Scientism, good or bad?

[errata]

*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic *
What is the point of this vague generalization, besides possibly setting up a defense of religious mysticism?

To curb precisely this sort of reaction which precludes a critical examination. It seems to me from your reaction that you know little about religion aside from bible thumpers and creation science advocates.

No, religions have always been constructed on a combination of observation, ignorance and faith(blind or otherwise)…even pre-abrahamic ones.

Religions evolved from humanity’s curiousity and subsequent explanations of the world. Saying they were built on ignorance displays your own.

Tell me about the “pre-abrahamic” religions you’re drawing your conclusions from. Use specifics.

This is like saying “Modern medicine grew effortlessly from tribal shamanism/voodoo/ju-ju”.As a whole it is not true.Specific observations may have been made by astrologers prior to the advent of astronomy just as some actual medicinal benefits were stumbled upon by witch-doctors.

I suppose you find Keppler’s explanation of the ratio of the planetary orbits completely rational then.

I disagree.Perhaps not all religionists have always refered to it as “faith” but faith is a necessity for spiritual belief because rationality does not support such.

Did it take faith for instance to believe that the world was flat? Now it would, but given most people’s observations, there was no reason to doubt it. Nowadays it takes faith to believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, but 2 thousand years ago when it goes beyond your culture’s written history, there was no rational reason to doubt it.

The capacity to concieve of the universe in strictly material terms and following a set of predictable laws is a learned framework. Without that framework, spirits are completely rational and can provide an important way of discussing concepts that otherwise may not have been addressable. Spririts were not imaginary flights of fancy like cartoon characters, they were ways of structuring the world that were very real and perceptible to people.

If I was to tell a person 2 thousand years ago that their sense of awareness sprung from tiny particles interacting with each other they would consider me mad. What would an atom mean to them? Absolutely nothing. They didn’t have electron microscopes. Spirits offered more explanatory power in their daily lives and required fewer suppositions.

To say that those people were simply exercising ignorance, shows little understanding of the problems they faced and how they were resolved.

Religion has ALWAYS been a hindrance to science and the pursuit of understanding our reality.Don’t get me wrong…I recognise the evolutionary role that superstition has played in humanity’s survival.Someone who believed that evil spirits were roaming about at night was less likely to wander into a tar pit or bear’s cave, but that does not mean that the method of being superstitious is comparable to SM.

Firstly, it’s this sort of childish characterization of various traditions in many cultures of which you are apparently not well educated in, that I’m addressing. Secondly, there’s no “method of being superstitious” at least not that I know of. Please elaborate on this if you can.

It was Erastothenes, 2200 years ago who used the scientific method(and two sticks) to deduce the shape and circumfrence of the earth and yet religion managed to supress this knowledge for nearly another two millenia.

And what religion was this?

You are correct.Whatever “meaning” you would like to think your life has is quite beyond the scope of science to answer.

We’ve found a point of agreement, great.

Generally speaking this may be true but it is also wrong.It is presuppositional to think there is a “why” in te first place and if there is not, then it is not surprising that science is unable to tell us what the “why” is.

Yet we will ask the “why” anyway, and most will be quite dissatisfied without an anwer. If brought up in a Judeo-Christian background, in a modern context, I think many will look towards science to find the Truth with capital “T”.

I am content to know the “how”.I do not think myself important to the universe or reality as a whole beyond whatever effects my actions have on the lives of others.

And “why” are you content? Where you not before? Did you seek and find an answer?

Again, generally this is true of the psychological make-up of humans but it is also wrong.Humans are compelled to invent new boogeymen and fairies as science exposes the areas where the old boogeymen and fairies were thought to exist but we do not NEED to do this.We only think we do.Recognising the truths of the universe does not cancel out our sense of wonder!Why should it?

Well it could close our minds to new ideas or lead to believe that there’s only one important way of looking at the world.

I have heard this charge many times but I have seldom even read of a case that could be in any way construed as “scientism”(some examples can be found in the infighting between several early paleontologists during the Piltdown man escapade).

I would hardly level it against most scientist going about their work as scientists. It’s more of an issue at the boundaries of science where people have blind faith in what science will “one day” achieve.

That is like saying psychics are a valuable tool in homocide investigations.Once in a great while some psychic’s guesswork turns out to be somewhat right(i.e. the body IS found near water) but nearly 100% of the time they are completely wrong.Detective work/forensics is a viable and reliable method of solving crimes.Psychicism(I know that is not a word) is NOT.

I don’t buy you’re analogy. Maybe it’s because psychics weren’t used for thousands of years to effectively find dead bodies.

You would think so but you would also be wrong.Jehova’s witnesses have been predicting the end of the world every few years for decades now as have many smaller cults.This does not even begin to phase a believer because of the way the human belief mechanism works.We can ALWAYS find rationalizations to explain away inconsistencies.

