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

Post Reply New Topic

EDIT: was a waffle; since clarified my ideas!

Last edited by ouinon on 29 Feb 2008, 2:05 pm, edited 8 times in total.

Technology. When we theorize on scientific principles, then implement them in the form of technology, and they work as expected, that's as much proof as we can ever get about truly knowing anything. It's just an extension of the scientific method, but on a much larger scale.

Also, your definition of science is very poor.



This is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. I don't ever recall reading a published scientific paper with the term "objective reality" in it. This is philosophers or someone else putting words in scientists' mouths.



At current, our best understanding of string theory states that there are multiple universes each with their own set of universal laws. Cause and effect came into question not too long ago when Stephen Hawking conjectured about the possiblity of information (matter) loss in black holes. This theory has since fallen out of favor with the scientific community, but if matter is lost anywhere in this universe, then cause and effect goes out the window. Still, we continue on assuming cause and effect, because if we don't, then why do anything? If you didn't implicitly believe in cause and effect, you wouldn't have bothered typing all those posts.



Eh... no. Well sorta, but no. The wording here is not very good and a claim like this would never appear in any respectable scientific text. Well, not counting textbooks to explain basic science to students. But really, this is very imprecise. "Nature of the world"? "Questions"? Be more specific.

Why do you believe that technology working is a sign that you have understood how the world works ? Why do you choose that as your measure? What about peaceful cohabitation of groups, or absence of pollution, or smiles on peoples faces in the streets? Who is to say that those things would not be better measures of having understood how the world works?


This IS a philosophical issue, as you say. , a discussion of the philosophy called science. i am just repeating what i read, in two apparently credible places, constitute fundamental tenets of faith of traditional science at least.

I read something about that last night , re "information paradox"? ( is that right?) , but didn't realise it had menaced the law of "cause and effect". That's fun. Why do you think i would not have bothered typing this if cause effect no longer guaranteed.

I chose this expression because it made sense to me. What would be a clearer way to put this part of scientific tenets, that can find out how things work by measuring/testing in a way that can be repeated etc?

Yes, it's a good thing. If scientific "truths" weren't always changing, or better approximated, we'd still be believing that the Earth is flat.

The main problem with changing truths is that it might not be it, yet it's treated as such. But there isn't much that can be done against that, it just the way things are.

I think you're confusing knowing how the world works with improving humanity's conditions. Technology allows us to do things now we couldn't do previously, which means we learned something, which means we know something more. If I can do something that you can't (other than something purely physical like running fast etc.), it means I know something that you don't. Even if it's just a trick and I don't really understand what's going on, at least I know that much, and you don't. On the other hand, if we both know exactly the same things, everything you know I know, but I also know that tomorrow there's going to be a horrible tragedy, you might be happy while I might not. Thus it is clear that knowing more does not correlate with happiness.

For science being a philosophy, even if you want to categorize science as a sub-category of philosophy, objective reality still would not fall within its range, it would be part of a different sub-category of philosophy.

Yes, it's called the information paradox, and if you can't figure out why I say you wouldn't bother typing these posts if cause and effect were unrelated, then you're not understanding the basic concept.

In the scientific method, one forms a hypothesis based on observation and tests it rigorously. This involves creating controlled conditions where the scientist attempts to eliminate any other factors that could affect the outcome. It basically takes the way humans learn any kind of new knowledge, which is by observing, and putting it to a greater test. Also, instead of testing, some fields of science are based on formal mathematical and logical proofs. This is probably what most people have an issue with, because it is often counter-intuitive, but if you think about it technically and precisely, it makes sense. For instance, if I say "If it doesn't rain today, I will go out", this does not imply that if it rains today I will stay inside, though most people will take it that way. But if you think about it technically, it is quite obvious that I said nothing about what I would do if it does rain today.

Why do you separate "improving humanity's conditions" from "knowing how the world works?
Well it's because i can imagine several reasons why, and i didn't know which one you meant!
Is it a good idea to put anything to such a purified test? Doesn't that introduce distortion of results? And encourage division between scientific activity and ordinary life?

I am a strong advocate of the Scientific method. however there is a lot of bad Science out there that gets good press
like global warming and this bad science is being used to manipulate and control people and as a means for political gain.

I think Science should be taken seriously but it should also be held to the greatest standards and scrutiny. some things in Science have been so dogmatic that to oppose those dogmas is almost considered to be a crime I think some of the opposing views that are based on actual facts and logic should be given equal consideration and debate.

Be careful crossing the street.




Yes, quantum physics has a form of logic that implicitly recognizes that the act of observation can influence something. This is not true on every scale, however. With quantum physics, it is like having fortune cookies, and the only way to see what the fortune cookie says is to break it open, which destroys the fortune cookie. So there are cases where observation (measurement or analysis) changes things. That doesn't mean that we can't form scientific hypotheses about fortune cookies, or that the universe is an illusion.

Observing the rotation of the Earth or the movement of a distant train has no real effect on those things.

The fact that people who make subjective measurements are susceptible to bias (psychological effects in humans and animals) does not disprove objective realities. Science developed randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled studies to reduce or eliminate psychological effects in trying to measure outcomes.




Science does not have a 'theory of everything' and I don't think they ever will. Nor is it needed. The theory of of gravity has been tested, expanded, and tested again. To the point where it is a very good explanation for certain things, even if we don't understand every behavior of quarks or every complicated biological phenomenon.



Yes, science is a process of philo-sophia, or love of wisdom. It pursues truths about the natural world. It does so effectively, although in the short run, there is sometimes ambiguity and conflict.



