# Science=Opium v 2.0? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 4, 2002, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913 "2002-09-04T03:49:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913/81 "2002-09-09T00:48:00Z")
David Simmons: > [@](#): > > Comfort from science very likely to come and go because science evolves. It is unlikely to happen in religion because it is static. > The two different purposes will always separate religion from science for me. Actually the comfort that comes from science exists precisely _because_ science evolves. If people believed that our current scientific theories were the final answers, they would not be comforted, because they are seen as insufficient. But science will keep evolving. More accurate and detailed predictions and explanations will keep being created. This means that people are able to think of uncomfortable things as things that science will someday explain, and this is comforting. For example, it is uncomfortable to think that sane humans decide to murder, so jurors may accept the idea that the killer entered a biologically explainable trance-like state. “I’m sure we will one day have a scientific explanation for this murder.” This leads into another area where science can provide comfort. People with the knowledge that science will advance, and with the knowledge that current scientific theories are beginning to explain many choices, can extrapolate that in the future all choices will be explained scientifically, thus taking away individual responsibility (in their opinion). “This choice was caused by biology, there was nothing I could do.” So yes, science can have an opiate effect. I never said it was equivalent to religion, and of course it isn’t. My whole point is that science can be an opiate for the masses just as religion was. This does not mean science equals religion, any more than it means science equals opium. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913/82 "2002-09-09T01:23:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Logical Phallacy \* > **…We’re talking about 10s of 100s of hours of information drilled into these guys…** The word you’re looking for here is _thousands_ (1000s). 😃 ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913/83 "2002-09-09T01:43:44Z")
> [@](#): > > You’ve claimed in previous threads that in order for science to function one must take as religiously axiomatic certain “truths” about the world and work from there. **JS Princeton** , I don’t believe that at all. I believe the formulation of science which implies that science never proves anything is where the problem lies, and _also_ in the notion of indisputable truths (conveniently, most science discussions involve this very conception, by on one hand denoting the problem of [incomplete] induction and simultaneously allowing for the transcendence of logic and mathematics). I’ve just picked up Popper’s magnum opus on the subject so I may state my objections more clearly. I trust neither of us are going anywhere? 🙂 (Of course, I did that inductively :p) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913/84 "2002-09-09T04:31:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nightime \* > **But science will keep evolving. More accurate and detailed predictions and explanations will keep being created. This means that people are able to think of uncomfortable things as things that science will someday explain, and this is comforting** I guess this is true as long as you are willing to be satisfied with the scientific explanation, when it comes, even if that explanation is pretty grim in human terms. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2002, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913/85 "2002-09-11T13:32:31Z")
> [@](#): > > _Richard Dawkins:_ > Science is not religion and it doesn’t just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion’s virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. > > Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as examplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists. > > On reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have belief that is based solely on faith, I can’t examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can’t reach you. > [@](#): > > _Sacramento Philosophy Professor [Robert Carroll:](http://www.skepdic.com/homepage.html)_ > Science is simply a logical process of discovering truths about the world we live in; the illusion is that science is some sort of a set of strange rules, a religion that speaks algebra or a magical group of incantations and spells. > [@](#): > > _L.J. Henderson:_ > Science is the gathering of reproducible facts. > [@](#): > > _Philip K. Dick:_ > Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. And, last, but not least: > [@](#): > > _Homer Simpson:_ > Oh, sure, you can use FACTS to prove ANYTHING that’s even REMOTELY true! A short list of [QUOTES & DEFINITIONS ABOUT GOD, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, MORTALITY, TIME, WAR, SCIENCE & SEX] ([http://doorbell.net/tlr/god.htm](http://doorbell.net/tlr/god.htm)) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2002, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913/86 "2002-09-11T19:12:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Science is simply a logical process of discovering truths about the world we live in; the illusion is that science is some sort of a set of strange rules, a religion that speaks algebra or a magical group of incantations and spells. “Simply a logical process”?!? Again: the transcendence of logic and its synthesis with _truth_ is supposed to be obvious by inspection? Much of Popper’s book so far (The Logic of Scientific Discovery) has been a determined attack on psychologism, positivism, and a brushing aside of induction (quite literally). I must say I am **personally very impressed** with the book, it is a powerfully descriptive system of a methodology that we may name, among other things, science. But in trying to sidestep the problem of induction, he has found himself in a position of asserting the purity of logic (and math, and their underlying motivations in set theoretical formulatoins), and never demonstrates how it is that these tautological “devices” (though he would hate that word ;)) can apply _at all_ to empirical research. He asserts _an empirical theory_ (that is, a theory of science, _t_ [that’s a variable]) which is to be used _deductively_. That is awful magical to me. I remain unclear on his separation of _meaning_ from _theories_, epistemologically speaking. He defines a theory well enough without induction _provided we already understand the meaning of the words, symbols, and relations_ used for definition. As such, he pushes the problem of induction out of _science_ and into the realm of _learning science_ [actually, learning _anything_, but on-topic here]. Cunning. At the Friesian website we find a similar “burden of proof” shifting against Hume (which Popper seems to “start” from, which is good enough IMO). The man was unquestionably (to me) smart, and approached scientific research without the use of induction directly, which is a monumental achievement. But his use of _falsifiability_ as opposed to _verifiability_ [reference the Dawkins quote above for some irony, IMO] in order to dodge the problem of induction left (to use a metaphor) the empirical knowledge-set **empty**. As such, I maintain that this approach to empirical systems is epistemological nihilism, something he seems to never mention thus far (I’m more or less finished with the book right now, it is quick, but terse, reading). His system is at least deductively consistent, but it can never be anything else since it never adds to the body of knoweldge. Given his own admission that the set of possible theories is infinite, his program of _elimination through falsification_ never adds _anything_ to our knowledge. This much, he admits. It is a wonder, then, that he considers this _an addition to epistemology_. I find it to be a somewhat well-defined methodological behavior whose purpose lies outside of the system in the realm of metaphysical speech. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2002, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913/87 "2002-09-11T21:30:01Z")
Popper… Brilliant guy; utterly reductive. It’s tired, but I much prefer Kuhn over him. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2002, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913/88 "2002-09-11T22:05:06Z")
Got any reading recommendations, **JS Princeton**? I’m always game. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2002, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913/89 "2002-09-12T01:15:26Z")
I’m afraid most of what you just said, **erislover,** went high over my head (MEGO syndrome). But this: > [@](#): > > Given his [Popper’s] own admission that the set of possible theories is infinite, his program of elimination through falsification never adds anything to our knowledge… This one I think I understand, but can’t agree with. If there are 10 theories about something, and applying falsification to the problem eliminates half of them, we _have_ learned something. And if 9 of the 10 are eliminated, we have learned _a lot._ We might have even learned the truth. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2002, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913/90 "2002-09-12T13:54:36Z")
> [@](#): > > If there are 10 theories about something, and applying falsification to the problem eliminates half of them, we have learned something. The problem is, the act of falsification is _also_ open to falsification. The rejection of a theory is a theory of rejection, and so _it_ is never certain either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-opium-v-2-0/126913.md?page=4)