So religions and indeed any form of thought that is not scientific is to be judged by Jehova’s witnesses? Your going to have to support that idea.

Everybody resists changes, this is not unique to religion. Einstein couldn’t accept quantum mechanics, does that mean he was irrational and ignorant?

???Are you refering to the peer review process?What are you talking about?

Somewhat. Mostly the intiation is an extensive educational process. Think PhD. There’s nothing mystical about it yet they can have the effect of mysticism on the less educated.

I am all for eviscerating anything that moves if it will save millions of my species from suffering an agonizing death due to ebola or AIDS.

Why do you believe this?Not that I don’t agree, but I’m curious what your thought process is. How would you differentiate your ideas from someone who favored animal rights? Is it just a matter of subjectivity?

No we will not!?!?Why would you look to science for your subjective morality/ethics?This would be like attending flight school to learn to cook.

The “softer” sciences of sociology, anthropology, and psychology can and are used for this purpose. Yet in meeting a multicultural needs we have reach agreements organically and adaptively and look across disciplines.

Such as?

Such as opening up dialog and achieving understanding between different cultures and ways of life which embrace science to varying degrees.

[errata]

*Originally posted by blowero *
No it’s not. Science is a method. In a nutshell, you form a hypothesis based on some sort of observation; you use the hyposthesis to make predictions, and you test the predictions. If that’s what you’re doing, then it’s science.

This is a wholly inadequate definition. There are certain types of tests and predictions that are valid within science. If I was to predict my aura would be purple if I went into a trance state, then tested it by going into a trance state and observing my aura, I wouldn’t be practicing science. Astrology utilized direct observation of events that due to their cyclical nature allowed them to make predictions and that’s were the similarity ends.

Not at all. Logical reasoning and objective observation are what set it apart.

I fail to see how this is significantly different from what I offered.

That’s still not an example, it’s just a blithe characterization. Exactly what form of knowledge has been dismissed, and by whom? And how do you know the person who dismissed it didn’t know much about it?

Actually it was a form of address. You didn’t seem to know much about astrology yet seemed to have a very clear opinion.

The only use you have suggested so far is that the positions of the stars at certain times of the year happen to coincide with the angle of the Earth to the Sun in that particular hemisphere. I see no advantage of such a method over simply counting the days until the next planting season occurs. How do the imaginary gods that inhabit the constellations contribute to that knowledge?

Well, who’s going to count the days? Indeed, who knew how to count? The astrologers most likely. And if you lost count, how would you know? The fertility goddess doesn’t add informational content, it adds meaning and indirectly memetic value.

Yes, that’s why I never said any such thing.

Fair enough.

I don’t disagree. But I also don’t think there is a particular large contingent who are under the impression that science can solve moral problems. I think you are knocking down a strawman.

I’m not so sure. If religions are to be regarded as merely ignorance and superstition how are we to treat their traditions that fall outside of our worldview? This becomes very important wherein human rights at stake like in female “circumcision”. I don’t think we have the tools to adequately address all of these concerns yet, and we’re not going to reach any common ground if we dismiss people ways of life, adaptive strategies, and culture out of hand.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by errata *
quote:

Originally posted by blowero
No it’s not. Science is a method. In a nutshell, you form a hypothesis based on some sort of observation; you use the hyposthesis to make predictions, and you test the predictions. If that’s what you’re doing, then it’s science.

This is a wholly inadequate definition.

You do understand what “in a nutshell” means, don’t you? It means what I am offering is a summary of what the scientific method is. It was not intended as an exhaustive definition. I went to the trouble to include the words “in a nutshell”; the least you could do is read them.

There are certain types of tests and predictions that are valid within science. If I was to predict my aura would be purple if I went into a trance state, then tested it by going into a trance state and observing my aura, I wouldn’t be practicing science.

It depends. If an “aura” is an objectively observable thing, and you can demonstrate that it is indeed purple (perhaps by using a spectrometer, or even a simple photograph), then it could be scientifically valid. The key is that it must be objective data, not mere unsupported belief on your part. Meditation is not immune from scientific study; in fact Alpha waves were discovered by measuring the brain activity of people in meditative states.

quote:

Not at all. Logical reasoning and objective observation are what set it apart.

I fail to see how this is significantly different from what I offered.

Good, I’m glad you agree with me.

quote:

That’s still not an example, it’s just a blithe characterization. Exactly what form of knowledge has been dismissed, and by whom? And how do you know the person who dismissed it didn’t know much about it?

Actually it was a form of address. You didn’t seem to know much about astrology yet seemed to have a very clear opinion.

