Is science inherently atheistic?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

Do you even read the posts or just pick out random words? The point is fairly obvious. Either science is everything or it isn't. God forbid you come down on one side or the other when you can wander around the question.

I read the posts very carefully. You seem get annoyed when others have a different opinion to yours. Why is that?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I read the posts very carefully. You seem get annoyed when others have a different opinion to yours. Why is that?

No, I get annoyed that you just snark and won't give an opinion. I said something specific - why can't you just say "that's wrong" or "that's right". I said that either science is everything, or it isn't. If you think that's an incorrect observation, then please state where I'm in the wrong. I claimed that if we accept that everything is science, then we have to accept that astrology is science. If we don't claim that everything is science, then the other claim I made - viz, that science is a mental structure which describes the outside world - makes more sense - but if you disagree with that line of reasoning, then please do so.

Instead you say that people who believe in astrology are deluded which was the whole point of the example I chose. Why did you need to seize on the one point that I'd made, as if I was asserting the opposite?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

No, I get annoyed that you just snark and won't give an opinion. I said something specific - why can't you just say "that's wrong" or "that's right". I said that either science is everything, or it isn't. If you think that's an incorrect observation, then please state where I'm in the wrong. I claimed that if we accept that everything is science, then we have to accept that astrology is science. If we don't claim that everything is science, then the other claim I made - viz, that science is a mental structure which describes the outside world - makes more sense - but if you disagree with that line of reasoning, then please do so.

Instead you say that people who believe in astrology are deluded which was the whole point of the example I chose. Why did you need to seize on the one point that I'd made, as if I was asserting the opposite?

I do nothing but give you my opinion. Science is science, woo is woo. Everything in the universe can be investigated and hopefully explained by science.I have no idea why you are harping on about this. Splitting hairs is not a hobby of mine.

[cj.23]

OK, let's take a question. Who was monarch of England in 1535? Is this a scientific question? How would science investigate it? Now let us ask what were the causes for the First World War? Is this a scientific question? I think maybe we are all using Science in different senses? Another question - did Queen Elizabeth II enjoy the Jubilee yesterday? is this a scientific question? How would science address it?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by cj.23

OK, let's take a question. Who was monarch of England in 1535? Is this a scientific question? How would science investigate it? Now let us ask what were the causes for the First World War? Is this a scientific question? I think maybe we are all using Science in different senses? Another question - did Queen Elizabeth II enjoy the Jubilee yesterday? is this a scientific question? How would science address it?

This is getting farcical. You don't know the difference between science and history? How would you go about discovering who was the monarch of England in 1535? I know an easy way. Didn't you pay attention in school? I use the word science in it's dictionary definition. I don't know how you are defining it, unless it's the Humpty Dumpty approach to language.

[cj.23]

Well these are meaningful questions about things which are not woo. I wondered if by science you meant "knowledge": in which case History is a science. Still objective facts can be discovered by non-scientific means then? So yes there are questions outside of science that are not woo, and objectively true. I think that may have been part of the disagreement so I was just trying to clarify this in the hope it might help.

cj x

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Well these are meaningful questions about things which are not woo. I wondered if by science you meant "knowledge": in which case History is a science. Still objective facts can be discovered by non-scientific means then? So yes there are questions outside of science that are not woo, and objectively true. I think that may have been part of the disagreement so I was just trying to clarify this in the hope it might help.

cj x

It seems to me to be like splitting hairs into strips one atom thick. I'm wondering how one would carry out an historical experiment. Do archaeologist experiment when they are digging?

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by dafydd

This is getting farcical.

Getting farcical? Dude we left farcical in the dust about 20 pages back.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Well these are meaningful questions about things which are not woo. I wondered if by science you meant "knowledge": in which case History is a science. Still objective facts can be discovered by non-scientific means then? So yes there are questions outside of science that are not woo, and objectively true. I think that may have been part of the disagreement so I was just trying to clarify this in the hope it might help.

cj x

So true, yesterday I titrated a regent with a reagent and proved monarchy by divine right was true.

I also found out the date of the 3rd Punic War by experimenting with double blinded* mice.

