'Scuze me, but I missed the connection to the topic. Run it by slower.
kabloomie I think I more or less agree with you. But I’m wondering why your point is relevant to those who have faith in empirical methods.
To simply classify science as a religion would be a disservice to both. Yes, I can see how they can both be viewed as belief systems in a broad sense, but what insight is gained from this view? It can be a nice realization for some, that might build some tolerance for other viewpoints, but it doesn’t fundamentally affect their reasoning or the practice of science.
Recognizing similarities might be benificial to science, but I’m not sure if you’ve provided any reasons.
—Seems to me that a lot of things in science are taken on faith that the writers of the textbooks you read in college aren’t lying to you.—
That depends. Again, we have a situation in which one can go at least two different ways (I can actually think of others, but they don’t concern us here). One CAN simply take it on faith, and unfortunately this is how some science teachers seem to act. However, that method is itself unscientific.
A more scientific approach would be to accept it provisionally on the basis of various arguements about how science and the world works. One of these arguements is the idea that, since the evidence in the textbooks is cited and often explained, anyone who really wants to CAN check it for themselves, even to the point of repeating the experiments. And, indeed, we know that people DO do this: science is often a hornet’s nest of backbiting, continual testing, debate, etc. So while I know that some things in a science textbook are indeed probably wrong or at least misleading, I do have good reasons to think that it is unlikely that the vast majority of it is wrong: because I know the process that was undertaken to demonstrate its truth was a 'crucible of fire and testing." It would be silly to lie or be misleading about some point in a science textbook, because sooner or later, the mistake is going to be exposed: even, perhaps, by myself!
—But, for example, how many of us have had the luck to be able to view a molecule of water through an electron microscope? How many of us have been able to see that it is made of two atoms of hydrogen sharing electrons with an atom of oxygen? Don’t we just assume that water cohesion is an example of a hydrogen bond due to the molecule being polar?—
Again, perhaps. But again, we also know that IF we wanted to check on this, nothing is ultimately stopping us from doing so. The people who you are suggesting could be misleading us could have their lies so easily found out that it belies plausibility. Not to mention the sheer number of people that would need to be on hte conspiracy. The miracle of this potential conspiracy is itself far more impluasible than the accurateness of the data.
—Isn’t that something we just kind of accept on faith?—
I hope not: that would be the death of science. Every good science class I’ve ever taken has had a lab section. These sections are not simply to teach people how to do labs: they are not even simply for the benefits of students at all. They actually contribute to our ongoing testing of all scientific claims, over and over and over and over, in as many places as possible.
Kabloomie, your main contention that science is based on faith is the famous question about how we can be sure a devil is not deceiving our sense. How can we be sure that we see what is in actuality and in reality proper? Could we possibly be a brain in an experimental vat a la The Matrix? We could but science is not concerned with that. It merely describes the phenomenological world as we experience it. That is what reality is to science, regardless of what construct hides behind it. Religion, on the other hand, makes numerous speculations about what we cannot directly experience phenomenologically and therefore religion relies on a “higher level of faith”. It speaks of what is “beyond the veil of our immediate senses”.
Right. But, since the possibility of a facade does exist, anyone who choses to explain the phenomena a different way cannot be ruled “Incorrect,” only “unscientific.”
In other words, science is the one “religion” that chooses to believe that people can, on their own, find truth.
**perspective **
The entire point of my topic is pretty much an attempt to produce “tolerance.” If you will allow a creative use of terms, too many people act like anything Science accepts is a God-given truth, because science is their God, and whatever their God decrees is true. Like all good theologians, they are always debating what, exactly, thier God really said, but once they have settled the details, the theory becomes scripture. Then, like all other good religious followers, they become enraged by anyone who refuses to acknowledge their conclusions on what the FACTS are.
I am not attempting to dispose of science, just put some perspective on it. Science is not de facto truth any more than any other religion.
And if I haven’t provided any reason why Science should be considered this way yet, what, to you, have I been saying all this time? I thought I was providing or explaining the reason why science has no inherent advantages over other religions.
—I thought I was providing or explaining the reason why science has no inherent advantages over other religions.—
The reason science has an advantage (for explaining the world around us) is that it’s epistemology is drawn directly from obsrevations of the world itself, in clearly defined and explained steps. Much of religious inquiry involves epistemologies that are themselves not only untestable, but usually not even described.
—The entire point of my topic is pretty much an attempt to produce “tolerance.”—
Who, in your mind, is being “intolerant”? To say that science is different from religious inquiry is not “intolerant,” nor is even saying that it is better suited to the task of examining the world around us for truths about that world.
I don’t think it would be productive to point fingers at specific people. Will it suffice to say that anyone who says, or stongly implies, “You can’t believe that! Science disproved it!” is being intolerant?
