to "truth": human nature and the natural world are interwined. It's not like you fundamentally have one (observer) questioning the other (observed). It's a strange kind of a paradox itself how material things arise that give conception to "impossible" and immaterial things, and yet the ability to imagine anything and the ability to reason are primary requirements of apprehension of anything.

If this had content, it would be factually incorrect.

[ImaginalDisc]

This is unnecessarily narrow, unhelpful, and, quite frankly, specious.

I've never been to Istanbul, so I'm fairly confident that I misunderstand it in some details. Heck, I regularly get lost in parts of my own native city -- but parts that I rarely visit, so I fail to comprehend the details of the street layout.

By definition, if I have a misunderstanding of Istanbul, then I don't believe in Istanbul? Is the city in which I believe that I live and work merely a pseudocity?

On a more philosophical basis -- one of the fundamental tenets of many kinds of Christianity is that humans cannot fully understand God; that He is beyond human knowledge and understanding. Does this mean that Christians do not, in fact, believe in God?

You're applying a double standard here -- your standards for "belief in science" are tighter than any rational person would demand for belief in any other concept. In particular, if a Christian can believe in a God that he does not understand, so could a "scientism"-ist (we really need a word for that) believe in a science that she does not fully understand.

What if you persisted in the belief in your misunderstanding of Istanbul, in the pressence of the real thing? What if you insited, though fire try to melt it out of you, that Kassim's Curry-ateria is five blocks down the road, when it was in fact right in front of you?

Correcting misunderstandings and errors is part of "believing" in science. If I picked up Nature tommorrow, and found out that a new molecule which coded for genetic information was discovered, which meant our whole model of DNA as the code of life needed to be revised, I would be very excited, not upset. When a person is thrilled to find out something new, or smiles at discovering that world is a more interesting and nuanced place than advertised, that person believes in science.

Such behavior is not consistent with belief in a religion. Science is, as you say "tigher than any rational person would demand for belief in any other concept. Science is harsh, it's challenging, but it always moves us closer to an understanding of the truth.

If you want to accept something easy, without regard for truth, science is not for you.

[BillHoyt]

Also there is an implication that is rarely, if ever brought up in regard to "truth": human nature and the natural world are interwined. It's not like you fundamentally have one (observer) questioning the other (observed).
Huh? Are you trying to bring Heisenberg in here? If so, let's pull up a chair, get another place setting from the sideboard, and invite him properly.
It's a strange kind of a paradox itself how material things arise that give conception to "impossible" and immaterial things, and yet the ability to imagine anything and the ability to reason are primary requirements of apprehension of anything.
Now you seem to have set a dualist, HPC trajectory. Shades of the heffalump.

[SirPhilip]

If this had content, it would be factually incorrect.
How so? Is the nature of living things, including human nature, fundamentally seperate from the enviornment? To even dialogue about this is by implication anyway. As complexity in living things increases, so does an understanding of nature.

[hammegk]

If this had content, it would be factually incorrect.
How can something with no content be factually incorrect? :)

Your assertion could use some facts of its' own.

[drkitten]

How can something with no content be factually incorrect? :)


It can't be. But if it had content, that content would be factually incorrect.

Don't you have billy goats to harrass or something?

[drkitten]

Science is harsh, it's challenging, but it always moves us closer to an understanding of the truth.


You know, I don't think I could have asked for a better example of "scientism" -- and an example of "faith" in science -- than the sentence you wrote above.

"Always"? Science has never taken steps backwards, chased false theories, or rejected hypotheses that later turned out to be true? Piltdown man and polywater were never accepted? Wegener's theories of continental drift were not rejected out of hand for a significant part of a century?

Yeah, right. You're trying to rewrite history again.

[ImaginalDisc]

"Always"? Science has never taken steps backwards, chased false theories, or rejected hypotheses that later turned out to be true? Piltdown man and polywater were never accepted? Wegener's theories of continental drift were not rejected out of hand for a significant part of a century?


Piltdown man was refuted by good scientific work. Without such work, Piltdown man would have been accepted or rejected by people based on fairy tales.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html

Polywater? Hmmm. Because polywater could only be formed in minuscule capillaries, very little was available for analysis. When small samples were analyzed, polywater proved to be contaminated with a variety of other substances, from silicon to phospholipids. Electron microscopy revealed that polywater actually consisted of finely divided particulate matter suspended in ordinary water.

