Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Science is the same everywhere. Those statements about it are either true or false and don't depend on the culture.

What I like about your culture is the way that you assert the objectivity of your subjective views, due to the superiority of your culture.

And you do it unapologetically.

IMNSHO, that’s a Boss Move!

It means that your atheism is just like Catholicism.

It’s good to have another example of this phenomena.

Otherwise, I’d feel all alone.

According to science, your culture is not the only one.

But you won’t learn this giving randomized polls.

You’ll need to read peer reviewed articles from experts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not different variants of science or different versions of it. 4, 5 and 6 are true (mostly). 1 is an interpretation and depends on what exactly you mean. 2 is right and wrong, in that science can be both theoretical and practical. 3 is simply wrong.

Science is the same everywhere. Those statements about it are either true or false and don't depend on the culture.

Yeah, and it wasn't written by me.
"
Gunver Lystbæk Vestergård
Ph.d. i videnskabskommunikation

Cand.public fra Aarhus Universitet i 2010 med en bachelor i medievidenskab og videnskabsstudier.
Jeg er erhvervsPhD i videnskabsjournalistik ved Experimentarium og Center for Videnskabsstudier, Aarhus Universitet.
Jeg har som journalist skrevet for bl.a. Weekendavisen, Illustreret Videnskab, Jyllandsposten, Århus Stiftstidende og Videnskab.dk."

Just google tranlate this part Ph.d. i videnskabskommunikation

So again you overlook this part:
Summa summarum, there is no clear definition of science. However, everyone agrees that science covers a form of profession or a job which has its own workplaces, working methods and its own job titles. That is to say, science is, in a way, curiosity put into a system.

You really don't want that there are other understandings of what science is than yours.

Here is another from a site written by in part scientists:
"Though they might seem elementary, these questions are actually quite difficult to answer satisfactorily. Opinions on such issues vary widely within the field (and occasionally part ways with the views of scientists themselves — who mainly spend their time doing science, not analyzing it abstractly). Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!"

The philosophy of science - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, there is. Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained". Again, there is an objective standard, which is why scientists from all over the world can collaborate on it, regardless of culture.

Well, as I have shown that is not the same as natural, social and cultural science because all of them are not about the psychical and natural world.
So you contradictict yourself.

 

[Pogo]

If you decide to accept the fact that the last step of the scientific method is to report a conclusion, let me know. Otherwise, this is pointless.

I wonder how many papers he has submitted without analysis or conclusion.
Maybe he can link us to one.

Or maybe link us to several from others to show us that that is how science is really done.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wonder how many papers he has submitted without analysis or conclusion.
Maybe he can link us to one.

Or maybe link us to several from others to show us that that is how science is really done.

Well, in one version of science you don't make a conclussion as an actual result. You make a prediction about what you expect to observe the next time.

 

[firedragon]

Irrelevant, not my brother.

Absolutely relevant brother. Unless I misunderstood you completely. If that's the case, I do apologize.

 

[gnostic]

What I like about your culture is the way that you assert the objectivity of your subjective views, due to the superiority of your culture.

And you do it unapologetically.

IMNSHO, that’s a Boss Move!

It means that your atheism is just like Catholicism.

Why do you think whether a person who understands and use science(s) or its respective field(s), or not - have to fall within the parameters of “atheism“ or ”theism”, or to any other religious-philosophical “-ism” types (eg monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, panentheism, pantheism, deism, agnosticism, etc)????

All of these -isms, including that of agnosticism and atheism, only deal with the question of existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, nothing more, nothing less.

Where theist would say he believe in a deity or deities existing, atheists would either don't believe or lack the belief. None of these 2 stances have anything to do with Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences.

Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences have much in common, as they adhere to Methodological Naturalism, and adhere to requirements of the following standards:

• FALSIFIABILITY
• SCIENTIFIC METHOD
• PEER REVIEW

If any new hypothesis or updates/modification/addition to any existing scientific theory, that don't adhere to these 3 standards or requirements, then the concept isn't science and won't be accepted as science. In fact, a concept that fail to meet the Falsifiability requirement would mean that the concept isn't even a hypothesis, because the concept is untestable, and won't and cannot proceed to the next requirement - Scientific Method.

