Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

*!"Do You Believe in Science?"!*

Page 2 of 13 [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Do you believe in Science?
yes 56%  56%  [ 39 ]
no 4%  4%  [ 3 ]
most of the time 20%  20%  [ 14 ]
don't know 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
other, please expand in thread, thanks 19%  19%  [ 13 ]
Total votes : 70

ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

28 Feb 2008, 5:19 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
... there may be some order to the universe but it is.... beyond our understanding?
Yes, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with including that in a scientific philosophy? An explicit acceptance of ones own fallibility and limitations. An important check on destructive grandiosity.

8)



singularitymadam
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 213
Location: I live in a Mad Max movie. It's not as fun as it sounds.

28 Feb 2008, 5:20 pm

I am not entirely sure how to answer this poll. The very question itself assumes that science is a religion, which it clearly is not. The scientific method requires no belief, merely comprehension.

ouinon wrote:
Science approaches every experiment with the assumption that there is an objective reality. Before it even measures anything, it has already chosen to believe in that.


You seem to be very confused about the nature of scientific theories. You may be interested in revising your opinion after reading this: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

It's interesting that you identify with Taoism and Buddhism. I would have thought you more of a nihilist.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
(vastly simplified, of course)

I think science is a valid and wonderful way of understanding the universe.



SilverProteus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,915
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

28 Feb 2008, 6:16 pm

My main problem with believing scientific "truths" is that they're always changing.

Do the data lead to the theory or does the theory lead to the data? How fallible are scientific methods of deduction?

Science is, in large part still philosophical, IMO.


_________________
"Lightning is but a flicker of light, punctuated on all sides by darkness." - Loki


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

28 Feb 2008, 6:20 pm

silver proteus wrote:
Science is in large part philosophical, IMO.
Yep! If not largely, inherently! :D

singularitymadam wrote:
I am not entirely sure how to answer this poll. The very question itself assumes that science is a religion, which it clearly is not. The scientific method requires no belief, merely comprehension.
The question does not assume that. It does however "assume", or remark, that most/recognised scientific activity involves certain underlying beliefs. As posted already; that
1)there is an objective reality
2)the world obeys universal laws incl that of cause and effect, and
3)that the nature of the world can be revealed by asking questions about it in the form of experiments.
Quote:
You seem to be very confused about the nature of scientific theories.
I am not talking about the level of scientific theories, but about the underlying/deeper paradigms involved in scientific activity.
Quote:
You may be interested in revising your opinion after reading this: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
this does not look at the philosophy of science so much as the method overlaid on the underlying paradigm.
Quote:
It's interesting that you identify with Taoism and Buddhism.
I don't.
Quote:
I would have thought you more of a nihilist.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
(vastly simplified, of course)
What makes you think that I believe "all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated?"
Quote:
I think science is a valid and wonderful way of understanding the universe.
Many christians say exactly the same thing about their set of beliefs. And I do about believing in god. I find that it is a useful, and frequently inspiring, cognitive tool for looking at the world/life.
But I recognise that i use beliefs to approach the world. Far too many western scientists believe that their scientific perspective is free of belief, of bias, partiality, subjectivity, of "frames" in fact, which involve looking at the world in a certain way.

PS: I just found out, investigating philo of science , that there has been a war going on about just this for the last 15 years which i knew nothing about; "The Science Wars". ( see Wiki)Interesting. :lol:

8)



Last edited by ouinon on 28 Feb 2008, 6:30 pm, edited 9 times in total.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Feb 2008, 6:22 pm

ouinon wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
... there may be some order to the universe but it is.... beyond our understanding?
Yes, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with including that in a scientific philosophy? An explicit acceptance of ones own fallibility and limitations. An important check on destructive grandiosity.

8)


Ah, so the nature of the universe would be beyond understanding according to that philosophy. That's an interesting assumption, but what are the corollaries and are they true?