Gradually, the scientists who had described the properties of polywater admitted that it did not exist. They had been misled by poorly controlled experiments and problems with experimental procedures. As the problems were resolved and experiments gained better controls, evidence for the existence of polywater disappeared.

That looks like science prevalied.

As for Wegener, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and plate tectonics was slow in being accepted. What's your point, would you like science to magically provide all the correct answers for you overnight?

Science is a process, not a dogma.

[drkitten]

Piltdown man was refuted by good scientific work.

Eventually.

Your statement, however, didn't say that science "eventually" or "sometimes" moves us closer to an understanding of the truth:


(from before, italics mine) [Science]always moves us closer to an understanding of the truth.

Sloppy wording? Perhaps. I'm willing to give you credit that you didn't actually mean what you wrote. I'm willing even to beliieve that you understand the distinction I'm trying to draw. I'm willing to believe that you understand the standard financial industry's disclaimer "Past performance does not guarantee future results" : Even if science had always moved us closer to an understanding of the truth in the past (a statement that is at best unprovable and upon inspection demonstrably false), that's no proof that it would continue to do so in the future.

I'm not, however, willing to give every practicing scientist -- or student of science -- credit for that same degree of insight, especially with such wonderful examples of misleading writing easily available to trip up the careless reader.

[ImaginalDisc]

Eventually.

Your statement, however, didn't say that science "eventually" or "sometimes" moves us closer to an understanding of the truth:


That's right I didn't say that. Can you guess why?

Sloppy wording? Perhaps. I'm willing to give you credit that you didn't actually mean what you wrote. I'm willing even to beliieve that you understand the distinction I'm trying to draw. I'm willing to believe that you understand the standard financial industry's disclaimer "Past performance does not guarantee future results" : Even if science had always moved us closer to an understanding of the truth in the past (a statement that is at best unprovable and upon inspection demonstrably false), that's no proof that it would continue to do so in the future.

I'm not, however, willing to give every practicing scientist -- or student of science -- credit for that same degree of insight, especially with such wonderful examples of misleading writing easily available to trip up the careless reader.

Excuse me, I mean what I have written. How dare you. Science is a method of reasoning from evidence to explain the world. Until you come up with a system which makes more sense than that, Science is what we're working with.

Science always moves us closer to the truth.

[drkitten]

That's right I didn't say that. Can you guess why?

Yes. I was prepared to guess that you were a sloppy writer. A pity that my guess is apparently false:


Science always moves us closer to the truth.

I see. So in what sense were the scientists who accepted Piltdown Man, who believed in polywater, who rejected continental drift, and so forth, "moving us closer to the truth"?

That's an unsupportable assertion, and you should know it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes. I was prepared to guess that you were a sloppy writer. A pity that my guess is apparently false:



I see. So in what sense were the scientists who accepted Piltdown Man, who believed in polywater, who rejected continental drift, and so forth, "moving us closer to the truth"?

That's an unsupportable assertion, and you should know it.

What an odd thing to say.

Unsuportable? Hmmm, are you using a computer? Would you prefer to be sending me messages on baked clay tablets, written in cuneiform? Do you use electricity? The world sicence and technology has built for us is evidence enough that science is a better and more productive reasoning system than any other.

When a scientist makes a mistake, and then makes no effort to find the truth, that's not science. That's ego. Scientists vette their work, and even then make mistakes. It's human to err, that's why science involves so much rigor.

[hammegk]

It can't be. But if it had content, that content would be factually incorrect.
I see.

Don't you have billy goats to harrass or something?
Gee, was that *you* in that video? :eye-poppi


And actually, no; you have me confused with someone you know, perhaps?

[drkitten]

Unsuportable? Hmmm, are you using a computer? Would you prefer to be sending me messages on baked clay tablets, written in cuneiform? Do you use electricity? The world sicence and technology has built for us is evidence enough that science is a better and more productive reasoning system than any other.

But that's not what you claimed. You claimed that science always brought us closer to the truth, not simply that it's better than any other reasoning system we know about.



When a scientist makes a mistake, and then makes no effort to find the truth, that's not science.


Yes, yes, I figured you would drag out the No True Scientist fallacy at some point.