Oh, so you were saying that I “dismiss all other forms of human knowledge as worthless, superstitious claptrap without even knowing much about them”. Cute. I know that Astrology assigns various mythological characters to the various constellations, and posits certain personality traits for those born under the “sign” of a particular character. I also have never encountered any objective evidence to suggest that it is in any way remotely true. Virtually ALL the evidence for it is anecdotal. This is not scientific, period. None of the predicitions it makes can be objectively demonstrated to be true. I find it interesting that you claim I am ignorant of some alleged property of Astrology that makes it a valid way to obtain knowledge, but you have yet to divulge what this mysterious property is.

quote:

The only use you have suggested so far is that the positions of the stars at certain times of the year happen to coincide with the angle of the Earth to the Sun in that particular hemisphere. I see no advantage of such a method over simply counting the days until the next planting season occurs. How do the imaginary gods that inhabit the constellations contribute to that knowledge?

Well, who’s going to count the days? Indeed, who knew how to count? The astrologers most likely. And if you lost count, how would you know? The fertility goddess doesn’t add informational content, it adds meaning and indirectly memetic value.

I guess you’re right; farmers would have had a pretty tough time identifying when the seasons changed without believing in supernatural entities in the sky. After all, they couldn’t count, and apparently were unable to fathom things like trees changing color and the weather getting warmer.:rolleyes:

quote:

I don’t disagree. But I also don’t think there is a particular large contingent who are under the impression that science can solve moral problems. I think you are knocking down a strawman.

I’m not so sure. If religions are to be regarded as merely ignorance and superstition how are we to treat their traditions that fall outside of our worldview? This becomes very important wherein human rights at stake like in female “circumcision”.

First of all, I don’t think I ever said religions are “ignorance and superstition”. But in my opinion, that’s precisely what female “circumcision” is. It’s a barbaric religious tradition based on ignorance. But who exactly is coming to such a conclusion based on science? It’s simply an application of the Golden Rule. I wouldn’t want anyone lopping off my clitoris (if I had one), so I certainly wouldn’t do it to anyone else. I didn’t have to do a scientific experiment to come to that conclusion. So I guess I’m not following you; what is the misapplication of the principles of science that you are alleging in this case?

I don’t think we have the tools to adequately address all of these concerns yet, and we’re not going to reach any common ground if we dismiss people ways of life, adaptive strategies, and culture out of hand.

But who’s dismissing anything “out of hand”? We simply do not believe things for which there is no evidence. Dismissing it out of hand would be along the lines of, “I don’t believe that, and I never will no matter what”. This is quite a different thing from examining the evidence, finding said evidence lacking, and simply choosing not to believe pending further evidence showing up.

[GodlessSkeptic]

*Originally posted by errata *
**To curb precisely this sort of reaction which precludes a critical examination. It seems to me from your reaction that you know little about religion aside from bible thumpers and creation science advocates. **

It seems to me that you know little about ME.You cannot simply dismiss dissenting opinions and contrary observations with the standard “Oh you have only known of the ‘bad’/untrue religions and are mislead into thinking all religions are like them” bit.I may find certain religions more tolerable than others(Buddhism for example) but I do not find anything sensible about supernatural belief/spiritualism, period.

**Religions evolved from humanity’s curiousity and subsequent explanations of the world. Saying they were built on ignorance displays your own.

**

You seem to think that “ignorance” is some sort of backhanded insult!?Ignorance is simply lack of knowledge.Thinking that lightning was caused by Thor striking the anvil with Mjolnir was creative but also born of ignorance.Ditto for astrology.

**Tell me about the “pre-abrahamic” religions you’re drawing your conclusions from. Use specifics.

**

Like the Summerian mythologies(Gilgamesh etc.)?Or the mythologies of ancient Egypt?Why do you want these specifics?Are you denying that religious explanations were born of ignorance, faith and observations?

** I suppose you find Keppler’s explanation of the ratio of the planetary orbits completely rational then.**

Right now I am drawing a blank about Johanas Keppler’s work for some reason but what does this have to do with the points I made?

** Did it take faith for instance to believe that the world was flat?**

Not necessarily but it DID/does take ignorance.Just as it does to believe that the moon landing was hoaxed or that evoluition is a lie perpetrated by a small minority of vocal scientists who have some strange agenda to expell God-belief or that JFK was killed by a host of people firing from in front of his vehicle because of his “radical liberal” ideas(rolling eyes).All of that takes extreme ignorance to believe which is excusable in an age where science itself is in it’s infancy and information is not so widespread.

Today however, I have less patience for such ignorance.

** Now it would, but given most people’s observations, there was no reason to doubt it. Nowadays it takes faith to believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, but 2 thousand years ago when it goes beyond your culture’s written history, there was no rational reason to doubt it.

**

Sure there was adn many did just that.Thereason being that no one KNEW HOW OLD THE EARTH WAS!Religionists and others may well have speculated or asserted things for whatever reason but an honest intellect would have no reason to assent to any claims of the earth’s age.As i said before, I do not hold it against people of 2,000 years ago that they did not know of radiometric dating methods but to say that this ignorance was not ignorance is…well, silly!

**The capacity to concieve of the universe in strictly material terms and following a set of predictable laws is a learned framework.

