Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Please show what the objective referents of thinkm understanding and wrong are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

No, I am saying there are at least 3 differnt versions of science. In effect objective, intersubjective and individually subjective. And all 3 happen in the universe.

 

[Magic Man]

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

That's far from a simple question. That's just asking to define a word. Here's the definition from Wiki:

"The universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents."

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

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.

Humans are a part of nature, are we not?

Animalia Chorus! | A Capella Science​

 

[PureX]

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.

It doesn't matter whether or not one says it. It matters that one believes it.

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

The models are just representations of the different concepts we generate as we perceive our own existence. PERCEPTION IS CONCEPTION. Science is one of the ways we can explore these various conceptions that we generate to see which ones 'fit' with all the others, better.

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.

Nor do they reveal the "truth of things" beyond basic physical mechanics.

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.

We're just responding to the innate and determined confusion of the scientism cultists.

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.

It is very likely that the universe embodies far, far more than just those physical phenomena. As even our own "puny" lives do here on just one tiny planet. So presuming that science is the only cognitive mechanism we have for exploring the universe would be quite foolish.

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.

I have named no one as a scientism cultist, ever, in spite of the many times I have been asked to do so. So if you are feeling accused, you are doing it to yourself. And perhaps you should be asking yourself why you presumed these accusations to apply to you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's far from a simple question. That's just asking to define a word. Here's the definition from Wiki:

"The universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents."

A defintion is not evidence. If you don't understand the difference between a defintion and evidence, I can try to explain it to you.
I didn't ask what the word universe means. I asked what it is with evidence.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Not all evidence is equal. The best example of this is anecdotal vs. statistical. Do Americans believe in God?

Evidence A: I asked my two friends, and they said they do. Therefore Americans do believe in God.
Evidence B: We did a controlled survey of 1,500 random Americans and found that some believe in God and some don't.

Evidence B is useful. Evidence A is not.

The rest of your post is too convoluted to mean much. The fact is science is the method we use to determine facts about the universe. Religion involves beliefs, rather than an objective attempt to determine facts. In some ways, that's fine. In other ways, it runs into problems.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

Yeah, that does make things challenging. There's a reason why this is probably my favorite web comic of all time - it so accurately depicts what happens in the space between the work of professional scientists and the mass media and the general population that it... it's kind of sad, actually:

PHD Comics: Science News Cycle

Science communication is so stupidly important - it's why I try to drill it into the heads of my students that it's not to be overlooked. A lot of STEM types are not that into writing, which is a real shame. Not all of them will go on to be career scientists - though if they are we have a talk about how the work of a scientist isn't done until you publish what you found - but the communication piece is also super relevant for all of my pre-med/health students too. Maybe even more important, because when you're trying to explain to a patient in your office what's going on with their bodies and how this treatment might help them there's something deeply personal on the line!

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

That's a bit nonspecific, but okay - I get you don't really want to get into it. Fair enough I guess.

 

[Magic Man]

Please show what the objective referents of thinkm understanding and wrong are.

You're asking for the evidence that the earth is not flat? I can provide it, but it seems pointless, unless you're genuinely rejecting the fact that the earth is flat.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not all evidence is equal. The best example of this is anecdotal vs. statistical. Do Americans believe in God?

Evidence A: I asked my two friends, and they said they do. Therefore Americans do believe in God.
Evidence B: We did a controlled survey of 1,500 random Americans and found that some believe in God and some don't.

Evidence B is useful. Evidence A is not.

The rest of your post is too convoluted to mean much. The fact is science is the method we use to determine facts about the universe. Religion involves beliefs, rather than an objective attempt to determine facts. In some ways, that's fine. In other ways, it runs into problems.

Yeah, but it is not objective that they believe in God or not. And to understand how that works you can't just use natural science. And you can't observe how a world view makes sense.
BTW how do you observe as objective useful? I have never been able to do that.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, that does make things challenging. There's a reason why this is probably my favorite web comic of all time - it so accurately depicts what happens in the space between the work of professional scientists and the mass media and the general population that it... it's kind of sad, actually:

PHD Comics: Science News Cycle

Science communication is so stupidly important - it's why I try to drill it into the heads of my students that it's not to be overlooked. A lot of STEM types are not that into writing, which is a real shame. Not all of them will go on to be career scientists - though if they are we have a talk about how the work of a scientist isn't done until you publish what you found - but the communication piece is also super relevant for all of my pre-med/health students too. Maybe even more important, because when you're trying to explain to a patient in your office what's going on with their bodies and how this treatment might help them there's something deeply personal on the line!

Argh, this is one of my biggest pet peeves. This is why so many people (Americans, at least) distrust science and don't understand it. "One day, science said red meat is good for you, then it said it's bad for you, now it's good for you again?" No, "science" didn't say that. Inaccurate headlines and articles said that.

That's a bit nonspecific, but okay - I get you don't really want to get into it. Fair enough I guess.

I mean, I don't really have anything more specific. I learned about it all through school, and I've learned more about it in discussions, reading and listening since then.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're asking for the evidence that the earth is not flat? I can provide it, but it seems pointless, unless you're genuinely rejecting the fact that the earth is flat.

No, what is the universe as such with evidence. You claim science and the universe. So what is the universe with evidence and please no defintion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Argh, this is one of my biggest pet peeves. This is why so many people (Americans, at least) distrust science and don't understand it. "One day, science said red meat is good for you, then it said it's bad for you, now it's good for you again?" No, "science" didn't say that. Inaccurate headlines and articles said that.


I mean, I don't really have anything more specific. I learned about it all through school, and I've learned more about it in discussions, reading and listening since then.

Sure, but America is not the world. I learned about science in another culture.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, but it is not objective that they believe in God or not. And to understand how that works you can't just use natural science. And you can't observe how a world view makes sense.
BTW how do you observe as objective useful? I have never been able to do that.

Whether they believe or not can be an objective fact. Whether their belief is justified is a different story (and can also be an objective fact). You can understand whether or not they say they believe using science. You can observe how a worldview makes sense, but that's also a different subject.

 

[Magic Man]

No, what is the universe as such with evidence. You claim science and the universe. So what is the universe with evidence and please no defintion.

You're not making sense. Your question is "what is the universe?". That is a request for a definition. You'd have to be much more specific about what you're looking for if you want evidence. Evidence for what?

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Why what? Psychiatry is not science in the same way chemistry is. "Science" is used to mean multiple things. Lumping all those meanings together doesn't work. It's not about more complex or less. It's about using the scientific method.

 

[Magic Man]

Sure, but America is not the world. I learned about science in another culture.

Cool, and if they taught you properly, you learned the exact same thing I did, since science doesn't change depending on the culture.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whether they believe or not can be an objective fact. Whether their belief is justified is a different story (and can also be an objective fact). You can understand whether or not they say they believe using science. You can observe how a worldview makes sense, but that's also a different subject.

No, I want to learn that. I goes against all I have learned about being human, but it would bring about world peace because if we can observe that, we can make it objective and use natural science on it.
You would be the greatest scientist so far in recorded human history.
Please explain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Cool, and if they taught you properly, you learned the exact same thing I did, since science doesn't change depending on the culture.

And I have just given you a link that shows that it does change with culture.

 

[Magic Man]

No, I want to learn that. I goes against all I have learned about being human, but it would bring about world peace because if we can observe that, we can make it objective and use natural science on it.
You would be the greatest scientist so far in recorded human history.
Please explain.

If you clarify what you want explained, I'd be happy to.