There are much in common, between Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences, as they use the same sciences:

• Physics
• Chemistry
• Earth Sciences
• Astronomy

The big differences between the two, is that Physical Sciences ONLY focused on non-living phenomena, whether it be natural or man-made.

Natural Sciences deal with both living phenomena and non-living phenomena, HOWEVER it doesn't include anything that are "man-made".

To put it into perspective for you, as to what Physical Sciences are involved in, just about everything physical, but some are natural (eg rocks, earthquake, mountains, oceans, planets, stars, galaxies), and so on, all these are both physical and natural, but not man-made (and non-living), while anything that have do with technology or engineering are man-made (eg roads, bridges, cars, ships, clocks, tv, computer hardware, etc).

Natural Sciences also focused on natural phenomena that can be either "non-living" (I have already given some examples of non-living but natural, like rocks, oceans, planets, etc) and "living".

The "living" parts of groups of other sciences (and fields) under Life Sciences, generally termed as biology. There are abundance of different fields in biology, eg microbiology, botany, zoology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, evolutionary biology, cell biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, etc.

You had mentioned "culture" in your post.

Culture have to do with human's behaviour, social interaction and practices/habits that are norms in specific human societies. Culture is often tied to some regions, so what the social norm in United States, would not be the norm for societies in Islamic societies or in Tibet, and vice versa. Cultures can range from a number of different areas, such as beliefs (eg personal opinions, political views, philosophical views, religions), customs, arts, literature, music, food (cuisine), laws, politics, etc.

Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences don't deal with any culture. The studies of cultures fall under the Social Sciences, like anthropology, sociology, law, political science.

Social Sciences don't have to adhere to Methodological Naturalism, nor to Falsifiability and Scientific Method, because in studies like psychology and behavior science (or other related fields), required to study human emotion and behaviour, which involved listening to patients' personal views. So dealing with patients' problems, the evidence can be highly subjective, as can be with any counselling and treatments, again subjective.

The evidence given in Social Sciences, don't require the evidence be "physical", nor "natural".

Regardless, atheism and theism have nothing to do with Natural Sciences.

Being a scientist, whether this scientist be a physicist, chemist, biologist, geologist, astronomer or astrophysicist, these are professional jobs, required a person to be QUALIFIED & EXPERIENCED in his or her respective professional field.

Being a theist or atheist, isn't a job, and you don't need to be qualified be either one of them.

Like every other creationists here and elsewhere, you are confusing atheist with scientist, or atheism with science. Neither of them are synonymous to one another. You are generalising, BTP.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Absolutely relevant brother. Unless I misunderstood you completely. If that's the case, I do apologize.

Well, here is an example of it doing so.

Yes, there is. Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained". Again, there is an objective standard, which is why scientists from all over the world can collaborate on it, regardless of culture.

I.e. the physical and natural world.
Now let us be honest. It is one version from some people who claim science is this. It is not the correct version of science, but that is because there is no correct version of science. There are different versions of understanding of what science is and at least one of them is not methodological naturalsim, because the abouve claim is a fact according to the poster, who claims to be a scientist.

So here it is. I have never found the correct, objective understanding of science and in those close to 30 years I have been do this I have also come across that science is about the physical and natural world.
If you ask enough of my follow atheists, some of them will claim that science is about that and it is a fact.

 

[gnostic]

I’m talking about using science to study religion.

Scientists do study religion. These scientists are often anthropologists. They study cultures of different societies, and among the culture include understanding social behavior, custom/habit, any human activities that are related to certain cultures, like art, music, food, religions, politics, etc.

But anthropology falls under the SOCIAL SCIENCES category, NOT UNDER THE NATURAL SCIENCES or PHYSICAL SCIENCES.

Natural Sciences are studies of nature. These include sciences in physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, astronomy and biology (or Life Sciences). None of these sciences in that list, study science.

