Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[mikkel_the_dane]

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".

Good, then there is something natural science can't do. I will leave it at that.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

You don't seem to understand science or what I'm saying. My objective evidence that your claim is disingenuous is that psychiatry is clearly a different thing than science. While it's sometimes referred to as a science, it's not science in the same sense as the scientific method. If what you want to talk about it the different meanings of "science", we can do that. But what you're doing is lumping all uses of the word together. It's a disingenuous tactic. It's like lumping all god-concepts together and making pronouncements about "God" as if Yahweh, a deistic god, and a pantheistic god are all essentially the same thing.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

It differs in that the claim that we know "facts about the universe" (especially if one tosses that word "objective" into the mix!) slides into being prescriptive (dogmatic - making absolute truth claims) rather than descriptive (non-dogmatic - making observations without judgement).

How it was taught to me was more like "this is what we have observed given the tools and limitations we have, subject to change and revision." Maybe to some it is a subtle distinction, but it comes up a lot when some science advocates slide into scientism. And that is just a personal pet peeve of mine, I guess, since this notion that the sciences uncover The Truth™ is... kind of counter to what the discipline is about as I was taught it through my mentors (both scientists and philosophers of science).

Again I do ask - where did you come to your perspective from? Reading lots of pop nonfiction books about the discipline? Working as a career scientist? Gossip on the internet? I ask to understand context - it's interesting how education from different perspectives can shape how we think.

 

[Magic Man]

Good, then there is something natural science can't do. I will leave it at that.

There was never a question as to whether there are things science can't do. That doesn't affect the discussion you started, though.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

I'd prefer if you read and learned something, so you'd realize your claim here is wrong, but whatever you feel is necessary.

 

[Magic Man]

It differs in that the claim that we know "facts about the universe" (especially if one tosses that word "objective" into the mix!) slides into being prescriptive (dogmatic - making absolute truth claims) rather than descriptive (non-dogmatic - making observations without judgement).

How it was taught to me was more like "this is what we have observed given the tools and limitations we have, subject to change and revision." Maybe to some it is a subtle distinction, but it comes up a lot when some science advocates slide into scientism. And that is just a personal pet peeve of mine, I guess, since this notion that the sciences uncover The Truth™ is... kind of counter to what the discipline is about as I was taught it through my mentors (both scientists and philosophers of science).

Again I do ask - where did you come to your perspective from? Reading lots of pop nonfiction books about the discipline? Working as a career scientist? Gossip on the internet? I ask to understand context - it's interesting how education from different perspectives can shape how we think.

That's not a difference. Facts about the universe are things we observe. There's nothing about "facts about the universe" that implies prescriptivism. The speed of light is a fact about our universe. By determining it or repeating it, I'm not prescribing anything, just describing something we've learned.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

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.

Why?

Because one field of science may be about more complex phenomena than another field of science?

Sure, the science of alchemy is about relatively complex phenomena, and the science of mathematics about relatively simple phenomena, so the two sciences might differ in many ways as a result, but that’s largely because complex stuff is…well…complicated, and easy stuff us…well…easier, allowing for more depth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't seem to understand science or what I'm saying. My objective evidence that your claim is disingenuous is that psychiatry is clearly a different thing than science. While it's sometimes referred to as a science, it's not science in the same sense as the scientific method. If what you want to talk about it the different meanings of "science", we can do that. But what you're doing is lumping all uses of the word together. It's a disingenuous tactic. It's like lumping all god-concepts together and making pronouncements about "God" as if Yahweh, a deistic god, and a pantheistic god are all essentially the same thing.

Good that is the point. There are different kinds of science and different kinds of understanding of what the natural science methodlogy is.
Here is a link to a site written by scientists.
"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

Read all of the link and then understand that this is the British version of science. for which there are other cultural versions of science.

But all different gods are gods, Just as different versions of science are all science. It is you who are claiming there is only one God, sorry Science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not a difference. Facts about the universe are things we observe. There's nothing about "facts about the universe" that implies prescriptivism. The speed of light is a fact about our universe. By determining it or repeating it, I'm not prescribing anything, just describing something we've learned.

But you are prescribing what science is. That is the point.

 

[Quintessence]

That's not a difference. Facts about the universe are things we observe. There's nothing about "facts about the universe" that implies prescriptivism. The speed of light is a fact about our universe. By determining it or repeating it, I'm not prescribing anything, just describing something we've learned.

Sorry, in one of your other posts (one I didn't respond to) you mentioned how science supposedly uncovers "objective facts" about the world so it sounded like you might've been intending to convey prescriptivism there. I was also a little bit concerned by the insistence that there are not different understandings of the sciences (there are - something I was reminded of when I went to a seminar a few moons back on indigenous science and how western science has traditionally ignored and undervalued it).

Also, did I miss where you shared with me (or the thread in general - I might have missed your post) your background and how you learned your current perspective on the sciences?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

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".

Anthropologists and historians do study how morality is done.

Moral issues like the treatment of slaves and the Laws of Slavery.

And moral issues like welcoming the stranger.

These are all studied using the tools of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd prefer if you read and learned something, so you'd realize your claim here is wrong, but whatever you feel is necessary.

I have never seen evidence that an understanding can be wrong. That is your claim, but that is not a fact as there is no objective standard to determine which of our 2 forms of understanding is correct and which is not.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Completely removing bias might not be 100% possible, but removing the vast majority of it is. That's why I said "as much as possible".