Science is not so good at explaining the American Revolution or the rise of Nazism. That requires a humanistic approach that examines the lives and thoughts of people, social conditions and interactions, etc.. (physical) Science typically doesn't even try to explain such events.

On the other hand, social science might involve testing a hypothesis that hyperinflation and massive unemployment contribute to tyrannical governments (like Hitler's) - and they look at all known cases of hyperinflation, and see how often that leads to despots. That could be compared to how often despots arise when there is a normal economy. Maybe the hypothesis would be supported by the data, maybe not. The results would be a statement of tendency, not certainty. Just like eating a poor diet and never exercising increase the risk of heart disease, but not everyone who is overweight and sedentary gets a heart attack, and it is not possible to predict who will get a heart attack, or when.

Some branches of science recognize and deal wit unpredictability - chaos studies, system dynamics, cybernetics. When the number of independent variables rise above four (or is it five?), linear predictions of outcomes becomes dicey or impossible.

In fluid dynamics, when there is a transition, things get turbulent and chaotic. At that moment, it becomes impossible to predict certain things about flow of the fluid. Then things settle down into harmonic patterns and prediction again is possible.

I look at the climate as a fancy lava lamp. If you put a stronger light bulb in or put an aluminum foil reflector on half of the glass, it will create some changes that can be predicted, and some that cannot - for example, it is reasonable to predict it will heat up quicker, move faster, etc. But other things (like the exact state of the lava after 1 hour, or other subtle changes in the flow) cannot be predicted. The fact that science does not give humans omniscient predictive powers does not mean that science is invalid.



I think that various religions at various times have either hindered science or allowed it to develop. Christianity was quite opposed to science for a while, then came the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Today in the US, fundamentalism is attempting to de-legitimize, defund or prohibit many branches of science.

Same is true for other religions - science has flourished and stagnated under them, depending on how those religions were practiced. You can find a history of scientific progress in Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism/Confucianism, etc. Flowers bloom and then fade.

Last edited by monty on 29 Feb 2008, 3:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Wait wait wait - I'm lost here. How is basing science on objective reality a philosophy? As opposed to what? That there is no reality? That this is all an illusion? I am unsure of what point you're arguing. You say you don't believe in cause and effect, or matter. How do you not believe in matter? What do you think all this is? If you push a ball, it rolls, and the laws defining that rolling can be exactly mathematically described.

To address your argument on overpopulation, I do not understand how my examples of classical mechanics or Bernoulli's principle would pertain to that (things that I'm sure you would agree are useful). But if you were the one dying young of a painful disease, with only science's "evils" left to save you, I'm sure you would be singing a different tune about the "evolutionary disaster" of saving our fellow human beings.

When I say that science is a body of knowledge that can be supported via veritable means, I mean that it can be proven. You don't need to take my word for it about...say..the crystalline lattice of a mineral, you can look into an electron microscope (and verify) it's atomic structure. It's not my "philosophy" that gravity will behave in a certain way, it can be mathematically modeled. I am a university student of science, I am being taught to understand and verify things through observation, reasoning, and basic mathematical laws. You can have a bunch of kids and predict which ones will have brown eyes or adopt certain traits. That's real; it's not my opinion, and it's not my philosophy. That's science.

I enjoy science very much

The main problem with Ouinon's argument is that the claim that there is no objective reality is not falsifiable, and therefore it is meaningless. It's in the same category of notions such as claiming that the universe popped into existance 5 minutes ago complete with all the evidence to the contrary.

I find this level of belief that constructs are facts extraordinary.

I am as amazed by this attitude existing at the beginning of the 21 st century after all the thinking and analysis of the last 60 years as some of you may be by how little i know about science, ( a degree/BSc in biology and psych not withstanding). I can imagine how abysmal it might seem that i am so ignorant of so much of scientific knowledge.

I am not surprised that the conflict between the two sides has been called a war, because there seems to be such an abyss between the two belief systems.

I had no idea about this before the last couple of days. I begin to think that it is not at all surprising after all that such huge arguments are happening between Creationism supporters ( which i am not one of) and evolution theorists, between Global-Warming deniers/"sceptics" and the IPCC and its supporters, etc.
Pure objectivity vs. pure subjectivity.

Last edited by ouinon on 03 Mar 2008, 6:40 am, edited 3 times in total.

X-ray diffraction is the usual method for determining the crystal lattice structure and hence other properties.

There are not "two sides", there's science, and then there are the ignorant people who usually have a political axe to grind that create a false controversy. They act like one "belief" is as reasonable as another, and nothing is further from the truth.

This is the sort of schism i am talking about.

Where "knowing how the world works" does not include how to "improve humanity's condition".

Where it is an ( unexamined) assumption that carrying out experiments in isolated conditions is the best way to find out things about the world.

As if such "perfect conditions" exist anywhere on earth naturally.

As if it is not likely that use of such environments for science won't lead to the creation of more and more such artificial environments on earth. As if making them the places of the most "reliable" discovery of truths they will not be emulated and copied everywhere; more and more sterile environments,( just as churches were raised up all over the land,) producing more and more of their copies of the official language of the faith, and becoming the normal environment for childbirth for example. Everything must be antiseptic, pure.

As if making the "most powerful/valuable" scientific observation/truth dependent on isolation from the ordinary world, on being protected from it , does not involve increasing division between one group and another, as between priests and everyone else.

Last edited by ouinon on 01 Mar 2008, 4:00 am, edited 4 times in total.

Yes, but more people are familiar with microscopes than X-ray diffraction, hence it was the better example for supporting my point.