And it would be put to even better use if used by persons who put far too much faith in religion, pseudosciences, and other flights of fancy, to examine their own beliefs.
Very well. Popper’s ideas had nothing to do with “faith” in science. His whole argument was to establish a criteria for determining whether or not a theory was scientific. That criteria was falsifiability: A theory is scientific to the extent it is open to falsifying evidence. If there’s something out there that can test your theory and possibly prove your theory wrong, then your theory is scientific. Faith doesn’t come into it at all. He didn’t say we place too much faith in science, he didn’t say we place too little faith in science, he said absolutely nothing about faith.
But he doesn’t discuss conficence in science either. His book is simply an attempt to define science. If anything, it should increase confidence in science, since it explains–at least partly–why science is succesful.
(Note: Obviously Popper isn’t the last word, and I’m ignoring many objections and criticsms of his theory here.)
I am a bit confused. The OP is about anti-intellectualism. How did we get onto Popper and this bit about faith. People come out like bees from a hive and hurl multiple non-sequiturs and I do not quite remember how we managed to get Popper into this discussion.
OK I see now. I was thinking about another Popper book “The Open Society” I think when I wrote the bit about faith in Science. In the Open Society book we get into the problem of absolutes and how they interfer with open societies. When I used the word faith I did not mean religion stuff I meant that people tended to place Science on the altar for adoration in a kind of metaphor sense. People placed too much confidence in science. When we get into trouble Science will bail us out so bring on the punch bowl. I assume we both agree about the bit about falsifiability.
I think it was pretty clear what you meant by faith. Now, do you have any reason to believe that most persons, or even a significant minority of persons who accept the conclusions of science do it out of ‘adoration’, or really any form un unjustified confidence? Or might it be because, well, science does indeed tend to produce useful results? Everyone who has partaken of the many benefits of science in this modern world is strongly justified in giving science a great deal of credit for accuracy and usefulness.
And is there ANY reason to think that science tends to lead people to their doom, as you imply with your ‘punchbowl’ crack?
I think that very few individuals have any idea of what the natural sciences are about. The word “science” is generally acquainted with technology, i.e. with the electronic gadgets what fill our modern world.
I think that many people believe that their science will solve what ever problems arise, thus freeing us from a critical analysis and appropriate action of our behavior.
People also fail to recognize that while the scientific method has proven quite useful in many ways it is not suitable for solving problems regarding human relationships.
There is good reason to suggest that technology might very well be the instrument for the extinction of the human species.
Even the most scientifically minded people are not proposing solving human relation problems with science, science can only help, it is not a panacea.
Richard Dawkins - “On our “queer” universe”.
It could, but the evidence so far is that science and technology are also working to prevent disasters like preventing the starvation of millions and contributing to world peace.
If the universe tries to kill us (asteroid, etc.) then technology might save us. If we kill ourselves, then we’ll do it through technology - since we’re not efficient enough to do it without that help.