Is science just another religion?

[SquishyDave]

We had a HUGE discussion at work here about how science is just another religion, regardless of the tests you can do, they argued that at it's most basic, you must make assumptions that are no more valid than any other assupmtions.

They argued that for instance, we cannot prove we exist, so we must make an assumption about that, they also argued that you can't prove that when you are further away from something, it's not further away, it's just smaller. When I tried to explain you could measure this with light and other means they explained light could just be changing also.

I tried to use occams razor, "what's simpler, stuff does get further away or there is some complicated process making the illusion perfect", but they said there is no proof. Which I suppose ultimately there isn't.

In the end I couldn't convince them that my "belief" in science is anything more than that, a belief, even though they all share my "belief" in science.

So at it's heart, is science just another religion, (albiet a very different type of religion that updates it's dogma far faster than other religions), that at the most basic level, it is based on unprovable assumptions?

Ah, but we can put these things to the test, and see which come closest to explaining the Way nature really is.

-Who

[SquishyDave]

I said that, but basically they said you can't prove anything so you still just have faith that that's the way the nature is.:confused:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here's one take at the basic assumptions of science:

http://www.abacon.com/graziano/ch02/tsld002.htm

If these assumptions were wrong, science would go awry fairly quickly. Some people, of course, may think that science has gone awry.

~~ Paul

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Here's one take at the basic assumptions of science:

http://www.abacon.com/graziano/ch02/tsld002.htm

If these assumptions were wrong, science would go awry fairly quickly. Some people, of course, may think that science has gone awry.

~~ Paul

Thanks for those, I have happily stuck those assumptions up on my desk for all to see. :) As far as assumptions go they are pretty good. And I think religion has those same basic assumptions too, except the fourth one, religion usually doesn't like to change things.

Originally posted by SquishyDave
I said that, but basically they said you can't prove anything so you still just have faith that that's the way the nature is.:confused:

I see.

Well, I'd say that if you have a science hypothesis that makes predictions, and a non-science hypothesis that makes predictions, and the science hypothesis predicts things better, that is evidence, but not proof, that the science hypothesis is more correct.

I don't think that science is saying 'that is the way nature is', but rather science is saying 'that is the best approximation we can do. Got anything better?'

-Who

[Ladewig]

they also argued that you can't prove that when you are further away from something, it's not further away, it's just smaller.

I have my hand directly in front of my face. I am now moving it away. Ow, ow, the pain from my hand shrinking is unbearable. Now I am standing in front of a mirror: I look at my hand, I look at my hand in the mirror - how can my hand be both big and small at the same time? My brain hurts.

The strange part is that things do get smaller if they move away from you at speeds close to "c."

Also, if science is a set of beliefs, then wouldn't that make it more of a philosophy than a religion because it does not involve any supernatural being/force/pantheon?

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by Whodini


Well, I'd say that if you have a science hypothesis that makes predictions, and a non-science hypothesis that makes predictions, and the science hypothesis predicts things better, that is evidence, but not proof, that the science hypothesis is more correct.

I don't think that science is saying 'that is the way nature is', but rather science is saying 'that is the best approximation we can do. Got anything better?'

-Who

Thanks Whodini, that sounds good to me, I will paraphrase you and stick it up on my monitor next to the 4 basic assumptions made by science, if you don't mind of course. I will post here what I come up with.

[EDITED TO ADD]

I will put this up if you don't mind Whodini

Basic Assumptions of Science

True, physical universe exists

Universe is primarily orderly

The principles that define the functioning of the universe can be discovered

All ideas are tentative, potentially changed by new information


Basic Hypothesis of Science

Science does not say “that is the way nature is”, but rather science says “that is the best approximation we can do. Have you got anything better?”

Compare a science hypothesis that makes predictions, and a non-science hypothesis that makes predictions, if the science hypothesis predicts things better, that is evidence, but not proof, that the science hypothesis is more correct.

[QuarkChild]

How can science be just another religion? Science is experimentally-driven. We don't sit in armchairs and argue about whether the gravitational force decreases like 1/r or 1/r². Nature gives the evidence and scientists collect it.

Also, scientific theories are falsifiable--they are not based on faith. We fit theories to facts and not the other way around. I think that makes science qualitatively different from religion.

I think the confusion arises because Creationists and their ilk can give the religion the appearance or trapppings of science without the content, encouraging confusion between the two.

[SquishyDave]

I agree with you Child of Quark but they are saying in order for science to work, you must make the ASSUMPTION that we exist, and as soon as you make an assumption, you are no better than religion.

Really it makes my brain hurt to think we don't exist.

[evildave]

Don't forget lousy education as well.

Maybe it's a generation of home-skoolled kids grown up already.

[arcticpenguin]

1) Science is not another religion. Knowledge based on evidence is not the same as belief based on faith. If they question this, ask them to disbelieve in gravity for a little while and step off a 10th floor balcony.

2) Some things are not falsifiable, such as the possibility that the world does not exist except inside your own mind (solipsism). Therefore science does not waste time on them.

3) Your co-workers are losers. They will surely drag your company down. Find a different job.

4) evildave spelled backwards is evadlive.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
I agree with you Child of Quark but they are saying in order for science to work, you must make the ASSUMPTION that we exist, and as soon as you make an assumption, you are no better than religion.

Really it makes my brain hurt to think we don't exist.
But we can check the results of our assumption for self-consistency. We can question our assumptions every time new evidence arises, keep what works and discard what doesn't.

