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

Post Reply New Topic

I am struck by the possibility that increased pursuit of pure objectivity increases the pursuit of pure subjectivity, with the almost inevitable result that some/many people then think that values have been lost etc, because their, subjective, viewpoint/perspective has been exaggerated, at the same time as validated, by the approval for pure objectivity.

Which would suggest that science has a price. It costs something. It is not an innocent activity, which can believe in or not, but one which has potentially negative effects on society, just as excessive reliance on/belief in the subjective has had at other times in history and has in other places in the present day.

Something to do with the belief IN objectivity as necessarily leading to greater understanding. Or in belief that isolating/separating things up to look at them will understand things better.

I accept that for some people science's vocabulary, concepts, rules and rituals, lists, and procedures, are a tool for appreciating the wonder of the universe, as church rituals, teachings, principles, etc can be if believe in god for example, but i believe that it may create an opposite and equal reaction like a kind of by-product/side-effect.

You can't have pure objectivity without pure subjectivity. By validating/"constructing" one you validate/"construct" the other.

Last edited by ouinon on 02 Mar 2008, 11:23 am, edited 6 times in total.

Very well said. I have found this as well.



No, it's a question of complexity. The more we learn about something, the deeper we can probe. We learned that the Atom wasn't an elementary particle, for example, so it was researched on an even deeper level to reveal subatomic particles.



It's not a matter of belief, it's fact. If I could go back in time two thousand years I would be able to say, explain to people what those jagged bolts of light in the sky was, why the sky was blue, what made birds fly, and why stars were lit. How is this not understanding? And why would this knowledge be potentially harmful? In my experience, the people most dangerous are the one's who willfully remain an ignoramus on matters of the natural world.



Can you please explain this? I don't see how this would happen. It's not like my enjoyment of science has curbed my appreciation for art and literature.

Science is not a mythos to believe in. It's a way of analyzing the world by making measurements and distilling conclusions from them. Those conclusions, if the process is properly understood, ought never to be stated with absolute certainty, but with a degree of scrutiny appropriate for the strength of the evidence. Any scientist worth two cents will greet success or failure of a hypothesis as another welcome addition to the data, however strongly he may feel about the issue.

Believing in science and trusting its conclusions are very different things. If you say you don't believe in science, then you almost certainly don't understand what science is. Simply put, science works like this: If you disagree, then provide some evidence that supports your point of view, and we'll consider it.

Science has decreed that my evidence doesn't count.

"If they don't drown it's proof that they're a witch; if they do drown it means that they weren't so they will go to heaven." Science has rendered itself impregnable to anything but itself.

By constructing "objectivity" science has created "subjectivity", which is not to be believed.

Why do you use the word "deeper"? Why, for instance, do you not use the word "higher"? As in, science uses more and more objectivity to build higher and higher edifices/monuments to the glory of the (manifest?) universe, ( or to objectivity itself?) . A lot of objectivity gets used, which produces vast amounts of concentrated subjectivity; which is highly volatile stuff.

The word "deeper" cleverly avoids admitting that what science does is construct things which had no previous existence.

Last edited by ouinon on 03 Mar 2008, 6:57 am, edited 5 times in total.

I think i mean that when create dualities, separations/divisions, they inevitably enter into conflict with each other. This is a waste of energy, and also means that each camp is missing an eye, which is not good for their sense of perspective.

I think it is particularly noticeable on the scale of groups in/society, but it might apply to individuals.

re; telling people in the past about how lightning works: i think it would depend on how they heard it, what effect it would have on them. Without the concept of electricity, layers of differently charged air, etc etc, it might sound to them as if you were talking about warring gods, and alter their culture in no way. And if you showed them sparks from static by rubbing plastics together etc they might think you were a magician.
However if you said that in order to demonstrate something particularly reliably or powerfully you had to go into a special room/space which has been purified etc, for instance into a darkened room to see the sparks, it is possible that they would understand you to be talking about ( a new?)religion.

Last edited by ouinon on 02 Mar 2008, 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I haven't seen any evidence of this. Science and art can peacefully coexist, and many times they even complement each other



My point was that we understand a lot more about our world than we did thousands of years ago. How they would react to the knowledge is dependent upon their particular culture and their psychology.



You can call it whatever you want, that's just semantics. I used the word "deeper" to indicate a greater degree of complexity.



No, it doesn't. Go back to elementary particle example. Science didn't "create" protons, neutrons, and electrons, it just looked closer than it had before.



Again, I don't understand where you are getting this. I am a science student, I talk to scientists and other researchers. I have seen no evidence of a volatile surplus of concentrated subjectivity, I enjoy both science and the arts, and I have not found that my interest in objective facts has been any detriment to my creative capabilities.

Are any of you scientists? Because I am and I know how science works. Yes I do believe in it because I know how much hard work goes into getting those results. And they dont get passed for publication unless they are good. Most of us spend years working on a project then have so much difficulty to publish anything because the reviewers demand more and more evidence to support your conclusions. And so they should do.

As examples of concentrated subjectivity I am thinking of Creationism, Global-Warming Sceptics/Deniers, Religious Fundamentalism, unquestioning belief in the power of "Positive Thoughts", etc, NOT about Art, which has in the last 100 years obediently followed, in most places, the "instructions"/preoccupations/directions of Science, in the same way as for many hundreds of years until the enlightenment artists painted pictures of religious scenes, illustrated bible stories, disseminated far and wide the beliefs of the christian church in the most glorious way they knew how.

The last 100 years has seen both art and literature either glorifying the search for objective truth, as in detective fiction in popular literature for example, or exploding the idea of a "real" subject, in more "serious stuff". Modern Art has made figurative representation, and depiction of anything resembling values, almost always an embarrassment. Only done by "bad" artists. The notable exception is/was art with a political message; communist, gay, race issues, or feminist, as if all these are excused "subjectivity", because are the underdog.

