Why are the Sciences Empirical?

[paarsurrey]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God. Going beyond the obvious truth of that [/sarcasm], what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

It is a wrong notion, science is not the function of Atheism.
Atheism has got nothing to do with science. The truthful Religion guides humanity in ethical, moral and spiritual domains and it does not interfere with the the domains of science that are physical and material domains.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Both.

There are no sciences without empiricsts.

The truthful Religion uses Word of Revelation from G-d and experience/s while Science uses experience from experiments to find truth, and it is but natural due to the difference of domains they deal in.

Regards

 

[Sunstone]

@Sunstone I think this is an interesting debate that you and @Polymath257 are having. Here's where I fall down. I sympathise with both of you, agreeing with Polymath about the essential pointlessness (in terms of trying to understand the world scientifically) of speculation unmoored from testable predictions. On the other hand, I think he perhaps makes the point a little too fiercely and thus neglects the essential contribution that philosophy can, and has definitely made, to science.

I think both you and @Polymath257 might find my take on the nature and significance of philosophy a wee bit unusual. I have been busy with other matters today and yesterday, but in between things, I've been working on notes for my thread on the subject. It will reflect ideas I have developed over decades but which I have not quite seen expressed in their entirety elsewhere. Of course, I am almost always wrong about nearly everything.

 

[paarsurrey]

Since information about our universe isn't provided (outside of science),
we must discover it for ourselves. Empiricism is a method, ie, observing
that universe's phenomena & properties. And it's the only method with
results which are accessible to any intelligent person. This is as opposed
to something personal, eg, intuition, faith.

"Since information about our universe isn't provided (outside of science),
we must discover it for ourselves."
"And it's the only method with
results which are accessible to any intelligent person."

Are the above assertions from Science, please:

• If yes, then please quote for these assertions from a textbook of science or
• from a peer reviewed article published in a journal of repute.

Right, please?

Regards

 

[Revoltingest]

"Since information about our universe isn't provided (outside of science),
we must discover it for ourselves."
"And it's the only method with
results which are accessible to any intelligent person."

Are the above assertions from Science, please:

• If yes, then please quote for these assertions from a textbook of science or
• from a peer reviewed article published in a journal of repute.

Right, please?

Regards

I don't have a source....just the opinion.

 

[paarsurrey]

Without basic materialist & empiricist assumptions you cannot have science.

Is it from Religion or Science, please?

Regards

 

[atanu]

Could you expand on that claim?

Gladly. I think that our intellectual process is one whole. Fragmenting the process within boundaries and calling them ‘science’, ‘philosophy’ or ‘woo’ is convention.

To me Einstein’s thought experiments or even Kekule’s elucidation of benzene structure involved philosophy and ‘meditation’. In both these cases, empirical validation came later.

You also assume that all problems are amenable to empirical investigation right away. But that is not correct. Philosophy and science are partners.

 

[Willamena]

The truthful Religion uses Word of Revelation and experience/s while Science uses experience from experiments to find truth, and it is but natural due to the difference of domains they deal in.

Regards

Empiricism uses revelation from the senses (experience). Experimentation is the use of tools to pry beyond the senses, but it still uses the senses to read the outcome of the tools. Experience is only approximate. It's never the whole story.

 

[Revoltingest]

And one's opinion is neither Religion nor Science. Right, please?

Regards

It's my opinion about both.

 

[paarsurrey]

Empiricism uses revelation from the senses (experience). Experimentation is the use of tools to pry beyond the senses, but it still uses the senses to read the outcome of the tools. Experience is only approximate. It's never the whole story.

I meant Word of Revelation from G-d, I have changed my post accordingly.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Revoltingest said: ↑
Empiricism allows testing what we imagine.

And imagining new ways to test it - which, if Einstein really said what the quote claims, is probably what he had in mind.

So, the basis of Science is imagination. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

There is actually a fairly long history leading up to the scientific revolution and the adoption of the scientific method. And this happened before the concept of a profession of 'scientist' was invented.

One of the most important changes for the rise of science was the determination that ideas about the natural world could be subject to testing within the natural world. That is what ultimately became empiricism.

But it should be pointed out that, contrary to your friend's claim, the original exponents of empiricism were religious people thinking they were investigating God's plan for the universe by considering how His work functions.