As for comparing this to religion, that would depend on what kind of religion they are arguing for. If they are touting a revelatory religion (truth revealed by a supernatural entity, such as in the bible) then this is not as good as science, because it cannot be revised. if it's found to be wrong, well then, god is a liar.

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

But we can check the results of our assumption for self-consistency. We can question our assumptions every time new evidence arises, keep what works and discard what doesn't.

As for comparing this to religion, that would depend on what kind of religion they are arguing for. If they are touting a revelatory religion (truth revealed by a supernatural entity, such as in the bible) then this is not as good as science, because it cannot be revised. if it's found to be wrong, well then, god is a liar.

Good points, but don't be too hard on my co-workers they are mostly Athiests and Agnostics, they are just being argumentative, and they weren't arguing for revelatory religion, just that at it's most basic, you must take a leap of faith to believe in science as well as religion, because you have to believe we exist, when we might not.

They tried on a few other arguments, like you can't really prove anything, coz it could all work differently than how we currently think, so that's faith there too, but they were just reaching there I think to prove their piont.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
We had a HUGE discussion at work here about how science is just another religion, regardless of the tests you can do, they argued that at it's most basic, you must make assumptions that are no more valid than any other assupmtions.
This whole idea is bogus. Humans do not start out with equally valid assumptions and build equally valid paradigms out of them. We have a network of theories composed of elements perpetually vulnerable to revision or elimination in light of the global revelations of that network.

There is no unitary starting place. Anybody who thinks otherwise is simply making a factual mistake about how human thought works. It's not a 'valid' or 'useful' or 'true' conception of how we work.

Science is not a religion because it's tennants do not rely on faith. Every aspect of scientific finding is vulnerable to revision should better theories come to light. Religion, on the other hand, demands that we presuppose the truth and validity of certain conceptions and requires that every subsequent discovery be interpreted in light of that presupposition.



And please people, stop innundating the internet with this utter balderdash of "assuming existence". For the naturalist, this is an inessential conceptual component in human knowledge.

Existence is not a simple idea or a fundamental presupposition. It is a term we have INVENTED, not presupposed. It was invented to subsume every other idea we have. Merely because everything we know is subsumed by an idea that is designed to subsume them does not mean that all human knowledge derives from it.

Quite the contrary, the notion of existence is an overarching descriptor that was very late in coming. Birds and buffalo have many elements of knowledge but you can be damn sure that the notion of "existence" figures nowhere in those little brains of theirs.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by evildave
Don't forget lousy education as well.

Maybe it's a generation of home-skoolled kids grown up already.

Evildave, I'll have you know that I owe my philosophical sophistication largely to my home schooling.

I resent those who oppose the parent's right to find the best education for their children. A government sponsored monopoly on education will tend to cater to the lowest common denominator, it has a lot to gain from some serious competition.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Here's one take at the basic assumptions of science:

http://www.abacon.com/graziano/ch02/tsld002.htm

If these assumptions were wrong, science would go awry fairly quickly. Some people, of course, may think that science has gone awry.

~~ Paul

I don't think it even make sense to call something an "assumption" unless it makes sense to fail to assume it.

[jj]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
They argued that for instance, we cannot prove we exist, so we must make an assumption about that, they also argued that you can't prove that when you are further away from something, it's not further away, it's just smaller.

The only belief or assumption required is the rejection of ultimate or tautological solipcism, i.e. the idea that the whole universe is a construct of your mind.

You can start from that. The nonsense about smaller, etc, just begs parallax, etc, but start from the basics.

[jj]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
I said that, but basically they said you can't prove anything so you still just have faith that that's the way the nature is.:confused:

There is no ultimate proof in science. Science deals with the testable, and with theories that can be tested.

Scientific theories can be confirmed or disproven. They can not be proven. All science is provisional and subject to further knowledge.

[jj]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
I agree with you Child of Quark but they are saying in order for science to work, you must make the ASSUMPTION that we exist, and as soon as you make an assumption, you are no better than religion.

Really it makes my brain hurt to think we don't exist.

Really?

For science we reject ultimate solipcism, one can argue from faith, or one can argue that the alternative is that the one mind is nuts, because it invents things like contrary people, death, entropy, etc....

Once we reject the idea that all people practicing science are in one's mind, we have external verification.

[SquishyDave]

jj and synaesthesia

I tried on all those arguments but this:

The only belief or assumption required is the rejection of ultimate or tautological solipcism

is exactly their point, we must assume. And I don't know if there is any arguing with this point.

Also we might exist only in a computer simulation. :rolleyes:

[c4ts]

No, religion is a sort of opinion. Science is something else entirely.

[QuarkChild]

I must be way out of my depth on this discussion. Why is it necessary to assume that we are not a computer simulation (for example) to practice science? Suppose we live in a simulated universe, so that instead of discovering Nature's laws, we're discovering the details of the program that created the universe. Um...so? I could spend my entire life as a physicist and never once use the assumption that what we experience as reality isn't an illusion. In fact, that's exactly what I'm doing. I am open to possibility that everything I experience is an illusion. Fortunately for physicists, if an illusion, it is an illusion that follows consistent laws, so we can still practice science.

You could reword every law such as "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" as "in the universe as we experience it, every action [that we experience] has....yadda yadda" and the entire structure of physics would remain intact.

Compare this to religion. Christianity assumes God exists. Take away God and the structure falls apart. Try rewriting the Bible without it. (OK, I guess you could do it, but you wouldn't get Christianity out.)