No, of course it is not intolerant to say that science is different than religion. No more than it is to say that religion A is different than religion B. What is intolerant is to assume that the standard science uses, Majority Evidence, is The Correct Standard.
You see, Majority Evidence is always limited by the amount of evidence we are currently able to collect (rather, that we have collected), and by the correct application of all the different, inter-related theories. I haven’t heard anyone deny this, but some people don’t seem to realize the full implications.
Even if your analogy is granted, I think it’s still a few steps from helping to achieve tolerance.
Judaism and Islam both recognize their basis in faith, yet conflicts between it’s practioners still arise. One always believes in one’s faith more than someone else’s.
What kind of tolerance would you like to see? Are there any empirical consequences of your analogy?
Personally, I think Science could use a little more navel gazing and concentration on epistemology. I was kind of hoping your were heading in that direction. The assumptions of empiricism would have been a great start.
perspective,
“epistemology”–want to tell me what that means so I don’t have to go dig up a dictionary? My vague, context-inferred understanding is not making sense in this context.
In general I am just not getting the drift of your post. It seems like you are saying you wish that science would be less scientific. I assume this is not the case, though.
“the assumptions of empiricism”–e.g., that things can be systematically proved?
If you were hoping I would go in that direction, go ahead yourself. Sounds like it could be interesting, with a little more explanation.
—Will it suffice to say that anyone who says, or stongly implies, “You can’t believe that! Science disproved it!” is being intolerant?—
Only if it’s not true. Sometimes, people can get overzealous wiht such claims. But what you seem to be advocating is pure relativism: any method is as good as any other. I strongly disagree. People can be wrong: very wrong. We are not infaliable.
—What is intolerant is to assume that the standard science uses, Majority Evidence, is The Correct Standard. —
I’m not sure what you mean by “correct standard.” If one cares about the truth of certain things, then an epistemology that actually examines the things one is supposed to be explaining is certianly much better than one which claims an unexplainable, unchallengeable insight.
Science is not a perfect method, and no one ever claimed that it was. But if you think that it is “just as good” as anything else for finding out the truth of various tings about the world around us, then please explain why, and how religius inquiry is comparable.
Let me get specific. Let’s compare the method of science to the method of coin flipping, both used to answer the question: will pork rinds float?
Science would go about testing this question, for instance by tossing pork rinds into the water. Coin flipping would involve labeling heads “yes” and tails “no” then seeing which comes up on one flip.
Is there a superior method among these two? I would certainly say that there is. And the reason is not just that coin flipping is “only 50% accurate.” Coin flipping is actually completely inaccurate, because the result of the coin flip bears no relation to the question being asked, and will even give different answers each time we flip, even to the same question, without any variation accross different questions. Coin flipping is not really a valid method of determining the truth of propositions at all.
And I don’t think it’s “intolerant” to point that out. Likewise, if people make arguements as to why religious inquiry is just not suited to finding the truth of varoius things about the world around us, there is no de facto reason to think that they are being “intolerant.” Some methods of inquiry really ARE better than others for particular goals.
My dictionary is pretty handy. It says epistemology is “the study or theory of the nature,sources and limits of knowledge”. More on that later in this post.
The drift of my post, was essentially “Yeah, so what?” Are there any implications of your view in terms of how this should affect the practice of science or public policy? What do you mean by tolerance?
The part you latched onto was essentially an afterthought.
No, the assumption that searching for knowledge through experimentation is the best way.
Possibly, but I don’t know this would be the best place or time. I don’t really have the time to defend this view right now, but since you seem to be curious, I will elaborate a little more.
In my view, the epistemology of science is based on empirical methods (with the notable exception of mathematics, which can use logic alone). I think that empirical evidence has it’s weaknesses which should be supplemented by self analysis(aka “navel gazing”). The tools for this analysis could include knowledge from the “softer” sciences such as sociology and philosophy and possibly insight from mental disciplines such as meditation. Science is supposed to find useful results. Well, I wonder: useful for who and by what criterion? Science essentially gained it’s current form in a particular geographic location with a certain cultural background.
Empericism supposes a world “out there” viewed by a subjective observer. The view of the observer was overhauled by relativity and reached a critical point with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the wave/particle duality of light. When we “observe” we are actually affecting the world. The anwers we find are affected by what questions we ask.
I think that if we are truly interested in reaching a truth of some sort, we have to understand why we are asking the questions that we ask so that we know how to ask them better. These ideas are not new and there is some momentum for them already, but it’s not moving as swiftly or as comprehensively as I would like.
kabloomie, if I say to you “you were just hit by a comet”, will you believe me? Hardly. Few religions tell us that YOU ARE NOT EXPERIENCING WHAT YOU ARE EXPERIENCING! Which would be a pretty daftly paradoxical thing to say. They may tell us that what we are experience is not ultimate reality to which we should aspire. But that is not the same thing.
