How good is science as a religion?

[RestlessSoul]

You say Greek mythology was never to be taken at face value, yet other myths seem to be. Plenty of debates on that topic here at RF.

Not a fan of glorification of people or entities, to be honest.

We glorify ourselves, that's the point. And we are headed for trouble when we do.

That said, there are some human acheivements which I think we can reasonanly describe as glorious; The Cistine Chapel, for example, or Mozart's Requiem.

 

[cladking]

Science, scientific inquiry, acknowledges and accepts this basic fact of the human condition. Having accepted that fact, those disciplines that are placed under the umbrella of Science make a concerted effort to identify the ways in which human fallibility impacts the knowledge acquisition process and takes active steps to mitigate those impacts. Notice I use the term mitigate. Certainly the goal or ideal would be to eliminate any human error, but that is impossible given the physical limits of our biology.

You are presenting where "science" jumped the rails as a strength of science and additionally you are presenting the "human condition" as the basis of science rather than the set of assumptions on which science's axioms and definitions are founded.

We are supposed to be performing experiment to keep us on the straight and narrow. We are supposed to apply experimental knowledge to everything including the very premises of science.

Instead we turned science over to those who can afford to purchase any results. We close our eyes to experiment that appears to fly in the face of our own beliefs. We accept the status quo on faith as surely as any 12th century religious zealot.

The chief human failing that necessitated the invention of science is that we each see what we believe and expect. The chief means employed by science to prevent this is experiment. Everywhere experiment is obsolete or inapplicable is no longer science if it ever was.

 

[PureX]

We will get to them too in time.

I doubt it, since we don't know what or why they are.

Yeah, in junior classes, we think we have all the answers. But by senior classes we know it is not like that.

The scientism crowd are not scientists, and are not especially knowledgeable about science. They aren't even the equivalent of the "junior classes". They have simply replaced their fantasy of "God" with their fantasy of "science". It has very little to do with actual science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Scienticism Crowd. If I acknowledge what we do not know then I am not among the scienticism people. Of course, I am not a scientist.
I do not have a Ph.D. in Physics but I have a Bachelor's degree in Physics, Maths and Geology. I do understand a few things.

 

[MikeF]

You are presenting where "science" jumped the rails as a strength of science and additionally you are presenting the "human condition" as the basis of science rather than the set of assumptions on which science's axioms and definitions are founded.

I'm sorry, but the sentence above is completely unclear to me. You used the word science with and without quotes in the same sentence and I am at a loss as to what both versions mean to you and how they relate. You have put "human condition" in quotes and I do not know what that signifies.

I have given a simple definition of science as any knowledge acquisition process that actively mitigates human flaws and fallibility that affect or impact the knowledge acquisition process.

What, in your opinion, are "science's axioms" and upon what definitions is science founded?

We are supposed to be performing experiment to keep us on the straight and narrow. We are supposed to apply experimental knowledge to everything including the very premises of science.

Instead we turned science over to those who can afford to purchase any results. We close our eyes to experiment that appears to fly in the face of our own beliefs. We accept the status quo on faith as surely as any 12th century religious zealot.

To my mind, each problem that is placed before scientific inquiry will have it's own set of procedures and methodology required to solve that particular problem. In that sense, scientific inquiry is highly adaptable. What is critical is ensuring that whatever procedures and methodology is used in any particular case, those procedures anticipate and mitigate the potential impacts of human fallibility, the fallibilities of the human investigators themselves.

The chief human failing that necessitated the invention of science is that we each see what we believe and expect. The chief means employed by science to prevent this is experiment. Everywhere experiment is obsolete or inapplicable is no longer science if it ever was.

You seem to have grown to a level of skepticism that you are no longer confident the discipline of science can mitigate human fallibility; that science has become (and perhaps in your opinion, it will remain) ineffectual or impotent in finding answers to the questions it puts before itself. I do not share your skepticism. Given the historical record, whatever current problems or stumbling blocks to progress on an issue there may be, such problems will be resolved over time and progress will continue. It is just that the time required can vary and be quite long in terms of a human lifespan.