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
I must be way out of my depth on this discussion. Why is it necessary to assume that we are not a computer simulation (for example) to practice science? Suppose we live in a simulated universe, so that instead of discovering Nature's laws, we're discovering the details of the program that created the universe. Um...so? I could spend my entire life as a physicist and never once use the assumption that what we experience as reality isn't an illusion. In fact, that's exactly what I'm doing. I am open to possibility that everything I experience is an illusion. Fortunately for physicists, if an illusion, it is an illusion that follows consistent laws, so we can still practice science.

You could reword every law such as "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" as "in the universe as we experience it, every action [that we experience] has....yadda yadda" and the entire structure of physics would remain intact.

Compare this to religion. Christianity assumes God exists. Take away God and the structure falls apart. Try rewriting the Bible without it. (OK, I guess you could do it, but you wouldn't get Christianity out.)

Great, thanks, good point.

But I guess the conclusion of all this is, what if we don't actually exist in any way shape or form. Then what?

Science is fundamentally different than religion, but in religion you assume that we exist, so does the universe, and so does god.

In science you assume we exist, so does the universe, and that we can understand the universe.

And I don't think you can prove any of that, but you can say the evidence supports that we and the universe exist and that is all science has ever claimed to do.

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by SquishyDave

But I guess the conclusion of all this is, what if we don't actually exist in any way shape or form. Then what?
Then we can still practice science as long as the "unphysical" (as opposed to physical) laws are consistent and measurable. (And don't say "Well, OK, what if they're not." So far, they are. Now if someone ever wins the Randi million, I'll retract that statement and admit it's just an assumption.)
[Edited to add: Actually, even if the conclusion that physical laws are consistent turns out to be false, that wouldn't make it an assumption. It would just make the statement an incorrect conclusion.]

I would have to add a few words at the beginning of some of my sentences to properly take this possibility of non-existence into account. "I study physics because I am interested in deducing what appear to be consistent laws in what appears to be the universe in which we exist." Doesn't put me out of work, just makes my sentences longer. :)

In science you assume we exist, so does the universe, and that we can understand the universe.

Show me where I have assumed I exist. I seem to experience existence, and have promulgated laws (no, not me personally) about the conditions under which this perceived existence occurs. That does not change the validity of the laws, only the regime under which you can claim they apply. But physicists are used to putting restrictions on their theories. I think I've read somewhere that Relativity is assumed to break down if you extrapolate back in time and approach the Big Bang. Does this mean Relativity is bogus? Does it make it any less useful for us? Does it keep experiments from being replicable? If physics is only applicable in the domain of our illusion, that doesn't invalidate it.

As far as assuming we can understand the universe, that depends on what you mean. I would argue that much of [what we perceive as] the universe is already understood, so the assumption that we are capable of comprehension is unnecessary. Something doesn't need to be assumed if it's demonstrated to be true. If you (or your coworkers) are arguing that it may not be possible to understand everything--where are scientists assuming that it is possible? Maybe no one will ever completely understand consciousness--does that invalidate my understanding of momemtum? We do not assume it is necessary to understand everything, nor do we need to.

And I don't think you can prove any of that, but you can say the evidence supports that we and the universe exist and that is all science has ever claimed to do.
You don't even have to go that far, I think. Science does not need to encroach upon metaphysical questions like "do we exist." If science can be done without that certainty (and it can), then no assumptions need to be made.

This is fun. Throw me another.

[SquishyDave]

QuarkChild you are perfect, that is exactly the argument I was lacking :D

You're good, all I can say is I bow before you, you are clearly embiggened with great cromulance.

[Fade]

I'd also like to chime in and say the abysmal state of science education in the US, as well as generally ignorant home schooled children are fueling these terrible misconceptions.

I think less Science Fact, and more Science Process needs to be taught.

[QuarkChild]

Fade--how would you go about implementing such a change if you were, say, in charge of a curriculum? I would imagine that in practice, "teaching" Process (or critical thinking, for that matter) properly would be much more difficult than teaching Facts. A teacher without a really solid, working understanding of science as a process would do more harm than good.

It would be a huge responsibility. If you're teaching Facts, and you bungle a few, it's probably not a big deal because I suspect students forget most of what they learned in school anyway, and some of what they do remember they'll never use. I memorized what the "seven simple machines" were in junior high and promptly forgot all but three of them, but who cares--it did not further my understanding of physics one iota, and I've never needed to use that knowledge. The teacher could have told us the other four were The Toaster, The Drill-Bit, The Pool Cue and The Diode, for all the difference it would have made. On the other hand, if you're teaching how to evaluate evidence, that's something whose relevance in real life is difficult to overstate. Puttiing that task in the hands in hands of junior high teachers would be a significant act of trust. (I'm begging the question of whom that responsibility ought to be given to because I don't have an answer. If you have good ideas on this subject, I'd love to hear them.)

[Gideon S]

Science is what many other faiths claim to be: The One True Faith. Using Science, onen turn water (with some grapes and a little fermentation) into wine, metal into magnets, oil into plastic, and produce enough loaves and fishes to feed the multitude.

Science is the ultimate search for universal truths, something that other religions can claim but cannot back up with any hard proof.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dave said:And I think religion has those same basic assumptions too, except the fourth one, religion usually doesn't like to change things.
Religions have the third basic assumption?
The principles that define the functioning of the universe can be discovered.

Syn said:I don't think it even make sense to call something an "assumption" unless it makes sense to fail to assume it.
I'm not sure what you mean. Someone could fail to assume any one of those assumptions. Perhaps you're saying that they would then quickly realize the error of their ways.