*We only used three of them with their tails surgically removed with a carving knife.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by cj.23

OK, let's take a question. Who was monarch of England in 1535? Is this a scientific question? How would science investigate it?

By collecting and studying historical documents including authenticating them and correlating them with multiple sources.

Originally Posted by cj.23

Now let us ask what were the causes for the First World War? Is this a scientific question?

Such a question is best answered using the scientific process, yes.

Originally Posted by cj.23

I think maybe we are all using Science in different senses?

Yes, some don't quite grasp what the scientific process is, and how it applies to anything in reality we want to understand, while at the same time, alternative processes are not going to lead to answers that resemble reality anywhere nearly as closely as the scientific process does.

Originally Posted by cj.23

Another question - did Queen Elizabeth II enjoy the Jubilee yesterday? is this a scientific question? How would science address it?

Here again, you make the mistake of failing to understand the way one would apply the scientific process to such a question and the failure of other processes to actually answer the question.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by tsig

I also found out the date of the 3rd Punic War by experimenting with double blinded* mice.

*We only used three of them with their tails surgically removed with a carving knife.

I am in the middle of a very delicate experiment designed to discover the date of the beginning of the Second World War. Early days yet, but I'll get back to you when the results are in.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by tsig

So true, yesterday I titrated a regent with a reagent and proved monarchy by divine right was true.

I also found out the date of the 3rd Punic War by experimenting with double blinded* mice.

*We only used three of them with their tails surgically removed with a carving knife.

Nominated for making me smile. Good experiments tsig, you can prove Monarchy sure, but not Divine Right of Kings by science The divine bit is outside its scope!

cj x

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

By collecting and studying historical documents including authenticating them and correlating them with multiple sources.

Such a question is best answered using the scientific process, yes.

Yes, some don't quite grasp what the scientific process is, and how it applies to anything in reality we want to understand, while at the same time, alternative processes are not going to lead to answers that resemble reality anywhere nearly as closely as the scientific process does.

Here again, you make the mistake of failing to understand the way one would apply the scientific process to such a question and the failure of other processes to actually answer the question.

So history is a science? You are using science to mean any method of knowledge, unlike Dafydd and Joe?

I'm not sure I fail to understand how we might assess QE2's emotions scientifically: I'd like you to explain how you would do it though?

cj x

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I am in the middle of a very delicate experiment designed to discover the date of the beginning of the Second World War. Early days yet, but I'll get back to you when the results are in.

OK, so science is not the only way to know everything or investigate any question. History works just fine too. That was all I wanted to establish!

cj x

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Nominated for making me smile. Good experiments tsig, you can prove Monarchy sure, but not Divine Right of Kings by science The divine bit is outside its scope!

cj x

True, that is in the realms of fantasy.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by cj.23

OK, so science is not the only way to know everything or investigate any question. History works just fine too. That was all I wanted to establish!

cj x

When gods are investigated by science they melt away.

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by dafydd

... Didn't you pay attention in school? I use the word science in it's dictionary definition...

You can't even manage to use the word "it's" in its dictionary definition.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by tsig

I also found out the date of the 3rd Punic War by experimenting with double blinded* mice.

*We only used three of them with their tails surgically removed with a carving knife.

I've never seen such a sight in my life

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

So where do you think "science" exists? Science, the study of the way the world works?

Science - the methodology - exists as a mental construct shared by all of the people who practise it. Is that what you are after? Science the process also requires reference to external objective reality in order to make observations and validate its findings. Science tells us about reality and without an apparent external reality there can be no science.

Religion exists as a mental construct generally shared by the people who practise it. You disagreed with this earlier but whatever. It requires some interaction with external reality in order to be meaningful however it does not validate its findings in the same way. Without some external reality there is no religion however, it can tell us nothing meaningful about the nature of that reality.

Personal preferences exist purely as a mental construct in the mind of those who possess them. They need to reference to any external objective reality and heads in jars can quite happily have preferences. They tell us nothing about anything other than your personal preference. They arise from your biology and they are relevant only to you.

I can't even remember what the point was now, but there you go. Notice the differences. If things only happen in your head without reference to any shared external reality and are unique to you then they are irrelevant and meaningless to anyone else.