**
It is an observation(or many observations) and lacking any contrary evidence to support idealism or other non-materialist notions, materialism is the rational default(as per Occam’s razor).

** Without that framework, spirits are completely rational and can provide an important way of discussing concepts that otherwise may not have been addressable.

**
Without the ‘mathematical framework’, thinking there is an even prime greater than 2 is completely rational.Doesn’t make much sense does it?Neither does what you just said.

**Spririts were not imaginary flights of fancy like cartoon characters, they were ways of structuring the world that were very real and perceptible to people.

**

Whether they were important to people or not is unimportant.They WERE imaginary flights of fancy.I disagree that humans “have to have answers, even if they are wrong answers” but even if this were so, we have no need of “spirits” and boogeymen today.

**If I was to tell a person 2 thousand years ago that their sense of awareness sprung from tiny particles interacting with each other they would consider me mad. What would an atom mean to them? Absolutely nothing. They didn’t have electron microscopes. Spirits offered more explanatory power in their daily lives and required fewer suppositions.

**

Wrong.I agree that they were ignorant of what today’s science has revealed and I do not fault them for that.But to say that, because they were ignorant, spirits adn boogeymen were valid explanations that required LESS suppositions is ridiculous.

**To say that those people were simply exercising ignorance, shows little understanding of the problems they faced and how they were resolved.

**

No one said they were “simply excercising ignorance”.That is a strawman.

**Firstly, it’s this sort of childish characterization of various traditions in many cultures of which you are apparently not well educated in, that I’m addressing. Secondly, there’s no “method of being superstitious” at least not that I know of. Please elaborate on this if you can.

**

Exactly my point!There is NO METHOD to being superstitious!

And you can drop the childish insults anytime now.If your entire argument is based upon your unfounded charge that I am not sufficiently educated to comment on the subject matter then you are in for a long day at the GD.

And what religion was this? **
[/quote]

Many.Flat-earthism and geocentricism were not exclusive to the Abrahamic faiths.

** Yet we will ask the “why” anyway, and most will be quite dissatisfied without an anwer.

**
Since when is “I do not know” an unsatifactory answer when one in fact does not know?Does this sort of reasoning apply to all aspects of life?IF a cop asks me if anyone ran through my backyard while I was in the shower should I say “Yeah!A one-armed man!”.

** If brought up in a Judeo-Christian background, in a modern context, I think many will look towards science to find the Truth with capital “T”.

**

What the hell does that mean?

**And “why” are you content? Where you not before? Did you seek and find an answer?

**

???I have no idea what you mean here.

**Well it could close our minds to new ideas or lead to believe that there’s only one important way of looking at the world.

**

Define “important way of looking at the world” and tell me what this has to do with science.How does science close our minds to new ideas?

** I would hardly level it against most scientist going about their work as scientists. It’s more of an issue at the boundaries of science where people have blind faith in what science will “one day” achieve.

**

Again, I have not encountered any such scientists.I do not know of any who will say it is certain we will exist at all in ten years, let alone whether we will have this or that!

** I don’t buy you’re analogy. Maybe it’s because psychics weren’t used for thousands of years to effectively find dead bodies.**

What does that have to do with the unreliability and inconsistency of psychic “ability”(re:cold-reading, mentallist stage magic, outright guessing etc.) ?

**So religions and indeed any form of thought that is not scientific is to be judged by Jehova’s witnesses? Your going to have to support that idea.

**

The JW’s were one example(obviously), not a standard.Pay attention to context when replying friend.The point is that making false predictions as the invested holyman/clergy of a particular religion will not do much to invalidate that religion in the eyes of it’s adherants.We are pattern-seeking animals and will ALWAYS find evidence to support our beliefs, even where none exists.

**Everybody resists changes, this is not unique to religion. Einstein couldn’t accept quantum mechanics, does that mean he was irrational and ignorant?

**

No.It means he was either stubborn or he was RIGHT(*wink).

** Somewhat. Mostly the intiation is an extensive educational process. Think PhD. There’s nothing mystical about it yet they can have the effect of mysticism on the less educated.**

SO you are equating “extensive education” with religious indoctrination adn further asserting that, not only are there people who will engage in blind faith because of psuedo-mystical reverence for a scientist but also that it is science’s fault for such individuals?!?

**Why do you believe this?Not that I don’t agree, but I’m curious what your thought process is. How would you differentiate your ideas from someone who favored animal rights? Is it just a matter of subjectivity?

**

In an ideal world…a utopian world, there would no no reason or justification for exploiting other living things for the benefit of a particular(dominant) species.

We do not live in that world.

Given a choice between my species’ continued survival and the relative comfort/lack of suffering of another species, my loyalties are clear.I used to be one of the so-called “loony left”.I was a vegan and all that that entails.Skepticism and dogmaticism are terribly incompatible and so I was forced off of my high horse of moral conviction by the cold lance of rationality.