Fade said:I'd also like to chime in and say the abysmal state of science education in the US, as well as generally ignorant home schooled children are fueling these terrible misconceptions.
Is there some glut of ignorant home schooled children I don't know about?

~~ Paul

[BillyTK]

Although the whole "is science a religion?" debate is typically a provocation used by the postmodern crew to have a pop at science jockeys because of the baggage that religion inevitably drags behind it, there's some interesting similarities between science and religion; at a fundamental level, religion is essentially a worldview which provides a way of explaining how the world works and a method to manipulate that world. One of the classic sociologists by the name of Durkheim identified a major characteristic of religion being the idea of the sacred and the profane--rather than deities, because that makes study of religion problematic--that sacred things are those which be protected and isolated, whereas profane things are those which must be distanced from the sacred. If we apply this analysis to science, I guess we could indentify the scientific method as an example of a sacred thing, which kind of positions pseud-science as a profane thing.

But asking if science is *just* another religion is kind of demeaning to science, because its method is a challenge to dogmatic thinking, rather than a consolidation of it as if often the case with religion.

[Frostbite]

Yes, science is sometimes a religion. Scientists will often dedicate their life and career to complete lies, and defend these lies as if they were facts. They'll have worshippers, they'll create evidence to support their lies, they'll hide, suppress and destroy contradicting evidence. It's often a question of pride and reputation, but scientific theories can become dogmas.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Syn said:
I'm not sure what you mean. Someone could fail to assume any one of those assumptions. Perhaps you're saying that they would then quickly realize the error of their ways.


The issue I would prefer to isolate is preceisely what people mean by "assumption" more than the assumptions themselves.

I find very often (as in the argument presented by SquishyDave's co-workers) it is construed in a manner confusingly like logical axioms. There isn't really a linear chain of conceptual dependency moving from axioms down to derivative items of faith. This conception is at the root of the exceedingly confused contention that science is a religion. (ie. That science is merely a faith-based system of knowledge.)

To answer your query, in the sense in which such an assumption is ineliminable, it's not possible to fail to assume, for instance, that the universe is orderly. We don't explicitly represent these 'fundamental' assumptions, nor need we. They are simply tacit in the way our epistemological systems are organized.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Yes, science is sometimes a religion. Scientists will often dedicate their life and career to complete lies, and defend these lies as if they were facts. They'll have worshippers, they'll create evidence to support their lies, they'll hide, suppress and destroy contradicting evidence. It's often a question of pride and reputation, but scientific theories can become dogmas.

But that is simply unscientific. This is not a case of the scotsman fallacy because this sort of thing is built into the very conception of science. Merely because scientists resemble religious people insofar as they depart from scientific principle does not make science a religion.

[DialecticMaterialist]

They argued that for instance, we cannot prove we exist, so we must make an assumption about that, they also argued that you can't prove that when you are further away from something, it's not further away, it's just smaller. When I tried to explain you could measure this with light and other means they explained light could just be changing also.

Well no. That would be relativism.

The fact is these "assumptions" of both science and religion are very different things, of very different quality.

For those who adhere to science the "assumptions" are only sensation and our most basic standards of rationality. If these things are a matter of faith, and faith is now equal to rationality and evidence itself: then what is faith? What destinguishes faith from any other method at all? If faith is now a well proven belief, then what is to make it meaningful?

At this time your friends have made the conceot of faith so vague as to be meaningless.

The word faith is also ambiguous. In one sense it can refer to any belief not justified by extrinsic means: in this case ultimately they would be right.

But faith can also refer to irrational beliefs in religious truths: in this case they are most definately wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

Definitions one and two may not be the same thing.

Also what are the religious assumptions now? Usually divine revelation or hearsay, and/or some sort of spiritual intuition.

Or do they just assume the religion itself is true from the onset?

In logic that is known as circular reasoning.

Hence the difference is in the quality of the assumptions used and the actual content pertaining.

Those who adhere to science only assume the most basic tenets of rationality, which can be considered self-evident.

Those who adhere to religion must now adhere to more irrational/dubious assumptions, and/or full blown belief systems.

Saying belief in one justifies belief in another is a non sequitur.

Religion and science, when it comes down to a fundemental and concrete level, are different and work very differently.





I tried to use occams razor, "what's simpler, stuff does get further away or there is some complicated process making the illusion perfect", but they said there is no proof. Which I suppose ultimately there isn't.

Occam's Razor cannot justify any scientific assumptions as it is based on such assumptions.

It can however, be justified.

Basically by the fact that without Occam's Razor, people could make stuff up.

That's because if they were allowed to add as many assumptions and ad hoc hypothesis to an argument as they wished, they could come up with an endless amount of "justifications" for almost any theory one can imagine. They could also advance any theory, no matter how fanciful, adn escew any more rational theory.


Ultimately your friends premise is based on relativism: that all assumptions/epistemic standards are the same.

The fact is though, and this should be obvious: not all assumptions are the same.

They are of different quality and often times lead to different results.

Those of science, objectivism, math and logic are different then those of idealism, postmodernism, fundamentalism and anti-math.

For your friends to truly believe what they are saying they must admit that Galileo was no more "right" then the Catholic Church when he said the Earth circled the sun instead of vice versa. That the Catholic Church could have said "your math and telescope observations are no better then our scripture, both are equally matters of faith." So let us take geocentrism seriously now.

