Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Magic Man]

Well, that is one understanding of science.

No, that is science. There are no other "understandings" of it. That's how science works. Again, that's why scientists from all over the world can collaborate and peer review each other's stuff. Because, despite variations in culture, science works the same way for everyone.

 

[Magic Man]

There is no objective point of science as with evidence. Your understanding is not objective, it is cultural, social and internal in your subjective cognition.
You can't point to the point. The point is not something you see as through external observation with your eyes. The point is in your mind as your understand you can intersubjectively share with other humans, who agree with you subjectively.

Learn the history, culture and philosophy of science before you start claim that you are authorative about what science is. Nobody is that in the end, because there is no strong external, objective standard for it.

I'd advise you to take your own advice and learn what science is before making authoritative claims about it. Science is the method by which we explore our world. It's a way of testing claims that removes as much human bias as possible, so we can get objective facts.

There is a strong, external, objective standard for science. That's why science is the same in every country and culture. A Chinese scientist follows the same scientific principles as an American one, as an Algerian one, as a Danish one, as an Indian one, etc. That's why it works so well and why it produces things like computers, space travel, airplanes, etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, that is science. There are no other "understandings" of it. That's how science works. Again, that's why scientists from all over the world can collaborate and peer review each other's stuff. Because, despite variations in culture, science works the same way for everyone.

Well, I have referenced a different understanding in the OP.
So you in effect have not read the OP or you would know that there are different understandings of what science is.

 

[Balthazzar]

Still not understanding your meaning. This is about the scientific method, which is how we determine things about the universe as objectively as possible.

Which applies to religious culture also via experience and the understanding that experience is no less real or true than objective reality experienced subjectively as individuals.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah…I never use the word “truth”, when I talk about any science in Natural Sciences. I always referred to as models or theories that are tested and supported by TESTS and OBSERVATIONS…observations that include EXPERIMENTS & EVIDENCE, and the all-important DATA that are acquired from observations in the above experiments & evidence.

Without these tests and observations, the models are not science. That how the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method are essential requirements for Natural Sciences and for Physical Sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology, Earth sciences & astronomy.

Of course , there are limitations to Natural Sciences, they are studies of nature. Scientific theories in Natural Sciences don’t have anything to do with human cultures and human behaviours.

If you want to talk about people’s (humans, of course) behaviours, emotions, thoughts, social interactions in community or society, their cultures, etc, then Natural Sciences would be the wrong sciences to deal with these situations.

Anything that relate to human behaviour, human cultures, human social interactions, etc, then you would be and should be using Social Sciences, like anthropology, sociology, psychology, behavioural sciences, archaeology, political science, economics, and many more.

The question is why that you and @mikkel_the_dane have the tendencies to mix everything up.

If the subject is about Universe, galaxies, stars, planets, etc, then the sciences require to deal with these, would physics, astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology…hence Natural Sciences. You wouldn’t be talking about consciousness or culture or human behaviour in about astronomical objects.

You often accuse people of scientism, when it has nothing to do with scientism. I am not the one being scientism, when I separate Natural Sciences from Social Sciences.

Natural Sciences strictly have to adhere to Falsifiability and Scientific Method…Social Sciences don’t.

There are places for Social Sciences and there are places for Natural Sciences. Why would you (or mikkel) mixed these two together, and then blame everyone who disagreed with you as scientism?

Your confusion over which and which, and using this stupid strawman Scientism, are truly annoying. Whenever I read your posts and use this stupid scientism BS, I have less respect of you and your opinion, because you acting like a creationist.

Well, yes. You show in effect that there are different version of science, because we have at least one who claims it is about truth.

As for science, in my culture there are 3 kinds and not just 2.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still not understanding your meaning. This is about the scientific method, which is how we determine things about the universe as objectively as possible.

No, because there is at least one version of science that is not objective like natural science.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, I have referenced a different understanding in the OP.
So you in effect have not read the OP or you would know that there are different understandings of what science is.

I read the OP. I acknowledge that some people misunderstand science. That doesn't mean there are different "understandings" of science. It just means there are misconceptions. Science is the method we use to find out objective facts about the world. There is only one actual "understanding" of it. It doesn't vary by culture or person. Again, that's why it works as is in every culture on the planet.