** The “softer” sciences of sociology, anthropology, and psychology can and are used for this purpose. **

They serve to explain/discover WHY we believe the things we believe and behave as we do.They do NOT attempt to “build a better morality”.

** Yet in meeting a multicultural needs we have reach agreements organically and adaptively and look across disciplines.

Such as opening up dialog and achieving understanding between different cultures and ways of life which embrace science to varying degrees. **

I am not against anyone’s culture per se.I am contending the notion that superstition/mysticism adn the like are on par with science and are as valid as science in the search for knowledge and understanding.Religion and mysticism/paranormalist beliefs may well provide comfort to the believer, but they do not offer knowledge through their specific tenets & practices.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Joe Random *
You make it sound like you have to be looking for electrons before the data shows that they exist, and that is simply untrue.

Data is only meaningful in a theory. There comes a point when the tail wags the dog in science and everyone pretends (well, not everyone) that it doesn’t happen.

The objective data was observerd first, sans model, and the model was created from that data.

I think that is overly simplistic. Data is meaningless without a model to interpret it; the model is useless without data we can expect to find. But that isn’t to say models pop up from purely objective evidence alone.

I’d say that there is a 99.9999% chance that electrons exist. They may be the result of multi-dimensional brane vibrations, but they would still exist.

Useless. There’s data that fits a theory that discusses “things” called “electrons”. Unless science is oracular, electrons aren’t said to exist. Unless the theory is true it doesn’t talk about something like existence. Two steps: the theory predicts events or makes descriptions, and we believe the theory. People like to pretend the second part isn’t “really” part of science, that science is just a method. But that’s why I ask: method for what? You have to start making some metaphysical assumptions to get off the ground in science.

So you contend that science can never show that anything exists?

If we resign ourselves to the notion that “Science never proves anything”, yes, I do. But I don’t resign myself to that notion.

That’s what science does, and if there were enough objective evidence for the existance of ghosts, then science could demonstrate that they exist.

Naw, you’d just believe it.

But we are in a perpetual state of ignorance. There is always something that we don’t know. You make that sound like a bad thing, and I don’t think that it is. We are constantly refining our knowledge, that’s all.

Ignorance can be said to be a state of learning; that’s a good thing. But if what you learn is that you can’t learn anything, well, no, that’s not a good thing.

[Joe_Random]

*Originally posted by erislover *
Data is only meaningful in a theory.

Not exactly. Sometimes data is found that supports an existing theory, that is true. However, sometimes data is found that cannot be explained by current theories, and thus new theories are born.

True, the data is used to create theories, and thus all data is eventually used in a theory. However, data that falls outside of current theories is the most useful, and thus data that is not being used in a theory is more meaningful than data being used in a theory.

I think that is overly simplistic. Data is meaningless without a model to interpret it; the model is useless without data we can expect to find. But that isn’t to say models pop up from purely objective evidence alone.

Not solely from objective evidence, no. Theories pop up from interpretations of anomolous data, or, sometimes, from novel mathematical manipulations of current models and existing data.

Useless. There’s data that fits a theory that discusses “things” called “electrons”. Unless science is oracular, electrons aren’t said to exist. Unless the theory is true it doesn’t talk about something like existence. Two steps: the theory predicts events or makes descriptions, and we believe the theory. People like to pretend the second part isn’t “really” part of science, that science is just a method. But that’s why I ask: method for what? You have to start making some metaphysical assumptions to get off the ground in science.

Of course. “Truth” is a pretty subjective concept. However, it makes perfect sense to me that when everyone who ever attempts a particular scientific experiment gets the same results, said experiment must hold some “truth” reguarding our shared reality.

You seem to think that, unless science can make 100% oracular statements about reality, that we have no reason to believe that any scientific theory is “true”. I ask you this: Do I exist? You can see my posts, but how do you know that I’m really a person and not some figment fo your imagination; a detailed hallucination?

If you say that I exist based on the evidence, then science can say that electrons exist, again, based on the evidence.

If we resign ourselves to the notion that “Science never proves anything”, yes, I do. But I don’t resign myself to that notion.

Why not? A proof of something must be 100% true and can never be contradicted. Science never gives 100% predictions. Mathematics proves things, but science does not.

If you still believe that science proves things, then please, tell me how. By what method are things proven scientifically?

Naw, you’d just believe it.

You’re not making any sense. First you say that you believe that science can prove things, and then you say that science can’t prove that ghosts exist. Which one is it? Can science prove things, or can’t it?

**Ignorance can be said to be a state of learning; that’s a good thing. But if what you learn is that you can’t learn anything, well, no, that’s not a good thing. **

It’s not that we can’t learn anything, just that we can’t learn everything. That doesn’t mean that learning is pointless. Some people like to travel and see different locations on this little planet of ours. They know that they’ll never see everything, but that doesn’t mean that they should never leave the house, does it?