That believing 1 plus 1 equals 2, takes the same type of faith as believing 1 plus 1 equals 13.

Ultimately to equate theories on the basis of "They rely on assumptions" is a non sequitur, most likely itself backed up by assumptions and circular reasoning. It's equivalent to saying "science is justified, so theism is justified."

What destinguishes the two, is that those of science are based on what is rational and common human experience, those of religion, the irrational/nonrational, and uncommon human experience.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by synaesthesia


But that is simply unscientific. This is not a case of the scotsman fallacy because this sort of thing is built into the very conception of science. I have to agree. This isn't an example of science being a religion. It is an example of scientists being human.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by synaesthesia


But that is simply unscientific. This is not a case of the scotsman fallacy because this sort of thing is built into the very conception of science. Merely because scientists resemble religious people insofar as they depart from scientific principle does not make science a religion.

But the fact remains that the problem is real, and entire scientific fields could very well be very unscientific.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Frostbite


entire scientific fields could very well be very unscientific. (You knew it was coming)

Such as?

[Fade]

(I'm begging the question of whom that responsibility ought to be given to because I don't have an answer. If you have good ideas on this subject, I'd love to hear them.)

It ought to be the responsibility of everyone. In my perfect society, critical thinking and reasoning would be encouraged from an early age.

For a happy medium, why not introduce students to qualitative analysis at a very young age, say 10. Do things simple, like using litmus paper to test for certain compounds. Repeat the analyses every year for the remainder of their science education. The philosophy of science, as it were, receives almost 0 attention as it is. Critical thinking isn't encouraged at all.. look in the book is!

A lot of people will give you stories of, say, chemistry classes where they were getting results that weren't synching with what they should be, and were told to judge fudge the answer and make it right. No more explanation. No more exploration! This type of thing worries me.

When I approach topics of science in my every day life, I have encountered what amounts to a meager understanding in the average person. Now, I claim to be no scientist. When it comes down to it, my mind is more literary, and my credentials in science are only Chemistry 2, Physics, and Biology in college. Not much. Nothing advanced. But, I supplemented that education with a lot of reading, as well as the critical thinking skills that my mother gave me.

It isn't good enough to give a person an answer (Give a man a fish, teach the man to fish), the reason why it IS the answer should be given when possible. Using your example of simple machines, wouldn't you have remembered them better if all the reasons why they work, as well as their practical applications were given to you as well?

[Yahweh]

I'll answer quickly. No, science is not a religion. Science has supported by facts and nature, not by faith. Religion is mythology that is taught as truth (something like creationism) or some moral teachings that teach you how to live (Taoism, Buddhism). Science doesnt teach mythology and it doesnt suggest to you how you should live, its real facts. It has no higher purpose or meaning than to apply reason and logic and facts to natural occurences and to help dispell the paranormal and supernatural. I could care less about philosophical questions like "do we really exist". Quick answer to that question: Yes, we do exist, now if you ask me that again you're going to bed without dinner.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by SquishyDave


Good points, but don't be too hard on my co-workers they are mostly Athiests and Agnostics, they are just being argumentative, and they weren't arguing for revelatory religion, just that at it's most basic, you must take a leap of faith to believe in science as well as religion, because you have to believe we exist, when we might not.



If your co-workers argue that the assumption that we exist is the same as the assumptions of most religions, you could point out that this renders their argument meaningless.

If the assumption that this computer exists = religious faith, and
The assumption that the Sun exists = religious faith, and
The assumption that God exists = religious faith, and
The assumption that I exist = religious faith,

Then

Everything is religion.

How then would you differentiate between organized sets of beliefs in God in its various forms, the processes by which we gather knowledge about the observable world around us, and the simple assumption that my sneakers exist?

Saying that Buddhism, Lutheranism, and Shintoism are religions would be meaningless, so you'd have to come up with a new word to categorize them under.

Tell your coworkers that you'd label such things "Rilegiun" as opposed to "religion." Then ask them to debate the difference between Rilegiun and science. If they bring up the same arguments as before, say, "No, you are arguing about religion. I'm talking about Rilegiun. You've made the word 'religion' useless."

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by Fade

Using your example of simple machines, wouldn't you have remembered them better if all the reasons why they work, as well as their practical applications were given to you as well?
The purpose of that example was to demonstrate that even if I did retain the knowledge perfectly for the rest of my life, it would not have advanced my understanding of physical concepts. That is true, I think, of many scientific facts taught in elementary school. I think at some point I could also name the three types of rock (igneous, sedimentary, and ???). My larger point was that teachers get off the hook somewhat by concentrating on teaching nomenclature, classifications and definitions rather than true physical concepts and scientific process. If they get a fact or definition wrong, it isn't a big deal.

If they concentrated on representing science as a process instead, they would be undertaking a huge responsibility. If they couldn't impart the true nature of rigorous thinking to their students, they would be leaving them vulnerable to people like phone psychics, Sylvia Browne, and all the other scam artists out there. Arguably, since the current system (certain exemplary teachers excepted--I know they're out there) already does that, perhaps at least trying to teach scientific thinking would be better than nothing. My concern is that the formal teaching process in schools tends to take on a somewhat dogmatic and authoritarian flavor, which is fine if you're learning math, but "critical thinking" taught dogmatically would probably do more to harm the cause than benefit it. I have this image of a teacher copying definitions out of some book called "Fundamentals of Critical Thinking" the same way my teachers taught the seven simple machines. "Today, class, we're going to learn the 7 most common logical fallacies. The 7 most common logical fallacies are The Stawman, The True Scotsman Argument, The...." You see the danger?