Someone with a Doctor of Science from a college of Science, teaching in the Faculty of Science, with twenty-five published papers in journals like Science, and a member of dozens of organizations like the American Academy for the Advancement of Science -- is not doing "science," because No True Scientist would ever make a mistake.

You wouldn't let a theist get away with a similar argument about what does and does not constitute Christianity, would you?

[ImaginalDisc]

But that's not what you claimed. You claimed that science always brought us closer to the truth, not simply that it's better than any other reasoning system we know about.

Science is a system of reasoning which always brings us closer to the truth. the Piltdown man wasn't caused by scientific reasoning, but it was debunked my scientfific reasoning.



Yes, yes, I figured you would drag out the No True Scientist fallacy at some point.

Someone with a Doctor of Science from a college of Science, teaching in the Faculty of Science, with twenty-five published papers in journals like Science, and a member of dozens of organizations like the American Academy for the Advancement of Science -- is not doing "science," because No True Scientist would ever make a mistake.

You wouldn't let a theist get away with a similar argument about what does and does not constitute Christianity, would you?

Again, you're equivocating. A scientist is a person who makes a living doing science, it is not a religious affiliation, there is no dogma of science to uphold, and there are no heretics. A respected and accompished scientist who makea a mistake is just a human being, like any other. Dr. Hawking recently coneded a public bet he made at the nature of black holes. It turns out, he admitted that was wrong. That's what science is, correcting mistakes.

[Melendwyr]

A scientist is a person who makes a living doing science That's a professional scientist. Most scientists throughout history have actually been amateurs.

[ImaginalDisc]

That's a professional scientist. Most scientists throughout history have actually been amateurs.

Agreed.

[BillHoyt]

That's a professional scientist. Most scientists throughout history have actually been amateurs.
Uh, no. We long ago past the point where the professional scientists exceeded the amateurs, even when tallying those over the past five centuries.

[drkitten]

Science is a system of reasoning which always brings us closer to the truth.

No. The Piltdown man was caused and then subsequently debunked by scientific reasoning.

This is part and parcel of the whole scientific process. Someone runs and experiment and gets X; the scientific method says that X should now be treated as provisionally true. Someone else runs the same (or related) experiment and gets X' -- and further shows that there was an error in the original experiment. The scientific method now says that X' should be treated as provisionally true.

But what about the gap in between the two experiments?

That's what science is, correcting mistakes.
... that it made in the first place.

[drkitten]

A scientist is a person who makes a living doing science,

Not according to what you just wrote a few minutes ago. You just said that a scientist who makes a mistake isn't doing science.

But you'll never know whether he's made a mistake or not until you check his work -- which in the case of Piltdown man took decades, and in the case of Newton's assumption of absolute time, took centuries. So you'll never know who is and is not a "scientist." Which brings us straight back to your No True Scientist fallacy -- a True Scientist is one whose theories are The Truth, but we'll never know who those are.

[ImaginalDisc]

Not according to what you just wrote a few minutes ago. You just said that a scientist who makes a mistake isn't doing science.

But you'll never know whether he's made a mistake or not until you check his work -- which in the case of Piltdown man took decades, and in the case of Newton's assumption of absolute time, took centuries. So you'll never know who is and is not a "scientist." Which brings us straight back to your No True Scientist fallacy -- a True Scientist is one whose theories are The Truth, but we'll never know who those are.

You are misrepresenting what I am saying. Scientists practice science. Scientists sometimes make mistakes. Those mistakes get corrected.

I never once said that scientists who make mistakes aren't true scientists.

Let's see, the Piltdown man was caused by science? Scientific reasoning caused fossils to appear? The fossils were there, scientists treid to explain them. They made mistakes. That does not refute science anymore than a typo refutes language.

[drkitten]

You are misrepresenting what I am saying. Scientists practice science. Scientists sometimes make mistakes.

And therefore, science does not always lead us to a better understanding of truth....

To hold otherwise is not science, but scientism. Which is within a local phone call of being a religious belief.

[ImaginalDisc]

And therefore, science does not always lead us to a better understanding of truth....

To hold otherwise is not science, but scientism. Which is within a local phone call of being a religious belief.

You are wrong. If a scientist makes an error, then that's a mistake, fixing it is good science. Science is the process of rigorous examination of evidence. Just as math always lets us count apple pies, science always brings us closer to the truth. That's its function. It's the misaplication of science, incomplete evidence, or human error which causes problems, not science itself.