Although I already said this, since it seems to have missed you, I will repeat using a slight transliteration. Religion does not induce all its knowledge from the IMMEDIATE REALM OF EXPERIENCE. Science, on the other hand, does. Even when it theorizes about black holes, the Big Bang and quantum events, it induces that knowledge from WHAT WE CAN EXPERIENCE.
Induction is not some extraordinary esoteric ability endowed upon us by Men in White Robes. It’s a part of the basic construct that constitutes the human mind. Whether you are atheist, Jewish, Catholic or Buddhist you will use induction from the moment you are born until the day you die.
The only way in which religion and science are fruits on the same tree is that they are products of the human mind. That’s about it. Beyond that, we are talking about two very fundamentally different epistemic systems. And note that in many instances science does not contradict religion.
Science is about the seemingly inescapable Matrix in which we live and die. Religion (within its metaphysical layer) is about the world beyond it. Some of us shrug our shoulders and say “I don’t think there is anything beyond this Matrix”. Others choose an ambitious exploration of the Inexplicable Beyond.
I think you’re wrong in assuming that people who respect science as the quintessential tool for understanding the here and now are intolerant of religious beliefs. Those who are truly intimate with science know and appreciate its limitations. And just because I reject that the world was created in seven days doesn’t mean I reject the possibility of God. We’re even forced to seriously ponder whether (as Libertarian has been trying to show us) the existence of God must necessarily be induced from the very way we think.
I gotta admit kabloomie, I’m not sure what your point is.
On one read you seem to be saying that since science is limited as a means of gaining knowledge (and we all seem to agree on this point) that it follows that any means that claims knowledge should be equally acceptable. Sort of the “well since you can’t 100% prove that is correct then my belief in pixies in the flowers is equally valid” school of thought. In matters of science empirical evidence rules. Religious tracts are not admissible. If someone’s religion states that the Earth was created last week and that all perception of history before that is an illusion implanted in our minds by the superintelligent hive mind of bacteria that created us as petrie dishes for them, and his evidence is his Holy CD-ROM in which the bacteria revealed their purpose unto him alone, well, I may not accept that as equal to scientific methods as an understanding of the world. Would you have that I do? Would you have it be taught in the schools as an equal theory to evolution?
On another read I hear you say that science is intolerant of religion. And certainly some who are intolerant of religion use science to butress their positions. And some who are religious see science as studying the means by which God has caused the universe to occur. Some of us who think like that believe that God is beyond our direct understanding, that God is in the reality that is, but which we never actually know, and that the best we can do is to study God’s wake, so to speak, that which we can percieve, the reality of the experienced universe. And in so doing we indirectly get to know God. And then some who are religious see science (and shared secular beliefs in general) as a threat to their beliefs.
Scientists are theists and atheists and agnostics, just like everyone else. Some atheists have tolerance for theism and some religious individuals have tolerance for atheists. And some of each do not.
DSeid
Yes, I’m reading with great interest. Speaking only for myself, I’m not capable of faith. I consider my faith to be a gift from God. Even given my own experience, there is insufficient grounds for faith. Famed neurosurgeon and experimenter, V.S. Ramachandran, MD, PhD, wrote in Phantoms in the Brain about an apparent connection between faith and the limbic system (see the chapter titled “God and the Limbic System”). Cautioning against interpreting the data subjectively, he said:
Emphasis mine.
As Jesus said, man is a dual being: born of water (physical birth) and born of the spirit (spiritual birth). It wasn’t until the latter for me that I had faith in God.
Okay, I don’t know if I can get to everything (espcially with another thread going), but to get a few points:
I never said science was intolerant of religion, only that some “scientists” are–and that only to the same extant that some religious followers are intolerant of followers of another religion.
I don’t disagree that empirical methods are the only scientific way to go.
ethnicallynot–
“Some of us shrug our shoulders and say “I don’t think there is anything beyond this Matrix”. Others choose an ambitious exploration of the Inexplicable Beyond.”
This is exactly what I mean! Thank you. Starting from abseloute zero, some people choose to accept this seeming reality within its own limits. Other people explore beyond. This is the point of division, the root of both science and other religions.
Should I keep calling science a religion? Is it too confusing? Certainly it can get people confused about what I do mean.
I’m having trouble re-saying what I already said in a new manner, but I feel like nobody’s got the point. Perhaps, then (to step beyond myself here), I am not making a coherent point. Well, can somebody take a stab at understanding my madness?
To try again. Many people here believe in science and in a “religion,” right? But their order of preference goes “First, I believe what Science tells me. Then I believe what [insert doctrine] tells me.”