Cultures, including religions, are not natural, but man-made constructs, just as art, music, literature, politics, laws, economics, etc.

There are other non-scientific studies of religions, like theology, religion comparative studies, scriptural scholarship, etc. These non-scientific studies fall under the Humanities.

If you are looking for scientific study on religion, then you won't find it in physics or chemistry or biology. What you should be looking at, is anthropology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you think whether a person who understands and use science(s) or its respective field(s), or not - have to fall within the parameters of “atheism“ or ”theism”, or to any other religious-philosophical “-ism” types (eg monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, panentheism, pantheism, deism, agnosticism, etc)????

All of these -isms, including that of agnosticism and atheism, only deal with the question of existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, nothing more, nothing less.

Where theist would say he believe in a deity or deities existing, atheists would either don't believe or lack the belief. None of these 2 stances have anything to do with Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences.

Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences have much in common, as they adhere to Methodological Naturalism, and adhere to requirements of the following standards:

• FALSIFIABILITY
• SCIENTIFIC METHOD
• PEER REVIEW

If any new hypothesis or updates/modification/addition to any existing scientific theory, that don't adhere to these 3 standards or requirements, then the concept isn't science and won't be accepted as science. In fact, a concept that fail to meet the Falsifiability requirement would mean that the concept isn't even a hypothesis, because the concept is untestable, and won't and cannot proceed to the next requirement - Scientific Method.

There are much in common, between Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences, as they use the same sciences:

• Physics
• Chemistry
• Earth Sciences
• Astronomy

The big differences between the two, is that Physical Sciences ONLY focused on non-living phenomena, whether it be natural or man-made.

Natural Sciences deal with both living phenomena and non-living phenomena, HOWEVER it doesn't include anything that are "man-made".

To put it into perspective for you, as to what Physical Sciences are involved in, just about everything physical, but some are natural (eg rocks, earthquake, mountains, oceans, planets, stars, galaxies), and so on, all these are both physical and natural, but not man-made (and non-living), while anything that have do with technology or engineering are man-made (eg roads, bridges, cars, ships, clocks, tv, computer hardware, etc).

Natural Sciences also focused on natural phenomena that can be either "non-living" (I have already given some examples of non-living but natural, like rocks, oceans, planets, etc) and "living".

The "living" parts of groups of other sciences (and fields) under Life Sciences, generally termed as biology. There are abundance of different fields in biology, eg microbiology, botany, zoology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, evolutionary biology, cell biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, etc.

You had mentioned "culture" in your post.

Culture have to do with human's behaviour, social interaction and practices/habits that are norms in specific human societies. Culture is often tied to some regions, so what the social norm in United States, would not be the norm for societies in Islamic societies or in Tibet, and vice versa. Cultures can range from a number of different areas, such as beliefs (eg personal opinions, political views, philosophical views, religions), customs, arts, literature, music, food (cuisine), laws, politics, etc.

Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences don't deal with any culture. The studies of cultures fall under the Social Sciences, like anthropology, sociology, law, political science.

Social Sciences don't have to adhere to Methodological Naturalism, nor to Falsifiability and Scientific Method, because in studies like psychology and behavior science (or other related fields), required to study human emotion and behaviour, which involved listening to patients' personal views. So dealing with patients' problems, the evidence can be highly subjective, as can be with any counselling and treatments, again subjective.

The evidence given in Social Sciences, don't require the evidence be "physical", nor "natural".

Regardless, atheism and theism have nothing to do with Natural Sciences.

Being a scientist, whether this scientist be a physicist, chemist, biologist, geologist, astronomer or astrophysicist, these are professional jobs, required a person to be QUALIFIED & EXPERIENCED in his or her respective professional field.

Being a theist or atheist, isn't a job, and you don't need to be qualified be either one of them.

Like every other creationists here and elsewhere, you are confusing atheist with scientist, or atheism with science. Neither of them are synonymous to one another. You are generalising, BTP.