Even worse, there would be teachers who can't think critically themselves and would impart their bad habits to the students. My high school English teacher once took time out of class to test our psychic skills. He drew a picture on a piece of paper and had us try to draw the same picture. My picture ended up very close to his, which he gave as evidence of psychic powers. "Look, it's amazing! Deva's picture is almost exactly like mine, with the moon and everything! She even finished her picture before I was finished drawing mine!" I wish I'd had the guts to say what I was thinking: "If you were looking at my picture as I was drawing it, why do we need to invoke psychic powers to explain the similarity?"

See what I mean? How could you stop teachers like that from teaching irrational beliefs in the guise of "critical thinking?"

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
I agree with you Child of Quark but they are saying in order for science to work, you must make the ASSUMPTION that we exist, and as soon as you make an assumption, you are no better than religion.

Really it makes my brain hurt to think we don't exist.

The assumptions of science are:

1. There is an external world.

2. It can be known at least to approximation.

3. We can tell that some approximations are better than others.

The assumptions of religion are:

The first three + 4. God is.

The point being, that religion is science plus one assumption. One assumption that is not necessary. Science's assumptions are necessary, because 1) they are adequate to explain the world as we experience it, 2) we are physically incapable of acting as if they are not true for any significant period of time. Our brains will not let us. Religion, however, does not enjoy this privilged physiological position: it is possible to live a good life without religion.

Occam's razor explains why science (with 3 assumptions) is superior to religion (with 4). But they won't understand why Occam's razor matters, so it's really just a lost cause.

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by Yahzi

The assumptions of science are:

1. There is an external world.

Science is possible without this assumption.

2. It can be known at least to approximation.

3. We can tell that some approximations are better than others.

These are conclusions of science, not assumptions.
You don't need to assume something that is supported by rigorous experiment.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Upchurch
(You knew it was coming)

Such as?

I don't know enough about science in general to even venture guesses here but look back in history and look at all the mistakes we made, when we had to scrap our beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence (flat earth, etc.). I'm pretty sure some of today's scientific fields, such as history or archaeology, could be shattered any day if the same thing were to happen. I'm not saying they're all wrong, the scientific method and approach is right, but sometimes too much rests on assumptions. And abandoning old theories is a very slow process.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Frostbite

look back in history and look at all the mistakes we made, when we had to scrap our beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence (flat earth, etc.). I'm pretty sure some of today's scientific fields, such as history or archaeology, could be shattered any day if the same thing were to happen. I'm not saying they're all wrong, the scientific method and approach is right, but sometimes too much rests on assumptions.
Ah, but there is a difference between being incorrect and being unscienctific, just as being scientific doesn't garantee being correct. The critical aspect is that the scientific process is self-correcting, due (in context of this discussion) to a lack of a need to stick to a single theory. Scientists may experience that need, but the process, and the group as a whole, does not.
And abandoning old theories is a very slow process. True, but it should be a slow process. Otherwise, science would be subjected to the equivalent of fads. Don't you think?

[Frostbite]

Yeah, I agree with what you say. I guess "science" as a concept isn't religious in nature, because it changes over time. (I really think we talked about this very issue before a couple months ago haha) But science also has its imperfections, its dictators, its popes and worshippers. I guess it's a learning process for mankind to correct its scientific method and learn from past mistakes.

[Skeptical Greg]

I stumbled upon this during my search for the truth, and I think it is relevant here.. I somehow lost the information about the author, so I apologize for not being able to give credit..

Every physicist allows that quantum mechanics could be deeply wrong.
They all agree that tomorrow it may be overthrown by some quite unexpected
experimental result or by some new and profound theoretical insight.
Of course, it would take time to assess the new evidence;
it would be rash to abandon such a wonderful theory too quickly.
But in principle, it could go the way of earth-centered astronomy.

Could any Christian, by contrast, abandon belief in the divinity of Christ?
Or abandon the belief that Christ died for our sins? Or abandon the belief
that God is the creator of all things?
The difference between a physicist
and a priest is not so much in the subject matter. Rather, the difference
is fundamentally this: A physicist can abandon all the central beliefs of
current physics and still remain a physicist. A priest cannot abandon
certain central beliefs without giving up the vocation.

[WooBot]

A famous quote from Einstein, when asked what if Eddington's observations of the solar eclipse that proved Relativity was correct had gone the other way:

"Then I would have felt sorry for the good Lord, because the theory is correct."

;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Frostbite
But science also has its imperfections, its dictators, its popes and worshippers.Whenever someone uses this terminology, I always feel like it is an attempt to marginalize science and put it on the same playing field as religion. (yes, kids, this appears to be Uncle Upchurch's theme for the day) Also, I feel that it greatly overstates the case. It gives the impression that there are great masses offering up hopes and prayers to a god that goes by the name "Science" and I simply don't think this is the case.

<hr>
edited to add:

Originally posted by WooBot

"Then I would have felt sorry for the good Lord, because the theory is correct."
Nobody said Einstein wasn't allowed to feel arrogent, from time to time. :D

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I stumbled upon this during my search for the truth, and I think it is relevant here.. I somehow lost the information about the author, so I apologize for not being able to give credit.. Good quote.

The reason for this difference is that religion is a belief system while science is a method.