Now, science has a “doctrine” of empricial evidence, right? But this hasn’t kept science from being wrong. It corrects itself later, of course, but still we must admit that in all likelyhood it is wrong about something now (even though it thinks its right). But, there is no unilateral “science.” Different scientists have different views. However, in the end, most issues will be resolved. People will come to agreement.
Okay. Run through that again: Religion has a “doctrine” of [insert religious doctrine]. But this hasn’t kept Religion from being wrong. It corrects itself later, of course, but still we must admit that in all likelihood it is wrong about something now (even though it thinks its right). But, there is no unilateral “Religion.” Different [theologians of this general leaning] have different views. However, in the end, most issues will be resolved. People will come to agreement.
Okay, I don’t know if I can get to everything (espcially with another thread going), but to get a few points:
I never said science was intolerant of religion, only that some “scientists” are–and that only to the same extant that some religious followers are intolerant of followers of another religion.
I don’t disagree that empirical methods are the only scientific way to go.
ethnicallynot–
“Some of us shrug our shoulders and say “I don’t think there is anything beyond this Matrix”. Others choose an ambitious exploration of the Inexplicable Beyond.”
This is exactly what I mean! Thank you. Starting from abseloute zero, some people choose to accept this seeming reality within its own limits. Other people explore beyond. This is the point of division, the root of both science and other religions.
Should I keep calling science a religion? Is it too confusing? Certainly it can get people confused about what I do mean.
I’m having trouble re-saying what I already said in a new manner, but I feel like nobody’s got the point. Perhaps, then (to step beyond myself here), I am not making a coherent point. Well, can somebody take a stab at understanding my madness?
To try again. Many people here believe in science and in a “religion,” right? But their order of preference goes “First, I believe what Science tells me. Then I believe what [insert doctrine] tells me.”
Now, science has a “doctrine” of empricial evidence, right? But this hasn’t kept science from being wrong. It corrects itself later, of course, but still we must admit that in all likelyhood it is wrong about something now (even though it thinks its right). But, there is no unilateral “science.” Different scientists have different views. However, in the end, most issues will be resolved. People will come to agreement.
Okay. Run through that again: Religion has a “doctrine” of [insert religious doctrine]. But this hasn’t kept Religion from being wrong. It corrects itself later, of course, but still we must admit that in all likelihood it is wrong about something now (even though it thinks its right). But, there is no unilateral “Religion.” Different [theologians of this general leaning] have different views. However, in the end, most issues will be resolved. People will come to agreement.
Okay, I don’t know if I can get to everything (espcially with another thread going), but to get a few points:
I never said science was intolerant of religion, only that some “scientists” are–and that only to the same extant that some religious followers are intolerant of followers of another religion.
I don’t disagree that empirical methods are the only scientific way to go.
ethnicallynot–
“Some of us shrug our shoulders and say “I don’t think there is anything beyond this Matrix”. Others choose an ambitious exploration of the Inexplicable Beyond.”
This is exactly what I mean! Thank you. Starting from abseloute zero, some people choose to accept this seeming reality within its own limits. Other people explore beyond. This is the point of division, the root of both science and other religions.
Should I keep calling science a religion? Is it too confusing? Certainly it can get people confused about what I do mean.
I’m having trouble re-saying what I already said in a new manner, but I feel like nobody’s got the point. Perhaps, then (to step beyond myself here), I am not making a coherent point. Well, can somebody take a stab at understanding my madness?
To try again. Many people here believe in science and in a “religion,” right? But their order of preference goes “First, I believe what Science tells me. Then I believe what [insert doctrine] tells me.”
Now, science has a “doctrine” of empricial evidence, right? But this hasn’t kept science from being wrong. It corrects itself later, of course, but still we must admit that in all likelyhood it is wrong about something now (even though it thinks its right). But, there is no unilateral “science.” Different scientists have different views. However, in the end, most issues will be resolved. People will come to agreement.
Okay. Run through that again: Religion has a “doctrine” of [insert religious doctrine]. But this hasn’t kept Religion from being wrong. It corrects itself later, of course, but still we must admit that in all likelihood it is wrong about something now (even though it thinks its right). But, there is no unilateral “Religion.” Different [theologians of this general leaning] have different views. However, in the end, most issues will be resolved. People will come to agreement.
(Double Post: I think the double-post is occuring when I am getting an error message and trying to post again. Sorry for confusion.)
—Starting from abseloute zero, some people choose to accept this seeming reality within its own limits. Other people explore beyond. This is the point of division, the root of both science and other religions.—
The problem is when people take their methods for exploring whatever “beyond” they think there is, and start claiming that they are actual methods for exploring “this seeming reality.”
Please tell me: how, via religious inquiry alone, you’d go about examining which neural pathways control hand movements, and which foot movements?