Ultimately, empiricism showed its value because of the results of the scientific revolution and the realization that simply 'sitting and thinking' was not enough to determine truth.

The dominance of atheists (such as it is) came much later.

"The dominance of atheists (such as it is) came much later."

Is it accidental, please?

Regards

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Philosophy is best when it is asking probing questions. It is worst when it proposes answers.

Reminds me of something I heared Lawrence Krauss say once...


"Philosophy is great at formulating / asking questions. Science is great at answering them."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Since information about our universe isn't provided (outside of science),
we must discover it for ourselves."
"And it's the only method with
results which are accessible to any intelligent person."

Are the above assertions from Science, please:

• If yes, then please quote for these assertions from a textbook of science or
• from a peer reviewed article published in a journal of repute.

Right, please?

Regards

They are logical conclusions from the facts of reality, from reasonable discourse.

If you want to find out how X works, then empirical study of X will yield the best results.
Locking yourself in a room just "thinking" about X, without having any empirical access to it, without any means to actually test your ideas about X in empirical ways, is not going to yield accurate answers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"The dominance of atheists (such as it is) came much later."

Is it accidental, please?

Regards

No.

As science progressed and knowledge expanded, things attributed to god(s) were knocked out of the park one by one and obtained natural explanations (holding explanatory power that "god claims" could only dream off).
And as science digs deeper and deeper, it is seen that there are no gods or other supernatural entities hiding in the dark corners of the universe.

The more we learn about the universe, the less wiggle room there is for gods, angels, spirits, what-have-you.

Gods simply never show up.
And as the saying goes: the undetectable and the non-existant, look very much alike.

 

[Willamena]

I meant Word of Revelation from G-d, I have changed my post accordingly.

Regards

Yeah, I got that.

 

[Polymath257]

Gladly. I think that our intellectual process is one whole. Fragmenting the process within boundaries and calling them ‘science’, ‘philosophy’ or ‘woo’ is convention.

To me Einstein’s thought experiments or even Kekule’s elucidation of benzene structure involved philosophy and ‘meditation’. In both these cases, empirical validation came later.

But if the empirical data had gone against their insights, we would not know about them because they would have been useless. Einstein and Kekule were, in some senses, lucky. Most theoretical physicists (or chemists) have intuitions that turn out to be wrong.

And this is an important point. Intuition simply isn't a good way to determine truth. Even philosophical consistency isn't a good method. There are just too many cases where intuition and/or philosophical consistency has gone wrong.

That is *why* we insist on empirical testing.

You also assume that all problems are amenable to empirical investigation right away. But that is not correct.

I never claimed that it was. In fact, I quite well understand that there are many important problems that will never be amenable to science.

All of ethics falls under this umbrella. Science can inform ethics. But ethics deals with aspects of our lives that are not, ultimately scientific. It deals with 'should' and not 'is'. Science can, in many cases, tell you how to achieve your goals. But it does not and cannot say what those goals should be.

Philosophy and science are partners.

Not when it comes to scientific questions. For such, philosophy tends to be irrelevant or even a hindrance. For other areas of thought (ethics, aesthetics), science can help occasionally, but philosophy is the dominant actor.

 

[paarsurrey]

No.

As science progressed and knowledge expanded, things attributed to god(s) were knocked out of the park one by one and obtained natural explanations (holding explanatory power that "god claims" could only dream off).
And as science digs deeper and deeper, it is seen that there are no gods or other supernatural entities hiding in the dark corners of the universe.

The more we learn about the universe, the less wiggle room there is for gods, angels, spirits, what-have-you.

Gods simply never show up.
And as the saying goes: the undetectable and the non-existant, look very much alike.

"As science progressed and knowledge expanded"

But Science never took up to investigate that "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist". Right, please?
Why, please?

Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God. Going beyond the obvious truth of that [/sarcasm], what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

Wikipedia quote:

Natural and social sciences are empirical sciences, meaning that the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and must be capable of being verified by other researchers working under the same conditions.[1] This verifiability may well vary even within a scientific discipline[2][3]

Nothing to do with atheism, or religion either.

 

[Polymath257]

"As science progressed and knowledge expanded"

But Science never took up to investigate that "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist". Right, please?
Why, please?

Regards

Because nobody has ever come up with a testable hypothesis on that issue.