If things happen in the real world and other people can see them, observe them and study them then there is a basis for thinking that they might be of relevance to other people too.

If you want to argue religion falls into the former then fine, but that's basically saying 'i made this up and i like it'. Mental constructs that don't reference objective reality are meaningless. Can you see where science doesn't fit?

Originally Posted by westprog

That's the issue. Science is a field of study, not just everything that happens. Everything that happens is a legitimate field of interest to science, but until somebody studies it, science is not going on.

If we call science everything that happens - as some people on this thread seem to want to do - then everything is science. Clearly this means that astrology is science. They can't have it both ways - either everything is science, or some things are science and some aren't. I just wish they'd make up their minds and stick to one option.

You keep prattling on about this and you are the only one who has made this argument. You can't differentiate between science (which is clearly a methodology and therefore, for example, an apple isn't science), the application of science and the knowledge gained from science.

Nobody has said everything is science. What has been said is that you can apply science to everything. You then try to draw the line at applying science to our personal preferences and want to call them something else. As if somehow science can't be applied to that particular biological process.

The rest of the questions about what you can use instead were sidestepped.

Originally Posted by cj.23

OK, let's take a question. Who was monarch of England in 1535? Is this a scientific question? How would science investigate it? Now let us ask what were the causes for the First World War? Is this a scientific question? I think maybe we are all using Science in different senses? Another question - did Queen Elizabeth II enjoy the Jubilee yesterday? is this a scientific question? How would science address it?

Well you could take a scientific approach to answering those questions by collecting evidence, testing theories and seeing what we can prove. We can use logic and reasoning to help us make some sensible assumptions about what may have been the case.

Or we can take the approach of just making up a guess and assuming it is right because 'you can't prove it isn't'

Which do you think might work better?

Of course, we have incomplete data so we might never be able to know with certainty a particular fact. Does that mean science is inapplicable? No, it just means we need to acknowledge gaps in our data. Does it mean just making stuff up and claiming its right is equally valid? No. Never.

Originally Posted by cj.23

So history is a science? You are using science to mean any method of knowledge, unlike Dafydd and Joe?

I'm not sure I fail to understand how we might assess QE2's emotions scientifically: I'd like you to explain how you would do it though?

Is history a science - I guess it depends how you go about doing your history. Certainly science can be applied to it. I would say good history would be scientific yes. I don't know how rigourously history enforces the scientific methodology.

How could we assess QE2's emotions scientifically? Well we could ask her, that would be a start.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

You can't even manage to use the word "it's" in its dictionary definition.

Lol, you got me. I must remember to wear my glasses when I type. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Science - the methodology - exists as a mental construct shared by all of the people who practise it. Is that what you are after?

Yes, that's what I said and that's what I was after.

Quote:

Science the process also requires reference to external objective reality in order to make observations and validate its findings. Science tells us about reality and without an apparent external reality there can be no science.

Religion exists as a mental construct generally shared by the people who practise it. You disagreed with this earlier but whatever.

Or, to rephrase

Quote:

So religion, philosophy and astrology exist only in people's brains?

Yes, they do.

Quote:

Unless of course you are arguing that every individual's religion is a unique, special snowflake religion that exists only in their own head? Are you?

Clearly each person has his own version of religion. Indeed, his own version of science. It's also true that each person's version of religion or science is strongly influenced by external factors, and interaction with other people. Nonetheless, as a mental construct, religion and science have to be personal in their final form.

Quote:

...
You keep prattling on about this and you are the only one who has made this argument. You can't differentiate between science (which is clearly a methodology and therefore, for example, an apple isn't science), the application of science and the knowledge gained from science.

Nobody has said everything is science. What has been said is that you can apply science to everything. You then try to draw the line at applying science to our personal preferences and want to call them something else. As if somehow science can't be applied to that particular biological process.

And as always, the distinction between analysing personal preferences and the preferences themselves is obfuscated.

I can make a scientific analysis of whether someone prefers to drink milk or beer. However, choosing milk or beer is not a scientific choice - though it may be informed by science. I've repeated this distinction over and over. I'm quite prepared to defend it, if it were challenged - but it hasn't been. It's been ignored.