@Magic Man
If you haven't, read the post. All of it.
And then ask for a corresponding view on social and cultural sciences and I will find it for you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Scientists do study religion. These scientists are often anthropologists. They study cultures of different societies, and among the culture include understanding social behavior, custom/habit, any human activities that are related to certain cultures, like art, music, food, religions, politics, etc.

But anthropology falls under the SOCIAL SCIENCES category, NOT UNDER THE NATURAL SCIENCES or PHYSICAL SCIENCES.

Natural Sciences are studies of nature. These include sciences in physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, astronomy and biology (or Life Sciences). None of these sciences in that list, study science.

Cultures, including religions, are not natural, but man-made constructs, just as art, music, literature, politics, laws, economics, etc.

There are other non-scientific studies of religions, like theology, religion comparative studies, scriptural scholarship, etc. These non-scientific studies fall under the Humanities.

If you are looking for scientific study on religion, then you won't find it in physics or chemistry or biology. What you should be looking at, is anthropology.

In my culture humanities are considered science. But never mind that.

 

[firedragon]

Well, here is an example of it doing so.

I.e. the physical and natural world.
Now let us be honest. It is one version from some people who claim science is this. It is not the correct version of science, but that is because there is no correct version of science. There are different versions of understanding of what science is and at least one of them is not methodological naturalsim, because the abouve claim is a fact according to the poster, who claims to be a scientist.

So here it is. I have never found the correct, objective understanding of science and in those close to 30 years I have been do this I have also come across that science is about the physical and natural world.
If you ask enough of my follow atheists, some of them will claim that science is about that and it is a fact.

That's exactly what I said.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's exactly what I said.

So you said that there are no version claimed where science is about the physical and natural word. Okay.

 

[gnostic]

Well, here is an example of it doing so.

I.e. the physical and natural world.
Now let us be honest. It is one version from some people who claim science is this. It is not the correct version of science, but that is because there is no correct version of science. There are different versions of understanding of what science is and at least one of them is not methodological naturalsim, because the abouve claim is a fact according to the poster, who claims to be a scientist.

So here it is. I have never found the correct, objective understanding of science and in those close to 30 years I have been do this I have also come across that science is about the physical and natural world.
If you ask enough of my follow atheists, some of them will claim that science is about that and it is a fact.

There are 4 broad classifications of sciences that I know of. These are

1. Physical Sciences (physics, chemistry, Earth sciences & astronomy...anything that non-living phenomena, whether it be natural (eg mountains, seas, atmosphere, rocks, planets, stars, etc) or man-made (like technology (eg car, computer hardware, wristwatches) or engineering (eg structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, electronics, etc).
2. Natural Sciences (same sciences as above, but particularly and ONLY IF THEY ARE NATURAL PHENOMENA, and that would include Life Sciences, eg biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, zoology, botany, etc).
3. Social Sciences (only deal with human behavior (eg psychology), human cultures & customs (eg anthropology, sociology) and human activities & institution (eg archaeology, laws, politics, economics, etc).
4. Formal Sciences (logic & mathematics; mathematics can be used in any of these above science classifications).

Of these four, only Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences adhere to Methodological Naturalism. And only these two adhere to standards of Falsifiability and Scientific Method.

Formal Sciences have their own rules.

As to Social Sciences, Scientific Method is not as important, that's why Social Sciences are often referred to as "soft science".

You cannot ask a physicist and expect him or her to understand psychological disorders and treat them. Nor would you ask anthropologist to understand where the energy of the star (eg the Sun) come from and how it work.

Different scientists have different spheres of expertise.

What part of the words "Natural" Science or Methodological "Naturalism" that you don't understand, mikkel? The words Natural and Naturalism would signify it being related to "nature", nothing that's man-made.

And why in the hell are you bringing up atheist?

Being an atheist, don't require scientific knowledge. The only question that atheism deal with, is the non-existence of any deity, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. Atheism have absolutely nothing to do with Natural Science.

Why are you falsely equating atheism and science?

You are just bad as a creationist.

 

[firedragon]

So you said that there are no version claimed where science is about the physical and natural word. Okay.