[drkitten]

You are wrong. If a scientist makes an error, then that's a mistake, fixing it is good science.

And making a mistake is unfortunate, and perhaps even bad science, but still science -- and nevertheless takes us further from the truth.

If part of science takes us further from the truth, then science does not always take us closer to the truth.

[ImaginalDisc]

And making a mistake is unfortunate, and perhaps even bad science, but still science -- and nevertheless takes us further from the truth.

If part of science takes us further from the truth, then science does not always take us closer to the truth.

How is this unclear?


Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


Today's science is more accurate than yesterday's science. We understand more about the workings of the universe than we used to. When scientists make mistakes in science, those get fixed.

In what way is "Science always brings us closer to the truth" false?

[drkitten]

How is this unclear?

It's not at all unclear. You're simply wrong. You wrote that science always brings us closer to (an understanding of) the truth. I even invited you to retract what was apparently an overzealous statement, and you instead restated your original mistake in even stronger terms.

In what way is "Science always brings us closer to the truth" false?

The word "always."

In the same way that "you will always make money by investing in the stock market" is false (and actionable, for that matter). Over the long term, investment broadly in the stock market has proven to be a very good investment, not only making more money than the inflationary rate, but also making more money than any other broad category of investment. If you were to come to me for financial advice, my advice to you would probably include putting lots of money into some stock-based index fund. (And probably also include telling you to talk to a professional, but that's another story.)

But stock investing doesn't always make you money -- people lose money in the short run because the market as a whole will sometimes generate negative returns. And an ethical advisor would also tell you NOT to invest money that you can't afford to lose such as next month's rent, precisely because, although stocks have the best long-term track record we know about, the short-term track record is not so good. In fact, an advisor who told you that " investing in the stock market will always make money" is in fact breaking the law in many jurisdictions, precisely because the statement is false, misleading, and will lead to an undue feeling of certainty.

Science, like the stock market, has an excellent long-term track record -- but it's short-term record isn't nearly so good. Scientists make mistakes, and pursue false hypotheses on a regular basis even when there's no "mistake" involved. (I believe, but cannot cite, there was a recent survey that suggested that as many as 50% of the papers published in Nature are refuted within a few years.) You suggested earlier that:


If I picked up Nature tommorrow, and found out that a new molecule which coded for genetic information was discovered, which meant our whole model of DNA as the code of life needed to be revised, I would be very excited, not upset.

I would suggest that Nature's own track record suggests that neither excitement nor upsetness is an appropriate reaction -- but instead the most appropriate would be disbelief. Such a finding is (in my opinion) more than likely to be among the half of the papers that aren't true -- and if you believe what "science" tells you in this particular instance, you are actually venturing further from the truth.

Let me restate this as clearly as I possibly can. If you picked up Nature tomorrow and read (and believed) that article, you would actually be further from the truth tomorrow evening than you were yesterday morning. But if science has brought you further from the truth, how can it always bring you closer to the truth?

The answer is simple. It's simply not the case that "science always brings us closer to the truth." Sometimes it brings us closer, sometimes farther, and in the long run, we appear to have achieved a greater understanding of the world. From a philosophical point of view, however, we have no way of knowing that what we currently believe to be the truth is in fact, the actual truth -- we may simply be converging on a "local minimum" of error that's actually farther from the genuine truth -- the best way to reach the top of a hill isn't usually to start by climbing a tree. We also have no way of knowing that the methods that have served us in the past will continue to serve us in the future (again, to claim otherwise in a financial context is to break the law -- "past performance is no guarantee of future results").

[ImaginalDisc]

The word "always."


Mathematics always produces correct sums in addition. If I add two and two, and get 5, the problem is not with math, it's with me. If I try to add infitity to infinity, simple arithmetic doesn't suffice, I need more advanced math. If I screw it up, it's my fault. There's nothing wrong with math.

If I study science, and examine evidence, and make a mistake, the mistake is mine.

There is nothing false about saying "science always brings us closer to the truth". You are assuming that because it's an absolute statement, it has to be false.

[drkitten]

If I study science, and examine evidence, and make a mistake, the mistake is mine.


Um, no. Sometimes it just "is."