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Joe Random *
Not exactly. Sometimes data is found that supports an existing theory, that is true. However, sometimes data is found that cannot be explained by current theories, and thus new theories are born.

That data doesn’t say anything until it is incorporated into a theory, though. That’s the power… and the problem.

Of course. “Truth” is a pretty subjective concept. However, it makes perfect sense to me that when everyone who ever attempts a particular scientific experiment gets the same results, said experiment must hold some “truth” reguarding our shared reality.

Exactly. But what truth? Science as a method won’t tell you. But that is why you do science. Which is why I think any theory of science that fails to take that into account is sophistry.

You seem to think that, unless science can make 100% oracular statements about reality, that we have no reason to believe that any scientific theory is “true”.

As long as one accepts the idea that this method called “science” never proves anything then yes, we have no reason to think science is true. Certainty in truths is circular reasoning at best.

I ask you this: Do I exist? You can see my posts, but how do you know that I’m really a person and not some figment fo your imagination; a detailed hallucination?

::shrug:: I have a theory that accounts for the data. Part of that theory gives bounds for things like “truth”, “proven”, “believable”, and so on. I, personally, would never engage in investigative behavior if I knew from the outset that I would add nothing to my knowledge set no matter how hard I tried.

If you still believe that science proves things, then please, tell me how. By what method are things proven scientifically?

The same manner anything is proven: by marked standards and inter-subjective agreement. Truth, to me, is more than subjective, less than objective, and transitory with respect to (and from within) the conditions in which things are defined as true. If we never care to define true, I see no reason to investigate reality. Just because science isn’t done exactly like geometry is done doesn’t mean one can’t prove things. This is what I mean by “setting the bar too low.”

You’re not making any sense. First you say that you believe that science can prove things, and then you say that science can’t prove that ghosts exist. Which one is it? Can science prove things, or can’t it?

If one rejects, as I do, the notion that “science never proves anything” then yes, it can. In fact, that’s why people engage in scientific activity—they are looking for something. And they are pleased when they find it. And they adjust their behavior, and they create things, based on their investigations. It has many of the hallmarks of truth; what it lacks is an oracular quality. But that’s why I say belief “sets the bar too high”: there is no oracle, and even if there was, we would still have to decide whether or not to listen to it.

It’s not that we can’t learn anything, just that we can’t learn everything.

Without truth, what have you learned?

[Joe_Random]

*Originally posted by erislover *
Exactly. But what truth? Science as a method won’t tell you. But that is why you do science. Which is why I think any theory of science that fails to take that into account is sophistry.

The search for “truth” contains two parts, one objective, and one subjective (IMHO). Firstly, there is the search for objective evidence. I don’t believe that something can be correctly reguarded as “true” with no evidence.

Secondly, we have the existing beliefs and “truth thresholds” of individual people. This is subjective, as different people reqire differing amounts of evidence before they consider something as “truth”.

The latter portion of the search for truth cannot be standardized, since it is subjective. The former part, however, can be standardized, and it becomes what we call “science”.

In other words, science is the objective facet of our search for truth. It is a means, not an end unto itself.

If we never care to define true, I see no reason to investigate reality. Just because science isn’t done exactly like geometry is done doesn’t mean one can’t prove things. This is what I mean by "setting the bar too low."

But science is only part of the picture. Any given scientific theory can be either accepted or rejected as truth depending on the individual. This is not to say that science is subjective. Rather, truth contains a subjective component.

From this point of view, science can’t prove things, because to prove something with science would be to make a statement about some truth of the universe, and science alone isn’t enough for a person to assign truth values to things.

Please note that I’m using a different meaning of “prove” with science than I would with, say, geometry. In math, there is a process for creating a “proof”, but it proves nothing about reality, only about geometry. It is self-contained.

**Without truth, what have you learned? **

I really think that this discussion would make more sense if we came to some sort of agreement as to how to define “truth”. We both appear to agree that defining “truth” requires a subjective component. However, you seem to be of the opinion that there is a subjective side to science that is used to determine truth, while I maintain that it is the scientists who are subjective, not the science.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

*Originally posted by errata *
**The experts you referred to were experts in evolution not the philosophy of science. **

You’re kidding, right? Have you read anything by Gould? Discussion of science philosophy is one of his major topics!

It may not have said “Philosopher of Science” on his business cards, but he still discussed it quite a bit.

[Epimetheus]

*Originally posted by erislover *
[Without truth, what have you learned? **

This says it all, though the lack of capitalization comes as a bit of surprise. What is generally meant by Truth translates into God, Godess, enlightenment, etc etc. These kinds of arguments break down into- My philosphy/way of seeing thing is Truth, yours doesn’t contain my Truths so yours is in error.

Pathetic really.

[errata]

*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic *
I may find certain religions more tolerable than others(Buddhism for example) but I do not find anything sensible about supernatural belief/spiritualism, period.