 

[Magic Man]

Which applies to religious culture also via experience and the understanding that experience is no less real or true than objective reality experienced subjectively as individuals.

What applies to religious culture? Science is a method of obtaining objective facts about the universe. Religion involves beliefs about the universe that are not subject to that method of fact-checking.

 

[Quintessence]

The point of science is to determine things about the universe through means that remove as much human bias as possible.

To clarify, do you remember where you were taught this particular perspective?

I ask because as someone who pursued a post-grad degree in science and also added in the philosophy of science to my program of study, this is not the impression I have gotten.

Probably beyond all else, if I had to identify what the "point" of sciences are as a methodology and means of knowing the world around us, that point would be to describe the world around us rather than prescribe the world around us. That is, it is about repeated and statistically significant empirical observation of the world - often through standardized measuring instruments - without passing judgement on what these observations mean. The sciences do not make normative declarations of what ought to be or what should be, only what is (while acknowledging the limitations of the data and tools used). I suppose implicit in this is a reduction of bias, but that's not how it was framed to me in my own studies as elimination of bias is impossible. Instead, mindfulness of the limitations of one's methods and appropriate application of statistics to not overreach conclusions from the empirically observed data. And a lot of it is really about knowing how to ask good questions and construct a method to get an answer that actually addresses that question successfully. Also, knowing that scientific methodology is not always the appropriate tool to address all questions, or the only tool that could be used.

 

[Magic Man]

No, because there is at least one version of science that is not objective like natural science.

No, there is science. There are no other versions of it. If you're referring to different disciplines like psychiatry, that's a separate topic. Lumping that in with the scientific method in general is disingenuous.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I read the OP. I acknowledge that some people misunderstand science. That doesn't mean there are different "understandings" of science. It just means there are misconceptions. Science is the method we use to find out objective facts about the world. There is only one actual "understanding" of it. It doesn't vary by culture or person. Again, that's why it works as is in every culture on the planet.

That’s what I like to see!

A unapologetically forceful statement of your culture’s position!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I read the OP. I acknowledge that some people misunderstand science. That doesn't mean there are different "understandings" of science. It just means there are misconceptions. Science is the method we use to find out objective facts about the world. There is only one actual "understanding" of it. It doesn't vary by culture or person. Again, that's why it works as is in every culture on the planet.

Well, no. You are not the only human in the world and there are other humans, which have a different understanding than you. Now I will play your game. You are not a human, you are a "human". You don't think, you "think". You are in effect for your "thinking" not thinking differently, you are doing a misconception.
If that is your level then all I have to do is to use it on you. You are not a human, you are a "human" and not even really real as for what matters. You are useless and worthless and we decide ovbjectively if you matter.

 

[Magic Man]

To clarify, do you remember where you were taught this particular perspective?

I ask because as someone who pursued a post-grad degree in science and also added in the philosophy of science to my program of study, this is not the impression I have gotten.

Probably beyond all else, if I had to identify what the "point" of sciences are as a methodology and means of knowing the world around us, that point would be to describe the world around us rather than prescribe the world around us. That is, it is about repeated and statistically significant empirical observation of the world - often through standardized measuring instruments - without passing judgement on what these observations mean. The sciences do not make normative declarations of what ought to be or what should be, only what is (while acknowledging the limitations of the data and tools used). I suppose implicit in this is a reduction of bias, but that's not how it was framed to me in my own studies as elimination of bias is impossible. Instead, mindfulness of the limitations of one's methods and appropriate application of statistics to not overreach conclusions from the empirically observed data. And a lot of it is really about knowing how to ask good questions and construct a method to get an answer that actually addresses that question successfully. Also, knowing that scientific methodology is not always the appropriate tool to address all questions, or the only tool that could be used.

I'm unclear on why you think what you described is different from what I said.

The scientific method is always the appropriate tool to address questions that involve facts about the universe. We use a lighter version of it in our daily lives to figure things out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, there is science. There are no other versions of it. If you're referring to different disciplines like psychiatry, that's a separate topic. Lumping that in with the scientific method in general is disingenuous.