Do you know what an "alpha cutoff" is? Most experimental sciences -- including much of chemistry, biology, psychology, and physics -- apply the concept of a "null hypothesis," which is the idea that nothing much of interest is going on, and then examine the results of an experiment with an eye to whether or not the results are compatible with such a hypothesis. As a parapsychological example, if I claim to be able to influence coin flips such that a coin "usually" comes down heads, we can do a simple test. Flip a coin ten times, and we'll see whether more heads come down than tails.

If I get exactly five heads out of ten, nothing big. If I get ten heads out of ten -- well, that's astonishing. The chance of getting such a result "by chance," (i.e. if the null hypothesis were true) is less than one in a thousand. If I get six out of ten -- well, that's techically "usually", but it's well within the kind of variance you expect by chance.

But even if I get ten out of ten, that's still within the kind of variance that is possible to produce by chance. And if five thousand researchers at five thousand research groups ran this kind of experiment, we would expect, not just a single such "positive" result, but a whole slew of positive results including replications from other, independent groups.

The "alpha cutoff" is the point at which I decide that a result is too unlikely to be compatible with the null hypothesis, and therefore at which point I decide that The Truth is that the null hypothesis is wrong. By convention, it's usually at 5%. That's also the point at which Nature will accept my article for publication,. and when you'll read it and believe it. A tighter cutoff of 1% is sometimes used, but my 0.1% coin toss result is, by any interpretation, strong evidence against the null hypothesis.

But it's still wrong. The scientific method, in conjunction with a conspiracy of the random numbers, has led me to a genuinely false conclusion without any mistake on my part.

So it goes.

And, later, someone will reconstruct my experiment and disprove my Nature paper.

So it goes.

But in the meantime, "science" took a little zig-zag, first away from the truth, then back towards it.



There is nothing false about saying "science always brings us closer to the truth". You are assuming that because it's an absolute statement, it has to be false.

No, I am concluding that because it observably does not describe the state of the world, it's untrue.

[Melendwyr]

Pssh, everyone knows that all absolutes are false.

Also, only Sith deal in absolutes (said the Jedi).

[Melendwyr]

First the evidence leads you in one direction. Then it leads you in another.

When do you decide that the last conclusion you reached is actually true? As far as anyone knows, the evidence might shift again, and you'd have to discard that.

[BillHoyt]

First the evidence leads you in one direction. Then it leads you in another.
Yep.

When do you decide that the last conclusion you reached is actually true? As far as anyone knows, the evidence might shift again, and you'd have to discard that.
In absolute terms, one never knows. In relative terms, when the scientists run out of new hypotheses to spin, they are left with one hypothesis standing. That one wins. But back to absolute terms: that doesn't mean new data won't pop in at some point and undermine that conclusion or that some scientist will pop on the scene with a new research approach that throws the question or part of the question back open.

It is called reality therapy.

[drkitten]

In absolute terms, one never knows. In relative terms, when the scientists run out of new hypotheses to spin, they are left with one hypothesis standing. That one wins. But back to absolute terms: that doesn't mean new data won't pop in at some point and undermine that conclusion or that some scientist will pop on the scene with a new research approach that throws the question or part of the question back open.

Which is why science does not always lead us closer to the truth, any more than the stock market always leads to wealth. It's just the best method we know about.

But this kind of epistemological sophistication is lost on a lot of people, including somethat consider themselves educated in science. And at that point, I think it's fair to state that the statement "science always leads us closer to truth" becomes a religious creed.

[Melendwyr]

Bingo. We learn more and more, and our hypotheses become harder and harder to disprove. There's modification, and we go further than before, but eventually science produces statements which to the absolute best of our abilities appear to be genuine truth. Atoms really are the basic building blocks of chemical substances. Every kinetic action is opposed by an equal and opposite kinetic reaction. Genetic material is encoded in aperiodic crystalline structures. No sufficiently-powerful axiomatic system contains proofs for all of the statements it contains. And so forth.

Closer and closer...

[drkitten]

Bingo. We learn more and more, and our hypotheses become harder and harder to disprove.

Closer and closer...

But not uniformly so. Our "distance" is not a nonincreasing sequence. Belief that it is -- that what we know today is in all regards more correct than what we knew five, ten, or a hundred years ago -- is one of the religous aspects of "scientism."