Edited to add: the quote is by James Robert Brown, and you probably goi it from this Randi commentary. (http://www.randi.org/jr/032202.html)

[WooBot]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Nobody said Einstein wasn't allowed to feel arrogent, from time to time. :D

And certainly no one was more entitled to. I just think it's a funny quote. :D

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Frostbite

But the fact remains that the problem is real, and entire scientific fields could very well be very unscientific.

Frostbite,
That question simple can't be asked in a vacuum. As a naturalist, given a particular scientific field, I would answer that question by going on and looking at the particular branch, in it's particular relationship to other scientific fields.

How do day-to-day observations take place? What sort of theoretical grounwork has been laid in the field? What sort of operational assumptions like those observations to the theory in question?

Yes, it is possible in principle to have widespread, systematic methodological errors. We have seen in the past an innumerable variety of self-deception, equivocation, delusion and cynical manipulation.

There is no general purpose method of avoiding future error. But we are not helpless; we can discover, invent and take note of human frailties and subsequently take measures against them.

The scientific method has built into it, the importance of these continuing procedures. It is an epistemological system so utterly unique, that none but the most trivial resemblance to a religion can be seriously posited.

[LCBOY]

There are two different issues about whether science is a religion.

1) The precepts or assumptions made in science

2) The process of science

According to Webster's Dictionary:

Science n.[OFr < L scientia<sciens, prp. of scire, to know, oringinally, to discern, distinguish]

1 [Archaic] the state of fact and knowlwdge; knowledge 2 systemized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature of priciples of what is being studied 3 any specific branch of scientific knowledge, esp. one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles, and method, as by experiments and hypothesis 4 the systematized knowledge of nature and the physical world.

Science can be broken down into two types, operational science and origins science. Operational sciences, i.e., chemistry, physics, microbiology, medicine, etc., deal with how the physical world works now in the present. They generate ideas and theories that describe mechanisms of operation. Origins science, (evolution), deals with how things came into existence in the past. Origins science relies much more heavily on one's precepts and assumptions than do operational sciences. Whether one believes in God or not has no bearing on doing experimental work on super conductors, lasors, creating a viable nuclear fusion reactor. If one looks at the definiton of scence, observation, study and experimentation are important. This is a real issue with origins science. Whether the universe was created by "God" or came into existence through natural means is a huge debate. But no one was there to see creation of the universe happen. So we are left with studying indirect evidence. However, no evidence "speaks for itself". All evidence must be interpreted through some framework or "belief" system which in turn is based on certain assumptions and precepts. No person is without bias. If some claims this I believe they are being intellectually dishonest.

The process of science itself is a methodology, a way of doing things. It is based on the scientific method.

So science is similar to religion only in that it may also may carry certain assunptions or precepts. When it comes to the process of science, it is very much different from religion.

[Dancing David]

I think the Einstien quote does point in some ways to how science can become a faith. (Not that Eistein was wrong)

Scroedinger proposed the cat thing just because he was so upset with the Copenhagen Interpretaion. There was during the thirties a whole geman movement based upon 'non semetic science', the CCCP defintly had it's approved and not approved science.

Science can become dogmatic, we are just fortunate that the mothod cleans up afetr itself.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Syn said:To answer your query, in the sense in which such an assumption is ineliminable, it's not possible to fail to assume, for instance, that the universe is orderly. We don't explicitly represent these 'fundamental' assumptions, nor need we. They are simply tacit in the way our epistemological systems are organized.
I still don't understand you. It seems to me people can fail to assume orderliness quite easily, by simply refusing to do so. They would have a sort of twisted epistemology that could maintain itself by their lack of critical examination of individual cases.

So then, to describe what is wrong with those peoples' framework, we must describe the epistemological framework of science by listing its assumptions (or whatever word you'd like to use).

~~ Paul

[billydkid]

Originally posted by SquishyDave

They argued that for instance, we cannot prove we exist......


This is the kind of idiocy that drives me up the wall. What on earth could it even possibly mean? To me making that kind of "argument" represents a kind of willful stupidity that is personally offensive. Less obviously stupid, but nearly as irking is the argument against freewill which pops up in here like clockwork every couple of weeks. The old "all we have is the illusion of freewill" routine - implicit in which is that there is or could be some sort of genuine, real deal freewill out there somewhere or that such a thing could even be imagined.

[SquishyDave]

Thanks to everyone who posted, I am now sure in my mind at least that science need make no assumptions whatsoever, and if some do creep in, it is self repairing due to it's process, so I am now happy.

And to all those who expressed anger and frustation at the arguments that we don't exist and all that other junk

I hear that!

It cheesed me right off I can tell you, but I am now confident in my own view of science as a process and an institution and will be able to hold my ground in future.

Thanks again guys, I only recently realised I was a sceptic, and this discussion has really helped cement my ideas and thoughts.

[justsaygnosis]

There are pockets of dogmatic zealots in all fields of human endeavor.
Most often these pockets will be found in positions of power.
The lower echelons have far less to lose by having new knowledge displace an 'axiom' than those whose ability to criticize and accredit others are dependent upon the existence of an axiom under scrutiny.
Bona fide truth seekers will always submit to paradigms giving way to new evidence.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Syn said:
I still don't understand you. It seems to me people can fail to assume orderliness quite easily, by simply refusing to do so. They would have a sort of twisted epistemology that could maintain itself by their lack of critical examination of individual cases.

So then, to describe what is wrong with those peoples' framework, we must describe the epistemological framework of science by listing its assumptions (or whatever word you'd like to use).