 

[MikeF]

We glorify ourselves, that's the point. And we are headed for trouble when we do.

That said, there are some human acheivements which I think we can reasonanly describe as glorious; The Cistine Chapel, for example, or Mozart's Requiem.

Certainly, in common usage, there are many ways we can use words. Glory as in worshipful honor and praise is what I am not fond of.

I would also say that I don't ascribe to notions of universal aesthetic. To me, all is in the eye of the beholder. There was a thread on RF recently in which someone shared some video of Chinese Opera. I am confident that there are those who might be moved to describe some Chinese Opera performances as glorious, but in no way would it be considered such by all reasonable people across all cultures.

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn't say science is in any way improper except as a belief system or a religion which is exactly how three out of four science supporters around here understand science.

Strong words with no justification whatsoever.

Science is being taught as THE answer now and most people do not understand how or why it works. They believe it is revealed to the adept called "Peers" whose only interest is truth and filling in the last few pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle created by nature and solved through intelligence and expertise learned in the classroom.

Fewer and fewer people understand what science is or why it works and just parrot back consensus opinion regardless of how that opinion arose or its meaning.

That much is sadly true, or close to.

 

[syo]

How good is science as a religion?

While you're at it, how good is capitalism as a moral system?

I don't know.

 

[cladking]

"You are presenting where "science" jumped the rails as a strength of science and additionally you are presenting the "human condition" as the basis of science rather than the set of assumptions on which science's axioms and definitions are founded."

I'm sorry, but the sentence above is completely unclear to me. You used the word science with and without quotes in the same sentence and I am at a loss as to what both versions mean to you and how they relate. You have put "human condition" in quotes and I do not know what that signifies.

Science is the method, process, and results of experiments. If an individual understands these things and the axioms and definitions then they understand science.

I believe that instead of understanding science, many people including a few "scientists" simply believe in science. When someone believes in science there is no science, only "science". This manifests in many ways from believing in "Peers" to believing evidence and intelligence are the basis of science. It's a belief that there is only a single way to see reality and that one can arrive at that through expertise, looking and seeing, study, or statistics. And of course computer modelling which is statistics on steroids.

I have given a simple definition of science as any knowledge acquisition process that actively mitigates human flaws and fallibility that affect or impact the knowledge acquisition process.

Science does this but it's a very poor definition because it doesn't exclude reading tea leaves.

What, in your opinion, are "science's axioms" and upon what definitions is science founded?

There are numerous ones such as reality is four dimensional and that it obeys laws as discerned through experiment. For practical purposes it includes the number line and things like A + B = B + A as well.

People believe that these are the only means to view experiment or to understand reality. They believe in a humans and human intelligence that have never been qualitatively nor quantitatively defined. They believe that "I think therefore I am" and that ancient people were superstitious bumpkins but we're all better now. There are many such assumptions with many of them being apparent to every thinker and that are probably not at all true or true only from a single perspective.

To my mind, each problem that is placed before scientific inquiry will have it's own set of procedures and methodology required to solve that particular problem.

I believe there are an infinite number of ways to skin every cat. But, of course, I don't believe "infinity" even exists because there are no more than one of anything at all so it's really a very very large number of ways to skin a cat and this number is larger than "infinity" for every practical or less than practical purpose.

For practical purposes at any given time there are a highly limited number or no available means to solve cutting edge problems.

In that sense, scientific inquiry is highly adaptable. What is critical is ensuring that whatever procedures and methodology is used in any particular case, those procedures anticipate and mitigate the potential impacts of human fallibility, the fallibilities of the human investigators themselves.

I don't want to sound like I disagree but the fact remains science and theory are wholly dependent on experiment.