Which was my original point. That lots of idiots seem to buy into this kind of scientism, while misunderstanding what they believe in as "science." And a lot of theists look at what these knotheads present as "science," not understanding the fundamental misinterpretation that's going on, and believe, correctly, that this kind of "faith" in "science" involves an element of supernatural certainty, and is therefore akin to religious belief.

[Melendwyr]

Oh, yeah, sure. What we know today is not any better than what we knew a hundred years ago, right... (types the person utilizing an electronic network spanning the globe connecting computational devices that would fail if even one interaction in its core memory out of hundreds of millions departed from expectations).

Gotta go! I need to burn some more witches so the odor of their charred remains will keep away the disease spirits that are carried down from Death Mountain on the West Wind, which incidentally is released from a bag by a pack of howler monkeys that live on the Moon eating chestnuts. Then I'll make a sacrifice to the infinite chain of turtles that holds up the flat Earth so that we don't all fall off into the Void.

[drkitten]

What we know today is not any better than what we knew a hundred years ago, right...

I don't believe that I said that. I said that what we know today is not universally better than what we knw a hundred years ago.

Of course, I can't prove that directly, but it's easy enough to show other examples where previously abandoned -- and indeed, long-abandoned -- scientific theories have been trotted out when new evidence becomes available.

As a simple example, consider the effects of radiation on health. Specifically, look up the phenomenon of "radiation hormesis" -- the idea that low-levels of radiation may actually improve health. That's a relatively recent (and still admittedly controversial) theory that flies in the face of most of the radiation science of the past eighty or so years.

Claims of heath benefits from low-doses of radiation were made (and believed) as early as 1896. Radium salts in water were sold as a health tonic in the early 20th century. Even as late as 1930 or so (I'd need to check for detailed cites), the belief was that there was a "threshhold" below which radiation was not harmful. By the mid-1970s, this belief had been widely replaced by the "linear no threshhold theory," which stated that there there was no minimum threshhold and that bionegative effects were directly proportional to the radiation recieved, even at very low doses.

I think it was 1981 when the first recent monograph reviving the tradition of "hormesis" was published. Today, it's an active, if controversial, research area. Quoting from

So which is true? I don't know. But our methods of scientific assay are a lot tighter today than they were in 1896 -- or even in 1950. The evidence that was convincing then is no longer convincing now, precisely because new technologies, theories, practices, and data have come along. Medical science may be substantially more advanced today than in 1906, but they may have gotten this one small aspect wrong.

For an even clearer effect, look at the dietary guidelines in effect through most of the 20th century and see how they've changed. The "science" of nutrition is almost defined by pendulum swings, where what is considered a healthy diet today would have been appalling 100 years ago, and vice versa. I forget, is butter better for you than margerine this week or not? Am I supposed to eat avocados, or avoid them? And what possible reason can you give me not to expect these answers to change in the next ten years -- or century?

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't believe that I said that. I said that what we know today is not universally better than what we knw a hundred years ago.

Of course, I can't prove that directly, but it's easy enough to show other examples where previously abandoned -- and indeed, long-abandoned -- scientific theories have been trotted out when new evidence becomes available.


Science is a process. If you want complete certainty, try religion. The reason theory X or hypothesis Y gets discarded is because of new evidence. If Theory X or hypothesis Y gets rexamined later, that's because, as Carl Sagan said, a scientists should consider as many hypothesies as possible, not just one.

[Melendwyr]

Let me know when we take up the idea that the planets are embedded in crystal spheres around the Earth, or that disease is carried by the West Wind, which is released by a band of chestnut-eating howler monkeys on the Moon.

[drkitten]

Let me know when we take up the idea that the planets are embedded in crystal spheres around the Earth, or that disease is carried by the West Wind, which is released by a band of chestnut-eating howler monkeys on the Moon.

You don't see your logical fallacy here?

Antagonist: Odd numbers are always prime.
Protagonist: No, odd numbers are sometimes prime. Not all odd numbers are prime.
Antagonist: Let me know when we take up the idea that 11 isn't prime.

[Melendwyr]

I really don't see your point. Those are all discredited theories. Let me know when science finds it necessary to take them up again.

[drkitten]

I really don't see your point.

The point is that some theories are discredited correctly -- some are discredited incorrectly, and some are even credited incorrectly.

Pointing out an example of the first category says nothing about whether the second and third categories are empty.

[Melendwyr]

The point is that some theories are discredited correctly -- some are discredited incorrectly, and some are even credited incorrectly. So how do you know which are which? And how do you know whether your method of determining is correct?