~~ Paul

Paul,

To be twisted is to have some degree of organization. The presuppostion remains implicit. Again, the explicit representation of the assumption is just what I'm contending is unecessary.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But don't we want to specify that science relies on a strong degree of orderliness? We need to assume that the universe is not capricious. Some other epistemology could have the universe with some or even much capriciousness.

Perhaps what you mean is the the process of science makes it implcitly clear that we're assuming orderliness, so it goes without saying?

~~ Paul

[Fade]

See what I mean? How could you stop teachers like that from teaching irrational beliefs in the guise of "critical thinking?"

Yes, I see that the system could open up for a lot of corruption, and I am unsure how to completely stem it.

[Yahzi]

Paul
If it helps any, what Synth is saying is pretty close to my argument that our brains are simply hard-wired to assume the premises of science. Thus, they don't count as "faith," because they aren't violitional.

You can't doubt the three laws of logic. You can't even think unless you first assume them to be true.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But Yahzi, there are so many people who don't assume the premises of science. Are we going to call them unsane?

Likewise, seems to me that many people do not assume the law of the excluded middle.

~~ Paul

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
But Yahzi, there are so many people who don't assume the premises of science. Are we going to call them unsane?

Likewise, seems to me that many people do not assume the law of the excluded middle.

~~ Paul
There are no functioning humans that do not asume the premises of science. There are a large number that pretend they don't, but if you swing a baseball bat at their head, they stop pretending long enough to duck.

I agree about the law of the excluded middle; I have had arguments with college graduates in physics that simply don't understand it. Yet when they say they reject the LotEM, they mean precisly the LotEM, not some other law, or some combination of laws. In other words, the act of speaking about any entity as a discrete entity assumes the LotEM.

Note: many people will argue that the opposite of white is black, but things can be gray. This is a mis-application of the LotEM. That law does not deal in opposites, but in negations. A color is either black, or it is some other color. The negation of black is not white, it is non-black.

[metacristi]

SquishyDave

Is science just another religion?


As other people have already shown science cannot be,in itself,just another religion because it has no dogmas and it is not based on faith (a non-rational belief in something;where what is rational is judged upon the observed reality we can 'measure').
Still it can be transformed in a sort of religion by certain people (usually unaware that it is fallible) who extrapolate some scientific 'working hypotheses',simple conjectures,into 'sure truth','evidence' beyond all reasonable doubt and so on.

However my above remark is not an argument in favor of philosophical skepticism (that we cannot obtain knowledge,certain or beyond all reasonable doubt,about [observed] reality) which your co-workers advocate,once the basic axioms of science are accepted.Indeed though I am close somehow to this kind of skepticism I believe that the Earth is round,water is H2O,an atomic particle named 'electron' does exist,simply there is no rational reason to doubt that.Science is our best tool to understand the observed reality,it's succesfull theories being the simplest account possible for the observed facts.This is the first goal of science to 'work for all our practical purposes' in the most simple fashion,still it can attain even certitudes.

The only real problem I see is the axiom that idealism is wrong,that because it is accepted apriori.Whilst we have strong reason to believe that things are not smaller when further away ['confirmed' by a vast number of conclusive distinct experiments from all domains of science] we do not have yet such 'objective' reason in the case of idealism.In fact idealism can be right and still science to work very well on our 'domain of definition'.The reality is that we cannot establish that objectively now,based on observed reality,that's why science has to rely on the apriori rejection of idealism.
Still if,for example,it will be shown with arguments beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness is entirely material then idealism would be proved objectively as being less probable to be true.The only problem is to establish what means 'beyond reasonable doubt'.In my acception a succesfull theory offering a 'holistic' view of how brain works or the construction of an android whose consciousness is indistinguishable from that of a human being is enough.
But for the moment all that we can tell is that science does rely on axioms,it still does not have the 'first,true,principles',the dream of Aristotle:this is still belief though not faith or religion.A rational one however.Indeed even if idealism is true the scientific truths (and the scientific method itself) we discovered still remain valid [for example those I mentioned above] on the domain of reality we are aware now.

[thaiboxerken]

The people that claim that science is a religion also often claim that atheism is a religion and that not believing in gods take faith.

This is just silly ad-hominem tactic. They are simply trying to convince people that atheists and scientists operate on the same principles that they do. It's just a red-herring aimed to disrupt the flow of theological debate and to evade the fact that they have no evidence of their gods.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yahzi said:There are no functioning humans that do not asume the premises of science. There are a large number that pretend they don't, but if you swing a baseball bat at their head, they stop pretending long enough to duck.
I basically agree with you, but if you say this to someone, it just appears as more evidence that science is a dogma like any other religion. After all, the person doesn't realize he is "pretending" not to assume the premises of science. Also, he might agree to the premises of science, but insist there are additional premises or exceptions to them or whatnot to accomodate his favorite ideas.

So I guess I might say that the premises go without saying, but bear repeating anyway.

~~ Paul

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I basically agree with you, but if you say this to someone, it just appears as more evidence that science is a dogma like any other religion. After all, the person doesn't realize he is "pretending" not to assume the premises of science. Also, he might agree to the premises of science, but insist there are additional premises or exceptions to them or whatnot to accomodate his favorite ideas.

Paul,

I think this comes back to the whole conception of knowledge being like first order logic. You have a bunch of premises and in linear fasion you derive the consequences and predictions.

That's not how neural networks operate, that's not how we operate. I think that challenging the dogmatist's notions is a prerequisite for the effective exposition of non-dogmatic positions.

[Fun2BFree]

Woody Allen summed up this idea that there is no reality best:

“What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet.”