What is your objective evidence with science that it is disingenuous?
You don't seem to understand when you are not doing natural science, but using in effect your feelings.

 

[Magic Man]

That’s what I like to see!

A unapologetically forceful statement of your culture’s position!

Cool! Now, just change that to "an unapologetically forceful statement of fact!", and you'll be exactly right!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm unclear on why you think what you described is different from what I said.

The scientific method is always the appropriate tool to address questions that involve facts about the universe. We use a lighter version of it in our daily lives to figure things out.

Yeah, please explain how to do morality and ethics using natural science. There is a Nobel Prize in that as it has never been done before in recorded history.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, no. You are not the only human in the world and there are other humans, which have a different understanding than you. Now I will play your game. You are not a human, you are a "human". You don't think, you "think". You are in effect for your "thinking" not thinking differently, you are doing a misconception.
If that is your level then all I have to do is to use it on you. You are not a human, you are a "human" and not even really real as for what matters. You are useless and worthless and we decide ovbjectively if you matter.

I'm not sure what most of this was supposed to mean, but it's not really helpful. You're right that there are other humans with different understandings of things. And yet, science is a certain thing. If you or others think it's something other than what I've described, then your "understanding" of it is wrong.

There are some things in the world that can have multiple different "understandings" that aren't inaccurate or wrong. This is not one of them. Analogy time:

"The sun is a star."

Well, that's just your understanding of it.

No, that's a fact. It's supported by objective evidence and acknowledged by anyone familiar with the scientific concept.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, please explain how to do morality and ethics using natural science. There is a Nobel Prize in that as it has never been done before in recorded history.

Why? I mean, there are certain questions involving morality that can be verified via the scientific method, but I'm unclear on why you think science should "explain how to do morality and ethics".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure what most of this was supposed to mean, but it's not really helpful. You're right that there are other humans with different understandings of things. And yet, science is a certain thing. If you or others think it's something other than what I've described, then your "understanding" of it is wrong.

There are some things in the world that can have multiple different "understandings" that aren't inaccurate or wrong. This is not one of them. Analogy time:

"The sun is a star."

Well, that's just your understanding of it.

No, that's a fact. It's supported by objective evidence and acknowledged by anyone familiar with the scientific concept.

Well, you really don't understand as relevant when you are subjective and not doing science. So I will just back away for our exchange.

 

[PureX]

Yes, it actually is. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove bias ...

Removing bias is, firstly, not possible. And secondly, does not result in any version of truth that is not biased. Mostly because WE ARE THE BIAS. How we think, what we can apprehend, where and how we investigare, inclusng the scientific process itself IS A BIAS. And will inevitably result in biased conclusions if we are foolish enough to draw.

Scientists are not that foolish. So they do not draw conclusions. They simply ask more questions based on the observations they have available to them. They never arrive at any "truths".

They don't declare a theory "the truth" because "the truth" is not a scientific term. It's subjective and malleable.

They don't declare any truth because they are not philosophers. Science is not philosophy. Nor is it religion. Nor is it art. Science can only declare which theories are observed to work as predicted, and which theories do not appear to work as predicted within a specific set of test parameters.

That's it. That's science.

But the scientism cultists around here have decided to elevate this practical material information to the level of being the absolute determiner of all reality and truth. Delivered to them via the magical "evidence angels" from the mighty science oracle on high.

Those who accept science accept things that have been essentially proven through the scientific method.

Then they are idiots. Because science is not about proving anything. At best, it's about establishing and then following the probabilities, with one eye looking back at itself, at all times, with great skepticism.

They don't generally call it "truth", although at times that could be useful. They also have not made science their godless God.

I agree, the scientist haven't. They know better. I am not talking about the scientists. I'm talking about the scientism cultists that think science has replaced God as the fountain of all reality and truth.

That's a misconception spread by believers who are anti-science.

No, it's the nonsense being spewed constantly around here by the scientism cultists that think scientists are defining reality and discovering the "truth" of it. And then proving it's the truth by the mighty magical powers of "falsification", and "objective evidence".