Of course. Science is always about the natural world. The fundamental axiom in the philosophy of science is methodological naturalism. That's what I said mikkel.

Cheers.

 

[gnostic]

In my culture humanities are considered science. But never mind that.

Humanities are great, mikkel, but I don't consider subject like music or art or literature to be "science".

But if your country say Humanities and Science are related, it would be related to Social Sciences that deal with human cultures, like anthropology and archaeology, but Humanities have nothing to do with Natural Sciences or with Physical Sciences.

Humanities don't need to follow the requirements of Scientific Method, nor that of Methodological Naturalism.

 

[firedragon]

Of these four, only Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences adhere to Methodological Naturalism.

Ah you were talking about all kinds of sciences like home science and the science of marketing etc etc. I had a lecturer who was a designated Marketing Scientist. Then you get data science which is a highly paid job.

I guess this is the height of being pedantic. You don't have to agree with everything someone says. But there is no point in this kind of rhetoric my friend. When someone speaks of science you know what they are talking about.

Anyway, I will leave you to it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are 4 broad classifications of sciences that I know of. These are

1. Physical Sciences (physics, chemistry, Earth sciences & astronomy...anything that non-living phenomena, whether it be natural (eg mountains, seas, atmosphere, rocks, planets, stars, etc) or man-made (like technology (eg car, computer hardware, wristwatches) or engineering (eg structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, electronics, etc).
2. Natural Sciences (same sciences as above, but particularly and ONLY IF THEY ARE NATURAL PHENOMENA, and that would include Life Sciences, eg biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, zoology, botany, etc).
3. Social Sciences (only deal with human behavior (eg psychology), human cultures & customs (eg anthropology, sociology) and human activities & institution (eg archaeology, laws, politics, economics, etc).
4. Formal Sciences (logic & mathematics; mathematics can be used in any of these above science classifications).

Of these four, only Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences adhere to Methodological Naturalism. And only these two adhere to standards of Falsifiability and Scientific Method.

Formal Sciences have their own rules.

As to Social Sciences, Scientific Method is not as important, that's why Social Sciences are often referred to as "soft science".

You cannot ask a physicist and expect him or her to understand psychological disorders and treat them. Nor would you ask anthropologist to understand where the energy of the star (eg the Sun) come from and how it work.

Different scientists have different spheres of expertise.

What part of the words "Natural" Science or Methodological "Naturalism" that you don't understand, mikkel? The words Natural and Naturalism would signify it being related to "nature", nothing that's man-made.

And why in the hell are you bringing up atheist?

Being an atheist, don't require scientific knowledge. The only question that atheism deal with, is the non-existence of any deity, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. Atheism have absolutely nothing to do with Natural Science.

Why are you falsely equating atheism and science?

You are just bad as a creationist.

Well, I have in this thread given an example from a Danish scientist, that we in Denmark have another understanding of science.

As for atheists there is this:
"Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

So let me explain to you, what you are doing. You are in effect claiming that what atheism and science are objective and not in effect social and cultural.

So I am not fun to be around, because I can spot belief systems in the non-relgious and that includes me. I am not that special, in that I don't have a belief system.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Humanities are great, mikkel, but I don't consider subject like music or art or literature to be "science".

But if your country say Humanities and Science are related, it would be related to Social Sciences that deal with human cultures, like anthropology and archaeology, but Humanities have nothing to do with Natural Sciences or with Physical Sciences.

Humanities don't need to follow the requirements of Scientific Method, nor that of Methodological Naturalism.

No, not in my culture. There are 3 different overall kind of sciences: Natural, social and cultural. And they are not the same.
So please stop. you are not humanity and your culture is not the only one around.
You don't get to decide what other people consider science and nor do I. I am just pointing out that your version is not the only one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course. Science is always about the natural world. The fundamental axiom in the philosophy of science is methodological naturalism. That's what I said mikkel.

Cheers.

Yeah and I have linked to other views than yours in this thread.
And other social and cultural understandings of what science is.
So you claim is irrelvant for all understandings of what science is. It is only relevant if someone believes that is the only version of science.