Quote:

The rest of the questions about what you can use instead were sidestepped.

If by "sidestepped" you mean "clearly and completely answered" then yes.

It's possible to make decisions based on religion, or philosophy, or personal desire. It's possible to make decisions by rolling a pair of dice. It's possible to make decisions according to favourite colour. What we cannot do is to make decisions based solely on science. And, as I've said over and over and over again - without rebuttal - this is because science does not include a value system that makes one outcome preferable to another. Such a preference must be part of the decision-making process.

The fact that this decision making process can be entirely scientifically analysed does not make it in itself scientific. As we have finally agreed above, not everything we do is science, even though everything we do is subject to scientific inquiry.

I assume that I will continue to differentiate between decision making and the scientific analysis of decision making, and I assume that there will be endless posts attempting to confuse the two.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by westprog

I can make a scientific analysis of whether someone prefers to drink milk or beer. However, choosing milk or beer is not a scientific choice - though it may be informed by science. I've repeated this distinction over and over. I'm quite prepared to defend it, if it were challenged - but it hasn't been. It's been ignored.

It's being ignored because it's pointless and loaded.

But fine if you insist upon stalling this conversation until someone acknowledges your petty hairsplit fine.

Choosing a beverage is not a "scientific choice." Fine whatever you need to hear.

What kind of choice is it?

[Theofrak]

93% of the scientists in the National Academy of Sciences, and a similar number from the Royal Society, are atheists according to a poll.

[JoeBentley]

Is atheism absolutely essential to hold a scientific mindset? No.
Does a scientific mindset make holding an atheist mindset more likely? Yes.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Theofrak

93% of the scientists in the National Academy of Sciences, and a similar number from the Royal Society, are atheists according to a poll.

Which implies that 7% are not. They might be don't knows, won't says or please rephrase the questions, but they didn't self-define as atheist.

If the question was "Is science inherently male" I think 7% would be enough to debunk the idea.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

It's possible to make decisions based on religion, or philosophy,

No, it isn't.

All that does is push the decision one level back.

Your new invention of unique snowflake personal religions without reference to any external reality or other people's beliefs makes it worse as you are now having to invent the religion yourself in order to decide what you want.

So you first have to decide what you want then decide what you want. Great.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

Which implies that 7% are not. They might be don't knows, won't says or please rephrase the questions, but they didn't self-define as atheist.

If the question was "Is science inherently male" I think 7% would be enough to debunk the idea.

Apparently killing yourself with a firearm has a 10% failure rate, I'm pleased to learn from your analysis that shooting yourself is not inherently dangerous.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj.23
Now let us ask what were the causes for the First World War? Is this a scientific question?

Such a question is best answered using the scientific process, yes.

And just what does science tell us was the major cause of the Great War?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Apparently killing yourself with a firearm has a 10% failure rate, I'm pleased to learn from your analysis that shooting yourself is not inherently dangerous.

Well done. A fallacy you haven't used before. I'd say it was the full set now, but you keep surprising me.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

No, it isn't.

All that does is push the decision one level back.

Your new invention of unique snowflake personal religions without reference to any external reality or other people's beliefs

It's odd. No matter how much I repeat the same things, something different keeps being fed back. I've always said that decisions use knowledge of the world in combination with preferences. I've consistently said this.

The fact that something is a mental construct doesn't imply that it has to originate within the brain without any interaction with the outside world. That would be impossible, since in spite of what some posters have suggested, human brains are not operating in vats.

Quote:

makes it worse as you are now having to invent the religion yourself in order to decide what you want.

So you first have to decide what you want then decide what you want. Great.

Yes, it's a fact that the basis on which we make our choices is itself a choice. You can probably track back to the womb if you want. However, at no stage is there a purely scientific decision. You've never managed to come up with an example of such a decision and cannot, in principle, do so.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

No, it isn't.

All that does is push the decision one level back.

Your new invention of unique snowflake personal religions without reference to any external reality or other people's beliefs makes it worse as you are now having to invent the religion yourself in order to decide what you want.

So you first have to decide what you want then decide what you want. Great.