Pointing out an example of the first category says nothing about whether the second and third categories are empty. Demonstrate that you pointed out an example of the first category, or that I pointed out an example of the first category.

Finally, even ignoring the gaping holes in your argument: if you really believe that some theories are discredited correctly, and that science slowly does so, then you do believe that science slowly approaches the truth.

In short, there's nothing about your statements that isn't complete garbage.

[BillHoyt]

So how do you know which are which? And how do you know whether your method of determining is correct?
We know, provisionally, by a process called intersubjective validation.

[Melendwyr]

We know, provisionally, by a process called intersubjective validation. Now demonstrate that other people are more than just another arbitrary part of a single subjective experience.

[BillHoyt]

Now demonstrate that other people are more than just another arbitrary part of a single subjective experience.
Solipsism bores the bejeebus out of me.

[Melendwyr]

Solipsism bores the bejeebus out of me.Quantum chromodynamics bores the bejeebus out of me. Your point?

[BillHoyt]

Quantum chromodynamics bores the bejeebus out of me. Your point?
You would know it already if solipsism had any merit.

[drkitten]

So how do you know which are which? And how do you know whether your method of determining is correct?

You don't. That's the point. If you believe that the second and third categories are empty, then

a) you're a fool.
b) you cannot produce evidence to support your belief
c) you are therefore practicing scientism, despite your protestations
d) your belief-without-evidence constitutes "faith", and therefore
e) ... is perilously close to a religious belief.

Finally, even ignoring the gaping holes in your argument: if you really believe that some theories are discredited correctly, and that science slowly does so, then you do believe that science slowly approaches the truth.


Which is a different belief than the one to which I object, namely that science always approaches the truth.

[drkitten]

Demonstrate that you pointed out an example of the first category, or that I pointed out an example of the first category.
.

Nope. "Burden of proof" is on you.

My claim is that we have no evidence that the second and third categories are empty. If the second and third categories are not empty, then science does not always approach the truth.

[Melendwyr]

You don't. That's the point. I don't think you quite understand which side of this argument you're supporting, son.

You assert that there are validly discredited theories, then claim I'm the one who's support such statements? That's called "Shifting the Burden", drkitten.

Just what kind of a doctor are you, anyway? Proctology?

[Melendwyr]

You would know it already if solipsism had any merit. Your arguments still presume an objective reality.

Face it: you cannot make arguments without accepting that axiom, nor can anyone else. It's not possible.

[ImaginalDisc]

Nope. "Burden of proof" is on you.

My claim is that we have no evidence that the second and third categories are empty. If the second and third categories are not empty, then science does not always approach the truth.

Funny that you're attemtping to nit-pick "always" when ambiguity is already built into the scentece "Science always approaches the truth". An "approach" can be a long and winding vector, ask any astronomer.

[Belz...]

Your arguments still presume an objective reality.

Face it: you cannot make arguments without accepting that axiom, nor can anyone else. It's not possible.

Still, what's the alternative ?

[BillHoyt]

Your arguments still presume an objective reality.

Face it: you cannot make arguments without accepting that axiom, nor can anyone else. It's not possible.
And you can't make arguments against the invisible turtle. That should lead you to realize something is fundamentally wrong.

[Melendwyr]

And you can't make arguments against the invisible turtle. That should lead you to realize something is fundamentally wrong. Now I think you're confused about what side *I'm* arguing.

[BillHoyt]

Now I think you're confused about what side *I'm* arguing.
No, I'm saying that there are an infinite number of hypotheses one can generate about the nature of reality, none of which can be either verified or refuted. I'm saying they are useless AFAIC. Totally useless. If you can cite evidence supporting your contention, then please do. If you can propose some testable difference between an objective reality and your solisistic one, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'm a nose and a thumb.

[Melendwyr]

Depends. Is this solipsistic world objectively subjective, or subjectively subjective?

[ImaginalDisc]

No, I'm saying that there are an infinite number of hypotheses one can generate about the nature of reality, none of which can be either verified or refuted. I'm saying they are useless AFAIC. Totally useless. If you can cite evidence supporting your contention, then please do. If you can propose some testable difference between an objective reality and your solisistic one, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'm a nose and a thumb.