Why not the assumption of a rational personal being placing order on the universe? The scientific method is based on the assumption that there is order and that it is determinable by rational beings, and it seems to function just fine based on its nearly 400 year track record.



KRIZDA88
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 198
Location: Peoria, IL

28 Feb 2008, 6:24 pm

SilverProteus wrote:
My main problem with believing scientific "truths" is that they're always changing.

Do the data lead to the theory or does the theory lead to the data? How fallible are scientific methods of deduction?

Science is, in large part still philosophical, IMO.


I agree. Many times the theory affects the data more than it should, when those conducting the experiment are under pressure (from peers or own beliefs) to find a specific result the experiment or data collection can become biased sometimes it's intentional other times it isn't.


_________________
Krista

-Bigfoot IS blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer?s
fault. He's a large, out-of-focus monster, and that's extra scary to me.

-If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it, do the other trees make fun of it?


SilverProteus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,915
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

28 Feb 2008, 6:33 pm

KRIZDA88 wrote:
SilverProteus wrote:
My main problem with believing scientific "truths" is that they're always changing.

Do the data lead to the theory or does the theory lead to the data? How fallible are scientific methods of deduction?

Science is, in large part still philosophical, IMO.


I agree. Many times the theory affects the data more than it should, when those conducting the experiment are under pressure (from peers or own beliefs) to find a specific result the experiment or data collection can become biased sometimes it's intentional other times it isn't.


I can't really think of a really good example now, but it happens too often. Theory comes first, then comes data to prove that theory.

This method of scientific deduction is biased because many data that could possibly falsify said theory are ignored. I'm not saying this is always the case, it's just I think scientific methods are too simple to interpret an extremely complex world.


_________________
"Lightning is but a flicker of light, punctuated on all sides by darkness." - Loki


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Feb 2008, 6:37 pm

SilverProteus wrote:
My main problem with believing scientific "truths" is that they're always changing.

Do the data lead to the theory or does the theory lead to the data? How fallible are scientific methods of deduction?

Science is, in large part still philosophical, IMO.


Change is good; if the first idea was wrong either refine it (if possible) or replace it (if necessary.) Change is part of the scientific method. If it weren't we'd still be taught that there are four elements (earth, water, wind, and fire) and the search for the philosopher's stone would still be on. It would be nice when we no longer need hypotheses and theories but all proposition would be laws, but we haven't reached that day yet. There are still kinks, but we can say with confidence that at 15 psi pure water boils at 100 C, at sea level on my latitude gravity is 9.83 meters/seconds^2, etc. We ask why, we speculate and we test. If the tests confirms our idea, then we may be on the right track. If data is later found to be inconsistent, the idea is then changed or pitched. Change can be good.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Feb 2008, 6:41 pm

SilverProteus wrote:
KRIZDA88 wrote:
SilverProteus wrote:
My main problem with believing scientific "truths" is that they're always changing.

Do the data lead to the theory or does the theory lead to the data? How fallible are scientific methods of deduction?

Science is, in large part still philosophical, IMO.


I agree. Many times the theory affects the data more than it should, when those conducting the experiment are under pressure (from peers or own beliefs) to find a specific result the experiment or data collection can become biased sometimes it's intentional other times it isn't.


I can't really think of a really good example now, but it happens too often. Theory comes first, then comes data to prove that theory.

This method of scientific deduction is biased because many data that could possibly falsify said theory are ignored. I'm not saying this is always the case, it's just I think scientific methods are too simple to interpret an extremely complex world.


That, where theory should go back to hypothesis but doesn't, happens sometimes yes. Abiogenesis and the Drake equation/SETI are some I can think of.



SilverProteus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,915
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

28 Feb 2008, 7:10 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
SilverProteus wrote:
My main problem with believing scientific "truths" is that they're always changing.

Do the data lead to the theory or does the theory lead to the data? How fallible are scientific methods of deduction?

Science is, in large part still philosophical, IMO.