Pretty much turtles all the way down from here.

Strange how faith so often leads to solipsism.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

However, at no stage is there a purely scientific decision. You've never managed to come up with an example of such a decision and cannot, in principle, do so.

Yes, I did. Ages ago. People use science to make decisions every day. In the real world. Not philosophers' corner.

That you deny it's possible is irrelevant.

That you deny it's possible based on your insistence that a biological process in the brain is not scientific is amusing.

That you deny its possible and that we need religion and philosophy for that is telling.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Yes, I did. Ages ago. People use science to make decisions every day. In the real world. Not philosophers' corner.

That you deny it's possible is irrelevant.

That you deny it's possible based on your insistence that a biological process in the brain is not scientific is amusing.

That you deny its possible and that we need religion and philosophy for that is telling.

I'll repeat my explanation of why it's impossible to make a decision based on science alone. Since not only have you not refuted this "ages ago", you haven't even addressed the point.

Science does not include a value system that says any given outcome is better than another. It is not possible to find a single scientific text where measurements of preference are given. It is possible to compare weight, speed, heat, and all other physical properties. What you can't do, using science, is to determine that A is better than B. That is a preference that has to be supplied.

Joe Bentley is, AFAIAA, the only person who's addressed this. Admittedly, he's done it by making up his own version of science, but at least he's dealt with the issue. At least he's given an answer. It's a wrong answer, but that's a start.

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by westprog

I'll repeat my explanation of why it's impossible to make a decision based on science alone. Since not only have you not refuted this "ages ago", you haven't even addressed the point.

Science does not include a value system that says any given outcome is better than another. It is not possible to find a single scientific text where measurements of preference are given. It is possible to compare weight, speed, heat, and all other physical properties. What you can't do, using science, is to determine that A is better than B. That is a preference that has to be supplied.

Joe Bentley is, AFAIAA, the only person who's addressed this. Admittedly, he's done it by making up his own version of science, but at least he's dealt with the issue. At least he's given an answer. It's a wrong answer, but that's a start.

Hmmmm... seems like my transmission is a bit clunky. Should I check the fluid level or refer to my subjective principals?

I'm sure there's a word for your argument. Superfluous maybe?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Hmmmm... seems like my transmission is a bit clunky. Should I check the fluid level or refer to my subjective principals?

I'm sure there's a word for your argument. Superfluous maybe?

Please tell us what you found superflous in his comments.

Humes' Is/Ought divide has not been obviated by science to the best of my knowledge. Science can make facts available, but not determine which is the better choice to make, as much as some here would like to believe.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Hmmmm... seems like my transmission is a bit clunky. Should I check the fluid level or refer to my subjective principals?

I'm sure there's a word for your argument. Superfluous maybe?

If my argument is superfluous, how would you describe your comment on it?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Please tell us what you found superflous in his comments.

Humes' Is/Ought divide has not been obviated by science to the best of my knowledge. Science can make facts available, but not determine which is the better choice to make, as much as some here would like to believe.

And to make it clear to everybody (except Krikkiter, who understands it well enough for anything further to be "superfluous") - the fact of assigning values to outcomes doesn't mean that the outcomes necessarily possess those values. Indeed, since different people can assign totally different values, it's clear that value - in terms of making decisions - has to be subjective. However, without assigning value to preferred outcomes, it's impossible to make any decision whatsoever.

Whether or not there is such a thing as objective value - if it's objectively better that certain things happen - that's a quite different topic, best addressed separately. Knowing how prone this discussion is to derailment, I won't deal with the question here.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Please tell us what you found superflous in his comments.

Humes' Is/Ought divide has not been obviated by science to the best of my knowledge. Science can make facts available, but not determine which is the better choice to make, as much as some here would like to believe.

What would you call the process that helps you to make the better choice?

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by westprog

If my argument is superfluous, how would you describe your comment on it?

Awesome

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Please tell us what you found superflous in his comments.

Humes' Is/Ought divide has not been obviated by science to the best of my knowledge. Science can make facts available, but not determine which is the better choice to make, as much as some here would like to believe.

Yeah yeah yeah, but to whom do I defer when I need my transmission checked?