Of course science and art cohabit; art has a long tradition as an aid to worship.

But those things have been along way before science, it was science that allowed humanity to probe beyond mere superstition and belief and see the world in an analytic, critical manner.



This is a real stretch. There has been "real" and "serious" art before the advent of science and irrational, highly-creative works exist now fine alongside science (modern art, abstract art, and one of my favorites, surrealism).



Nobody is worshiping science, though many of us understand that it is a fruitful method of analysis and obtaining veritable information. To "worship" it misses the point and undermines it's very purpose. Yes, art can benefit science, but it doesn't have to.

Just out of curiosity, what is your overall ideal for society? The elimination of science from schools and society? Don't you see that ignorance, not science, is detrimental?

Well, completely debunking science does not seem that objective to me, does it? and it is actually a subjective point of view, How did you get into that conclusion that science is a fallacy or just a philosophy? did you do studies, experiments, do you have a qualified degree in which you can really support your claims or is it just an opinion comming from a regular person and perhaps dislike of sicence for some reason. I understand why some people here have said the lack of understanding how science works, and it may be, you might be having a different perception and interpreting things in a different way based on some thoughts, feelings, ideals perhaps, and some other reason for why this resulting in a subjective opinion.

Not believing that matter exists and that cause and effect are just illusions are nothing more than a philosophical position and does not have anything to do with science, and in my view it is a fallacy to make those arguments to refute it and to explain why the disbelief.

I am agnostic, and I don't believe in anything 100%, but I take great consideration on things and I take hypothesis and theories being made by scientists as big possibilities or just possibilities, completely debunking something and absolutely denying it, is ilogical, even if it is about religion, I used to refer myself as skeptic but I don't refer myself that much anymore, because I have seen that many who call themselves like that, are just debunkers instead of taking an agnostic position about things.

Last edited by greenblue on 02 Mar 2008, 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Still not proven. What is it about our society which persuades you that we understand more now than then?

WHY not use the word "higher" though? I ask because the word "deeper" has been used often on this thread to describe the progress/advance of science, and i don't believe it is an accident. It manages to suggest that science is "tunnelling" IN something which actually exists. Mining information. Working in a darkness of something solid, which obstructs the light because it IS so solid and REAL.
How do you know?

Yep, it is. We know more than we did before. Do you think thousands of years of learning was for naught? Go back to my previous post (where I replied to this very question) where I arbitrarily listed some of sciences accomplishments. If you don't think being able to understand our world on a more detailed level than we did thousands of years ago isn't progress, then go ahead and believe that, but it certainly isn't true.



Mining...working in darkness...what the christ? Yeah, it's not an accident, I thought "deeper" was more descriptive, as one is going into greater detail and probing "deeper" into whatever one is investigating. Forgive me for trying to pick an appropriate word, but evidently it was a major blunder that revealed to you the deepest and most intimate levels of my psyche. I will call it "higher" if you really want me too...



What the hell are you talking about?

Just want to answer this before anything else, ( and because i want to watch CSI, three new episodes, in 20 minutes ).

I don't know what exactly my ideal society looks like. In theory peaceful, just, etc. The usual things.

I don't want to eliminate science, but i am wondering whether a reformation might be due, a bit like in religion in the late middle ages. Put it back into people's hands. Like it was in China. Not something that only an elite can participate in. Not separated off in sterile environments. See how much of it works in normal surroundings.

My practising scientist sister has twice given my son top-quality science kits for birthdays, and each time i could get almost none of it to work, and even she only managed to get parts of them to work, with added "ingredients" and lots of experience. And although I enjoyed, and understood, Physics at O-Level I remember how often experiments didn't work. Simply didn't function. Not the way they were "supposed to" anyway. But we were taught to ignore this, as simple error, or poor materials, rather than question a discipline allegedly studying universal laws, which only worked under very precise/particular conditions.

greenblue, I studied Biology and Psychology at University.

I have to go now if don't want to miss CSI. I love the glorification of the objective pursuit of knowledge.

Last edited by ouinon on 03 Mar 2008, 5:04 am, edited 9 times in total.

I'm a biologist. I think I have a pretty good idea of how it works, too - and I think that what you have implied - that distrust comes in large part from lack of understanding - is fairly accurate. The popular image of science, and of scientists, dosen't jibe very closely with what science is in real life.

I brought up the word 'deeper' because that's the word that best describes how I feel when I learn something new, and then think of more questions. It's like going through the doorway, and seeing a dozen more doorways in the room you've just entered. You're going deeper into the building. Or into the maze. I've never felt like I was climbing some sort of edifice.

Then it must be some pretty piss-poor evidence. It's probably something unfalsifiable, in which case, why bother? You'll just believe it anyway. If it's not unfalsifiable, then it counts and you're just being an ass.



9_9

What part of that is science? It's a test for witchhood based on NO DATA that would show a relation between drowning and witchhood. Anybody who does something like that and calls it science is NOT A SCIENTIST. That's not even how scientific tests work. The goal of science is to describe, not diagnose. You run a test to find out if there is a correlation. If there is, then somebody else will use it to identify witches, but not scientists.




Again, this shows a basic misunderstanding of what science does. It attempts to describe what already exists.

Ouinon is a perfect example why it's no use arguing with postmodernists, they'll just start throwing different variations of meaningless relativist and solipsist arguments, basically going "we know nothing and nothing you say can change my mind." Postmodernism is just a dogma that fools people into thinking it is anti-dogmatic, kind of how like Republicans call themselves "fiscally responsible" and then spends the US into a huge deficit.