They wouldn’t be sensible for you, no.

You seem to think that “ignorance” is some sort of backhanded insult!?Ignorance is simply lack of knowledge.Thinking that lightning was caused by Thor striking the anvil with Mjolnir was creative but also born of ignorance.Ditto for astrology.

If by ignorance you simply mean a lack of knowledge, then couldn’t you say the same about science?

Like the Summerian mythologies(Gilgamesh etc.)?Or the mythologies of ancient Egypt?Why do you want these specifics?Are you denying that religious explanations were born of ignorance, faith and observations?

Could depend upon what you really mean by ignorance. Outside of the edges of evangelical religions, I don’t believe what we consider “faith” was largely necessary. Maybe we should clarify faith, as I would term faith as a way of overcoming cognitive dissonance wherein one’s beliefs are not supported by ones perception’s of the world.

I am asserting that many religions/philosophies did not have that cognitive dissonance because their beliefs reflected what they knew about the natural world.

Simply mentioning the names of those religions doesn’t prove your point.

Right now I am drawing a blank about Johanas Keppler’s work for some reason but what does this have to do with the points I made?

Keppler based some of his astronomical ideas on the symmetrical tendencies of a creator god yet still managed to contribute excellently to scientific knowledge. The points where “superstition” and science met I think are a little fuzzier than you would imagine.

It is an observation(or many observations) and lacking any contrary evidence to support idealism or other non-materialist notions, materialism is the rational default(as per Occam’s razor).

Occam’s razor is an excellent tool for the philosophy of science. It doesn’t set the “rational default” for all of humanity and I don’t think it really tries to.

Wrong.I agree that they were ignorant of what today’s science has revealed and I do not fault them for that.But to say that, because they were ignorant, spirits adn boogeymen were valid explanations that required LESS suppositions is ridiculous.

I don’t think so. Atoms are not intuitively a better explanation without the science and technical apparati to support it.

And you can drop the childish insults anytime now.

I wasn’t trying call your characterization’s themselves childish but meant that you characterized religion as childish. Maybe that clears things up. I wasn’t trying to insult you.

Many.Flat-earthism and geocentricism were not exclusive to the Abrahamic faiths.

That doesn’t mean they would or did suppress the knowledge.

Since when is “I do not know” an unsatifactory answer when one in fact does not know?

It’s unsatisfactory when you want to know.

What the hell does that mean?

After leaving behind something with all of the answers, one probably feels a psychological vacuum where they once were. If science discredits the religion, it may seem like the natural place to turn to find those answers.

Define “important way of looking at the world” and tell me what this has to do with science.How does science close our minds to new ideas?

I’m not saying that mere existence of science closes minds. It’s the natural human tendency to want answers, definite answers.

There are many ways to view the world depending on context. For example, there’s an emotional way which is important for our happiness and interaction with other humans. Neuronal interactions alone don’t tell us why we like pie or each other. Faith that it will, is scientism.

Again, I have not encountered any such scientists.I do not know of any who will say it is certain we will exist at all in ten years, let alone whether we will have this or that!

I was not talking about scientists in particular.

We are pattern-seeking animals and will ALWAYS find evidence to support our beliefs, even where none exists.

I can agree on that.

SO you are equating “extensive education” with religious indoctrination adn further asserting that, not only are there people who will engage in blind faith because of psuedo-mystical reverence for a scientist but also that it is science’s fault for such individuals?!?

No accusations leveled against science, it’s just human nature.

Given a choice between my species’ continued survival and the relative comfort/lack of suffering of another species, my loyalties are clear.I used to be one of the so-called “loony left”.I was a vegan and all that that entails.Skepticism and dogmaticism are terribly incompatible and so I was forced off of my high horse of moral conviction by the cold lance of rationality.

So, would you say your view is rational as opposed to subjective?

They serve to explain/discover WHY we believe the things we believe and behave as we do.They do NOT attempt to “build a better morality”.

I hope the sciences never attempts to build a “better morality”, but on a personal level when people form their opinions about the world and how to treat each other, they will rely on information gleaned from science. I know that sociology, anthropology, and pychology have influenced my opinions on ethics.

I am not against anyone’s culture per se.I am contending the notion that superstition/mysticism adn the like are on par with science and are as valid as science in the search for knowledge and understanding.Religion and mysticism/paranormalist beliefs may well provide comfort to the believer, but they do not offer knowledge through their specific tenets & practices.

On the cosmological level, science necessarily disagrees with religions, but on a spiritual level, science is and should remain mute.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Joe Random *
In other words, science is the objective facet of our search for truth.

I think “objective” is still too strong, but disregarding that pedantic quibble I absolutely agree. Problem is, a lot of people miss out on the reason we do science, and think science the method can be seperated from it. Science isn’t tainted because we choose to believe our findings. MHO. But that’s why I get a bee in my bonnet when people say science never proves anything.

It is a means, not an end unto itself.

