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

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with these quotes, which make complete sense.

Let me rephrase then.

Scientific methods of deduction and testing are always evolving. I didn't say that our current methods , or even methods in the past are no good and that we'll never know any absolutes, but it's still highly philosophical and speculative in some areas. That can lead to error and/or biased "truths", which will change in the future with better scientific methods of deduction. I hope that's a bit clearer.



I agree.

I do not "Believe in Science," I accept scientific facts and theories as the best explanations of the nature of reality we have. I get annoyed when people use the phrase "believe in science/evolution/the big bang/etc." because it implies that science or scientific theories are equivalent to religious beliefs.

Global warming denialism is based on ignorance and outright lies peddled by "scientists" that are merely mouth-pieces of Big Oil.

My apologies, ouinon. I misunderstood your argument.

This is a good point, but that does not mean some sort of deity or "force" has influence. Most good scientists are fully aware of the subjective nature of reality, and treat it as such. However, when phenomena are universally observable, they are treated as objective. Obviously, nothing can truly be objective, but that is a discussion for another time.

The fact that they are always changing is a good thing. Fallibility and falsifiability are what make scientific theories scientific, instead of the dogmatic "truths" or religion. Egocentric elder scientists may act dogmatic and treat their pet theories as holy dogma but that doesn't make the theories themselves any less scientific. This is why I have a problem with postmodernist critiques of science, such critiques mix up the sociology of science (egocentric elder scientists included) with the epistemological basis of science.

There are no scientific truths, only theories that are better and better approximations. We are finite beings and thus "The Truth," what Kant called the "Thing-in-Itself," will always remain unknowable, we can only know approximations.

I was so happy when Stephen Hawking retracted his "information paradox." I love it when anyone is capable of admitting fault, and Hawking doing it was one of the most inspiring things I'd seen--even if his announcement contained more emotion than physics.

Our relative finiteness precludes us from having all knowledge of the universe, simply because the universe consists of more atoms than a human brain, but that doesn't mean that correct understanding cannot be attained. Indeed we have approximations, some more correct than others today, but as we refine the ones that fit and reject those that don't the approximations become closer and closer to correct it will eventually be so to a degree worthy of being called truth.

that's an elegant way of putting it. Simple and concise, yet implying a great deal about the universe, the need for collaboration, and the individual human mind.

I believe in Science but I also believe that it'll probably take a little more than Science to figure some things out that I question.

This argument for science is based on several more assumptions. Beliefs about what is good.

And curious blindspots too about all the things which are definitely not good about science's track record the last 400 years.

When i came back from 6 months in S. Africa to Europe several years ago i was shocked by the almost total absence of smiling faces here. I think that maybe there's a kind of limited/set amount of happiness and sadness available per capita at any given epoque, though not always distributed in the same way. It makes no difference how long people live, in what conditions; there will be the "same" amount of misery and the same amount of contentment. To believe otherwise, that as a species we are getting happier and happier all the time.. and that science contributes to this..is just a belief too.



These arguments for the inevitable progress of science towards truth are also based on several assumptions about what is real. As if there is some fixed solid "thing" under/behind everything, to be approached. It is the belief encouraged by detective stories and a lot of scientific thought . My own belief is that the only thing susceptible of being "found" behind everything is god. Hence perhaps the desperate searching for it.


What if "the correct understanding" had already been attained? Hundreds or thousands of years ago?

Or what if there isn't one but lots, all different, useful or not depending on what they're wanted for?

Last edited by ouinon on 29 Feb 2008, 7:23 am, edited 5 times in total.

Absolutely.
I think that this is the right place for that discussion!!

I agree about quantum phys; it's why i like it.
The list of assumptions i took from two places. I think that science in the last 50 years has significantly altered it's perspective, at least in theory. BUT that in FACT most scientists still behave as if their investigation is free of "position", as if it does not involve a significant cognitive tool, "belief in an objective reality".

Re: "science as a tool proven very successful", on what grounds do you claim that? Successful at what exactly? Creating greenhouse gases; that is true!

Science might/does not prove anything about the nature of reality; i am glad to hear you say it, BUT this is not the impression received by the general public.

Last edited by ouinon on 29 Feb 2008, 12:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

What evidence is there in fact, what is the proof , that science is any good at understanding the nature of the world? Looking at the evolutionary disaster of the last 250 years. Does it look as if science is really a good guide?

And what are the philosophical positions/assumptions required in order to believe that it has been?

Three pages later and I'm still a bit confused. I have seen science defined most commonly as "a body of knowledge obtained through veritable means. How is science not a good guide? In compared to what? Religion and spirituality?

What evolutionary disaster are you talking about?

I see you're referencing environmental problems and crediting them to "science," like pollution and greenhouse gases. Scientific research may present us with the knowledge to engineer potentially harmful forms of technology, but it is up to humanity to decide how to apply it. We have a choice to decide whether we will harness nuclear resources to build an arsenal or power a powerplant. It's not "sciences" fault, and with all due respect, I think the usage of this term is rather vague.

How can you deny, though, that science isn't helpful? It was a scientific observation on the behavior of bacteria in a petri dish that led to the theory that the mold pennicillium had antibacterial properties. It was through understanding of air-pressure that lead to the development of the airplane. Newton's classical mechanics mathematically describing nature's forces. I could go on, but I don't know exactly what you want to be convinced of, and these are just a few applications.

I don't know what you mean by "veritable means".

I'm talking about science as the study of " an objective reality", which is what it has tended to mean in the west since its inception, as opposed to the ancient chinese version, for example, which did not believe it possible to usefully separate off the rational observing being from the rest of the world in this way because subject to the same causative principles as their environment.

What i'm wondering is whether this western style of science, far from being an impartially good guide to the most fundamental processes of the world is only a good guide when the priority is "being fruitful and multiplying". That its chief success has been in increasing population. Feeding/fuelling more people from the same planet than 1000 years ago.

That one amongst others, massive population growth. And the pollution which follows from such intensive food production, energy use, housing, etc.

You imply that there is no value judgement/philosophical position inherent in scientific activity. That is what i'm wondering about, the possibility that western science, with its emphasis, ( entirely, until very recently, ) on "objective reality", might have been operating a harmful division/splitting on human consciousness, and judgement.

Yes, that is useful for increasing the population. Not sure what other examples are useful for .

Is there anything to be said in favour of (the western model of) science as a guide to success in anything other than the propagation of our species? If not then i suppose it is appropriate that it should demand belief/faith in an objective reality.