We're not talking about "truth". That's too subjective and charged a term. We're talking about facts. The fact that we are the bias is the whole point of the scientific method. That's the bias it removes. That's why we do controlled tests and then check them and then have others check them, to avoid that specific bias.

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".

This was right above me specifically saying scientists do not arrive at "truths" because "truth" isn't a scientific term. Scientists do indeed draw conclusions, though. It's literally part of the scientific process. Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Conclusion.

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.

None of that last section is true. Those who understand and accept science acknowledge that it is a great of determining facts about the universe. It can be used to test any claims regarding those facts. There is no "mighty science oracle on high", just people who understand and use science.

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.

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.

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".

Science is the method we use to determine facts about the universe. There are no "scientism cultists". That's a false narrative pushed by those who are anti-science (especially some religious people).

 

[Magic Man]

Anthropologists and historians do study how morality is done.

Moral issues like the treatment of slaves and the Laws of Slavery.

They might study the actions of humans. They don't make conjectures on morality itself. They don't get into "is X moral", even if they report on what humans believe.

 

[HonestJoe]

As long as you functional do an in effect absurdity of the internal is internally irrelevant, I just do it differently.

I suspect the issue here is that you're taking the rhetorical phrase "from the inside" in your OP source too literally (and I'm not even sure it's a good metaphor in the first place). I think the idea that there are fundamental differences between how natural and social sciences are studied is wrong (whether that is actually what your source was trying to say or not).

The core scientific process is the same regardless of what you're studying. Whether you're observing the interactions between galaxies, atoms or people, the underlying principles are the same.

There is a real complication that I think you're kind of touching on, in that everything we think about is going through the filter of our own mind, and we all know how flawed and inconsistent that can be. Part of the reason for the scientific process is to soften the impact of that, having a standardised way in which lots of people can independently review the same evidence and see if they reach the same conclusions.

BTW what is your evidence for what religion is? Because it can't be based on science, because religion is not around us and in the universe around us, so you are not using science according to your own understanding of science. So what are you using, when you claim you know what religion is?

Of course religion is around us as part of the universe. Religion is just human behaviour and humans are part of the universe, so we can observe and study it in the same way we do anything else. It's highly complex and difficult to establish consistent measurements, but that's true of lots of other things too.

My understanding of what religion is is based on observations, my own and those of other people, notably all the people who compile dictionaries and literally establish what the common understanding and use of the word is. It is probably worth noting that just because some religious people happen to do, say or think something doesn't automatically mean that thing is part of religion.

 

[Magic Man]

I have never seen evidence that an understanding can be wrong. That is your claim, but that is not a fact as there is no objective standard to determine which of our 2 forms of understanding is correct and which is not.

Interesting. Well, let me introduce you to the evidence that an understanding can be wrong.

Some people think the earth is flat. Their understanding of the earth and science is wrong. That's objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Completely removing bias might not be 100% possible, but removing the vast majority of it is. That's why I said "as much as possible".

We're not talking about "truth". That's too subjective and charged a term. We're talking about facts. The fact that we are the bias is the whole point of the scientific method. That's the bias it removes. That's why we do controlled tests and then check them and then have others check them, to avoid that specific bias.



This was right above me specifically saying scientists do not arrive at "truths" because "truth" isn't a scientific term. Scientists do indeed draw conclusions, though. It's literally part of the scientific process. Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Conclusion.


None of that last section is true. Those who understand and accept science acknowledge that it is a great of determining facts about the universe. It can be used to test any claims regarding those facts. There is no "mighty science oracle on high", just people who understand and use science.


Science is the method we use to determine facts about the universe. There are no "scientism cultists". That's a false narrative pushed by those who are anti-science (especially some religious people).

Okay, simple question. What is the universe as a fact using science?

 

[Balthazzar]

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.

Evidence is evidence. Religion developed over a span of time for a reason. People adhere to religions for a reason. Experience is evidence of a truth, whether subjective or objective. The scientific method operates via truths accepted as true via experience and observational assessments of. The same is true for religion. My ignorance of science doesn't make me ignorant of my experiences and observational assessments of what is true for me. Your ignorance of religious experience does not negate you experience and assessment of what you observe as a person to be more true than individual cultural realities as they relate to religious thought and practice. The point is things are rarely established as truth oriented without evidence of truth present, including the world's religions, which most of us are ignorant of. I understand my own. You understand science. My Muslim neighbor understands their own. This does not negate the real present in any of the aforementioned, nor any other. It makes us ignorant to ways not our own.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suspect the issue here is that you're taking the rhetorical phrase "from the inside" in your OP source too literally (and I'm not even sure it's a good metaphor in the first place). I think the idea that there are fundamental differences between how natural and social sciences are studied is wrong (whether that is actually what your source was trying to say or not).

...

I didn't read on. If you go back through the thread and the Op, you will see that there were 3 kinds of science mentioned.
And my source wasn't just talking about the 2 you mentioned.

 

[Magic Man]

Sorry, in one of your other posts (one I didn't respond to) you mentioned how science supposedly uncovers "objective facts" about the world so it sounded like you might've been intending to convey prescriptivism there. I was also a little bit concerned by the insistence that there are not different understandings of the sciences (there are - something I was reminded of when I went to a seminar a few moons back on indigenous science and how western science has traditionally ignored and undervalued it).

Also, did I miss where you shared with me (or the thread in general - I might have missed your post) your background and how you learned your current perspective on the sciences?

This is much like talking about "God". People use "science" to mean many different things. The OP is conflating different meanings all into one thing and talking about it as if it's all the same.

I learned what I know about science from various places, starting in school.