How ironic. You're asking someone to prove the superiority of scientific reasoning over all other forms of reasoning, and are insisting that they use evidence to do so, the very essence of science.

[BillHoyt]

How ironic. you're asking someone to prove the superiority of scientific reasoning over all other forms of reasoning, and are insisting that they use evidence to do so, the very essence of science.
Well, Mel would be the one proposing the solipsistic viewpoint. I simply contend it is indistinguishable from the more rational viewpoint. Occam's razor suggests we ignore it until evidence compels us to think there is a way to distinguish the two.

I can spin an infinite number of different ultimate reality scenarios, all of which are equally explained by what we see and experience. Should we chase them all down? The last I looked, I'm not immortal, so you'll have to excuse me for thumbing my nose at the prospect of even entertaining the possibility that its turtles all the way down.

[ImaginalDisc]

I agree. I just think that it's ironic that the only method we have to seperate good reasoning from bad is testability and evidence. Such a method is science. That strongly suggests to me that since the only means of differentiating between good and bad reasoning is science, science must be the only good reasoning.

[drkitten]

Funny that you're attemtping to nit-pick "always" when ambiguity is already built into the scentece "Science always approaches the truth".


I can't imagine you're still trying to defend the indefensible.

[Melendwyr]

I can't imagine you're still trying to defend the indefensible. Explain to us how a thing can be neither random nor determined again. And show us the pictures this time! And do the funny voices!

[ImaginalDisc]

I can't imagine you're still trying to defend the indefensible.

There is nothing untennable about my statement. It's a self evident fact.

[hammegk]

Depends. Is this solipsistic world objectively subjective, or subjectively subjective?
Or subjectively objective... ;)

[SirPhilip]

Which is why science does not always lead us closer to the truth, any more than the stock market always leads to wealth. It's just the best method we know about. But this kind of epistemological sophistication is lost on a lot of people, including somethat consider themselves educated in science. And at that point, I think it's fair to state that the statement "science always leads us closer to truth" becomes a religious creed.But there would be no point of understanding nature if it wasn't to increase certainty - one wouldn't care otherwise. Essentially the desire is the same as someone who is religious - to find purpose, or failing that, greater certainty and control of the world around you. Knowing how the universe works can, and is, a great substitute for the security that comes from mysticism and faith for most people who persue it as careers.

[kuroyume0161]

But there would be no point of understanding nature if it wasn't to increase certainty - one wouldn't care otherwise. Essentially the desire is the same as someone who is religious - to find purpose, or failing that, greater certainty and control of the world around you. Knowing how the universe works can, and is, a great substitute for the security that comes from mysticism and faith for most people who persue it as careers.
Although very well worded, I think you skirt (dangerously) around the idea of knowledge gained from experience and 'the Truth'. One may gain comfort in the certainties of science, but not by false bravado - but by real observation. I wish people would stop equivocating the irrational and oft-contradictory nature of religious experience with objective, rational observations that they cannot regress.

Good day...

[ceo_esq]

I wish people would stop equivocating ...

Did you mean equating? Otherwise, I don't understand the rest of the sentence.

[epepke]

Look, folks. Science doesn't rely upon the assumption that everything in the Universe is understandable any more than carpentry relies on the assumption that everything in the universe is made of wood.

When you're doing carpentry, you're working with wood. When you're doing science, you're dealing with things that (maybe) can be approached with the scientific method. That's it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Look, folks. Science doesn't rely upon the assumption that everything in the Universe is understandable any more than carpentry relies on the assumption that everything in the universe is made of wood.

When you're doing carpentry, you're working with wood. When you're doing science, you're dealing with things that (maybe) can be approached with the scientific method. That's it.


Geology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Fluid Dynamics, Virology. These are only some examples, to show the wide variety of things science deals with. If there's a set of observable phemonenae, there's a science to study them. Science is not a religion because science doesn't meddle with untestable, unfalsibfiable things, and it doesn't mess with the unobservable.

Science examines all things in the universe. If something cannot be observed, like god, absolute truth, or honest politicians, then that's the domainof religion.

The agruement that science is a religion demonstrates ignorance about the meaning of science.

P.S. I'm more elaborating on your point than I'm intending to refute it.

[Flange Desire]

I was hoping that love might post some comment or at least a vote
in this healthy thread.

As they say - "Whats love got to do, got to do with it"

Or alternatively: "Where is the love?"