Change is good; if the first idea was wrong either refine it (if possible) or replace it (if necessary.) Change is part of the scientific method. If it weren't we'd still be taught that there are four elements (earth, water, wind, and fire) and the search for the philosopher's stone would still be on. It would be nice when we no longer need hypotheses and theories but all proposition would be laws, but we haven't reached that day yet. There are still kinks, but we can say with confidence that at 15 psi pure water boils at 100 C, at sea level on my latitude gravity is 9.83 meters/seconds^2, etc. We ask why, we speculate and we test. If the tests confirms our idea, then we may be on the right track. If data is later found to be inconsistent, the idea is then changed or pitched. Change can be good.


If wrong, change is excellent, 'cause then wrong can be corrected. But what does that say about some "truths"? Are they truths? Is yesterday's truth tommorrow's?

Science will always be evolving.

Quote:
That, where theory should go back to hypothesis but doesn't, happens sometimes yes. Abiogenesis and the Drake equation/SETI are some I can think of.


Ah, yes. Abiogensis. How ridiculously incorrect is that now? It was once "truth".

Change and evolution is excellent.


_________________
"Lightning is but a flicker of light, punctuated on all sides by darkness." - Loki


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

28 Feb 2008, 7:18 pm

Abiogenesis is still considered to be how life came about.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

28 Feb 2008, 7:20 pm

Abiogenesis is still considered to be how life came about.



Strange
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Location: Paris

28 Feb 2008, 7:21 pm

ouinon wrote:
:!: The three most important axioms/assumptions of science are:

1) There is an objective reality, matter exists.

2) The world obeys universal laws, of which a fundamental one is that of cause and effect.

3) The nature of the world can be revealed by asking it questions in the form of experiments; in other words it can be measured.

:?: The question is who believes in these and who doesn't? :?:


You can't define science that way. Actually defining what science is is a difficult subject. I would not risk myself in it especially in a few phrases. Most searchers won't tell you they take any of your points 1, 2 or 3 as an assumption, especially those working in quantum physic domain.

Science as a way to understand the world has proven very successful. This is not something you have to believe. But science doesn't prove anything about the nature of reality itself. It does not need any assumption about nature of reality.



SilverProteus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,915
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

28 Feb 2008, 7:28 pm

AspE wrote:
Abiogenesis is still considered to be how life came about.


It is, but nobody knows how the first living being came to be. It's the best explanation.


_________________
"Lightning is but a flicker of light, punctuated on all sides by darkness." - Loki


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

28 Feb 2008, 7:48 pm

AspE wrote:
Science's conclusions are supported by evidence. Global warming is a real phenomenon. To ignore it is to stick your head in the sand, which, by the way, is the advice given by orthodox Christianity, which has systematically ignored the conclusions of science as soon as they became uncomfortable. Galileo was one of it's first victims. Do you believe the Earth is the center of the universe, and that the Sun revolves around it?

The net is full of disinformation, mostly distributed by corporate interests designed to subvert science and confuse weak minded individuals. The purpose is to continue the practice of destroying the Earth for profit.

The skeptics on Global Warming must also use science to support their position, and do. Otherwise, it's just a matter of faith.

I agree, Im not really certain about Global Warming actually, but I always think of it as a good possibility, I find amusing hearing and reading about people completely refuting it.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Feb 2008, 7:50 pm

SilverProteus wrote:
Science will always be evolving.


That assumes that nothing is correct then. Science will be refining itself until it doesn't have to anymore; if there is truth there will come a point when all knowledge will be understood correctly. For the meantime there is still much to be discovered, but this universe is finite and there will come a time when all things that can be known shall be known and known correctly.

SilverProteus wrote:
If wrong, change is excellent, 'cause then wrong can be corrected. But what does that say about some "truths"? Are they truths? Is yesterday's truth tommorrow's?


Natural revelation and historical revelation have some conflicts today, but if they both are true, then, in the end, there will be no final conflict.