Why is science demonized in people's minds?

Post Reply New Topic

Some folks are more interested in being believed that in telling the truth. Others are more interested in having something to believe in than in believing in something that is real.

For these people there exist the fields of Conspiracy Theory, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, and Tabloid Journalism.

For the rest of us, there are Maths and Science.

There is empirical evidence supporting hypothesis, but there is no irrefutable proof for general hypotheses and laws. In fact the only thing can do "irrefutably" is to falsify a law or hypothesis with a counter-example. And even the, the experiment which yields the counter-example could conceivably have a design flaw or instrumental flaw which has been overlooked. Science is a tentative and contingent business.

ruveyn

Good point, well taken. Thank you.

About the only thing in this world that is irrefutable is math.

Mathematics is a strange creature...half the time it goes about trying to find ways to refute itself, cf. Godel.



+1 for all that. Statement in bold should be stickied in PPR.

But you seem to have gotten a value judgement into your head that whatever cannot be scientifically verified is not just untrue, but intrinsically inferior and unworthy of being part of the human experience at all. I infer this from your generally anti-religious stance.

Science is not an atheistic position. It's about playing with particle accelerators the size of jumbo jets, man.

Also, may I introduce you to Pascal's Wager.

Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, understanding is not wisdom.
- Clifford Stoll

Perhaps, but considering that the equals sign ("=") is less than 500 years old, we can safely state that our understanding of mathematics is not only refutable, but it is both mutable and evolving!


Religion is inferior to science, in that (1) Religion claims knowledge that is both absolute and true, while science is constantly seeking to correct and refine its knowledge; (2) Religion requires belief without question, while science requires constant questioning, examination, and evaluation; (3) Religion is fixated on a supernatural first cause (e.g., "God"), while science seeks causal connections that are both natural and observable; (4) Religion considers the spreading of propaganda to be both its goal and its greatest achievement, while science has no fixed goal, and thus accomplishes hundreds of feats each year; and finally (5) Religion encourages ignorance and unquestioning obedience, while science encourages free inquiry and the acquisition of knowledge.


Science is not a religious position of any kind. Religions require faith, which is the belief in unknowable things, and that belief being the be-all, the do-all, and the end-all of religious thought. Science requires curiosity, which is not only interest in the unknown, but interest in examining the unknown in every possible way until it is known.


... and robots the size of blood cells ... and computers the size of textbooks ... and hand-crafted equipment ... and ...


Blaise Pascal based his wager on his own subjective belief that there is much to be gained by believing on the existence of God. This is only one step removed from the subjective belief in God; and as we all know, belief proves nothing, so his "wager" is merely an exercise in philosophical rhetoric - a futile one, but a mere exercise nonetheless.

Every one is entitled to his own opinion. No one is entitled to his own facts.

ruveyn

I'm with you on (1) through (4), but not (5), I'm afraid. I can't speak for all religions, or all Christianity, or even a statistically significant portion of Christianity, but I've never seen or followed any exhortation from the Bible to stay ignorant (about scientific facts).

On the other hand, science has had its own unintentional blunders - far be it from a totally objective venture, free of subjective interference. See Millikan's Oil Drop experiment for a somewhat archaic instance. In the more modern context, economics as an academic venture appears to be phenomenally unsuccessful in practical situations.

True, though: religion is more likely to churn out militant fanatics than science is to churn out super villains with death stars.



The atheist, in consideration of the Wager, need not take into account any positive utility from believing in the existence of God. He simply needs to account for the negative utility of being wrong, since most religions involve a hell of some kind.

It's not philosophy, just a decision tree. If I'm Christian and it turns out I'm wrong, I'll just vanish after death. I'm atheist and it turns out I'm wrong...

The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion. There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.

All physical science is based on an unprovable meta-principle; The uniformity of nature. The assumption is that all general laws hold everywhere and everywhen. This cannot be proven empirical but must be assumed for physical science to work at all.

ruveyn

Very true, but unfortunately what someone thinks of as "facts" seems to be very much determined by their opinion. The fact is that homeopathy doesn't work, but homeopaths will still cite "facts" and "evidence" to support their treatment. It's very bad evidence that they use of course, but it is hard to communicate to them why some "facts" are true when others are false.

Good point.
I think facts are facts - they can assume 1 of 2 binary states (true or false).
If homeopaths (is that a word? apparently so) cite "facts" which are actually untrue, then those are not facts.

"Apple is red" - fact.
"apples are delicious" - opinion, generally held to be true if only because a large majority would agree.
"Apples are sour" - vague, because green apples are sour, red apples are not.

What really blows my brains is whether logic and empiricism have anything to do with each other. In practice, clearly nothing. but accuracy of logical deduction that can predict phenomena in the physical sciences, centuries before we've even developed the tools with which to test these deductions empirically, is spooky.

Suppose that when I die and get to the other side, I don't meet Jesus but instead meet Charon who won't allow me on the ferry to cross the river Styx because I don't have the proper fair (since I was Christian and believed in Jesus and not the Greek gods). What then? Do you not see this as a flaw in the Pascal Wager argument?

I think it is though, people don't like doctor and science is usually a big hit them. So is fast food and everything else.

I think mathematics shouldn't be frowned on neither physics, it has built our countries, it has built our military, it has built our white house. But people always clinge when they here that you like math or you like physics. Maybe the don't realize that it took engineers to build their hotel, cars, build their house, build the water they drink. I feel engineers should be just as respected as our troops.

Yes.
Does not disprove the premise, only the conclusions. So it becomes more an (unanswerable) question of which religion, not whether to have one or not.