A means to what? Why do we do science? This is like saying the shotgun blast didn’t kill him, he died from loss of blood.

But science is only part of the picture. Any given scientific theory can be either accepted or rejected as truth depending on the individual. This is not to say that science is subjective. Rather, truth contains a subjective component.

But this is why we do science! It isn’t tangential to it. And I think it is a serious error to try and remove that component from the philosophy of science.

From this point of view, science can’t prove things, because to prove something with science would be to make a statement about some truth of the universe, and science alone isn’t enough for a person to assign truth values to things.

But earlier you mentioned that if science demonstrated ghosts existed, you would believe it. Surely that is taking a stand on the truth of a statement about the existence of ghosts?

Please note that I’m using a different meaning of “prove” with science than I would with, say, geometry. In math, there is a process for creating a “proof”, but it proves nothing about reality, only about geometry. It is self-contained.

Now extend this process to include many scientific theories. Inside a theory, data is explained and predicted and found to fit to a person or communities’ standard. Much like, if we accept certain premises, one can demonstrate that the sum of the interior angles of any triangle is 180°. Is it TRUE that the sum of the interior angles of any triangle is 180°? Well, sure, if we grant [all this]. And science plays the same game to a large degree. We can think of theories as a series of theorems; when Euclidean geometry isn’t enough, we move to other geometries, much like when Newtonian physics wasn’t enough, we moved on to relativity.

I really think that this discussion would make more sense if we came to some sort of agreement as to how to define “truth”. We both appear to agree that defining “truth” requires a subjective component. However, you seem to be of the opinion that there is a subjective side to science that is used to determine truth, while I maintain that it is the scientists who are subjective, not the science.

When you show me how science is done without scientists, I will grant you the objectivity of science.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Epimetheus *
**Pathetic really. **

Many things are pathetic; however, none of them in this thread have to do with me discussing some underlying metaphysical truth about reality as it exists or the one you’ve apparently constructed in your head where I am arguing from the position of religious authority.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by errata *
Occam’s razor is an excellent tool for the philosophy of science. It doesn’t set the “rational default” for all of humanity and I don’t think it really tries to.

I have to butt in here because I really take exception to that remark. Unless you believe that unneccessary additions of extraneous entities to explain phenomena should be the rational default, I don’t see how you can say this.

[erislover]

Well, it certainly doesn’t set the limits of “unnecessary” as many people who love Ockham’s Razor are also quite satisfied not trying to explain some things at all. Sort of a grab bag of belief there.

[Epimetheus]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Many things are pathetic; however, none of them in this thread have to do with me discussing some underlying metaphysical truth about reality as it exists or the one you’ve apparently constructed in your head where I am arguing from the position of religious authority. **

Hmm, perhaps I was seeing my own attributions rather than what was reality, but is sure SOUNDED like you were banding about that “Truth” flag.

I suppose that is why it wasn’t capitolized.

[erislover]

It’s fine. I’m not the clearest orator.

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by rjung *
**This is a false notion, held by folks who do not understand the Scientific Process.

Remember this: in science, any theory may be overthrown at any time, by someone who has a theory which fits the known facts and explains more than the old one does. The idea of scientists being a body of “worshippers” who accept known theories on blind faith is as likely as Pope John Paul II suddenly adopting a new career as a hip-hop artist. **

As in all systems “what is said” and “what is done” rarely match.

Albert Einstein said when his Relativity Theory came under fire by the established scientists: “people rarely change their minds, the old just die off and the young ones pick up the new ideas.”

Scientists are still trying to deny the spiritual world in spite of evidence and proof it exists.

http://www.ndeweb.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=65&post=730#POST730

In posting on this board, I have often described the “science” talked about here as just another form of religion. I think that is a good call.

Real science seeks truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. To bad there are not more real scientists around. I could say the same thing about Christianity and Christians.

Love
LEroy

[blowero]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Well, it certainly doesn’t set the limits of “unnecessary” as many people who love Ockham’s Razor are also quite satisfied not trying to explain some things at all. Sort of a grab bag of belief there. **

It’s not a “grab bag” at all; it’s a very clear principle. Surely you don’t think that anyone’s lack of adherence to it makes it unsound?

And as for “not trying to explain some things at all”, that’s the whole point. A rational approach is to admit when we don’t know the answer to a question. An irrational approach is to just “make something up” with no evidence to support it. You act as if admission that one does not know something is a failing. Occam’s Razor tells us not to choose an unneccessarily complicated explanation over a simpler one for a given phenomenon (all other things being equal); it says nothing about whether we should “try to explain some things at all”. It only applies when there is a choice to be made between alternate explanations. And no, it doesn’t magically make the choice for us; we still have to apply the principle. That still doesn’t make the principle unsound. A given person’s interpretation of it may be unsound, but the principle itself is not.

[Monty]

May I see some of this scientific evidence that the spirit world exists, lekatt?