You seem to have grown to a level of skepticism that you are no longer confident the discipline of science can mitigate human fallibility; that science has become (and perhaps in your opinion, it will remain) ineffectual or impotent in finding answers to the questions it puts before itself.

I have great confidence in science. It is mired down in the 1920's but it will eventually get through this and advance once more. There are branches of "science" that are so hopelessly lost they might as well all pack up and go home. Science will prevail in the long run but it will be caused by individuals and not by "Peers", committees, or those who believe in science.

I have grave doubt that science can ever answer important questions or make predictions about the future. But it will probably be able to tell us how most things work and why. Of course to get to this point will require that the race doesn't become extinct and leaders everywhere seem to be leading us to the cliffs.

Given the historical record, whatever current problems or stumbling blocks to progress on an issue there may be, such problems will be resolved over time and progress will continue.

Again I don't want to sound like I disagree however I would say that science must "resume" progress rather than "continue" it.

 

[cladking]

Strong words with no justification whatsoever.

You should read their posts!

Many people continually misapply their knowledge or fail to recognize their ignorance. We have some pretty sharp science supporters around here who apply science and math OK but still don't understand the limitations of the application.

That much is sadly true, or close to.

When I grew up metaphysics was taught right along with science starting at age 6. I started learning earlier. Now days critical thinking is discouraged and most "learning" is mere indoctrination. Kids are taught to be good little consumers of everything from the right soda pop to the right politician.

 

[MikeF]

"You are presenting where "science" jumped the rails as a strength of science and additionally you are presenting the "human condition" as the basis of science rather than the set of assumptions on which science's axioms and definitions are founded."

Science is the method, process, and results of experiments. If an individual understands these things and the axioms and definitions then they understand science.

I believe that instead of understanding science, many people including a few "scientists" simply believe in science. When someone believes in science there is no science, only "science". This manifests in many ways from believing in "Peers" to believing evidence and intelligence are the basis of science. It's a belief that there is only a single way to see reality and that one can arrive at that through expertise, looking and seeing, study, or statistics. And of course computer modelling which is statistics on steroids.

Science does this but it's a very poor definition because it doesn't exclude reading tea leaves.

There are numerous ones such as reality is four dimensional and that it obeys laws as discerned through experiment. For practical purposes it includes the number line and things like A + B = B + A as well.

People believe that these are the only means to view experiment or to understand reality. They believe in a humans and human intelligence that have never been qualitatively nor quantitatively defined. They believe that "I think therefore I am" and that ancient people were superstitious bumpkins but we're all better now. There are many such assumptions with many of them being apparent to every thinker and that are probably not at all true or true only from a single perspective.

I believe there are an infinite number of ways to skin every cat. But, of course, I don't believe "infinity" even exists because there are no more than one of anything at all so it's really a very very large number of ways to skin a cat and this number is larger than "infinity" for every practical or less than practical purpose.

For practical purposes at any given time there are a highly limited number or no available means to solve cutting edge problems.

I don't want to sound like I disagree but the fact remains science and theory are wholly dependent on experiment.

I have great confidence in science. It is mired down in the 1920's but it will eventually get through this and advance once more. There are branches of "science" that are so hopelessly lost they might as well all pack up and go home. Science will prevail in the long run but it will be caused by individuals and not by "Peers", committees, or those who believe in science.

I have grave doubt that science can ever answer important questions or make predictions about the future. But it will probably be able to tell us how most things work and why. Of course to get to this point will require that the race doesn't become extinct and leaders everywhere seem to be leading us to the cliffs.

Again I don't want to sound like I disagree however I would say that science must "resume" progress rather than "continue" it.

Much clearer. Thank you!

Science does this but it's a very poor definition because it doesn't exclude reading tea leaves.

It is my assertion that mitigating for human fallibility would exclude reading tea leaves as a valid investigative tool.

They believe that "I think therefore I am" and that ancient people were superstitious bumpkins but we're all better now.

You've mentioned "ancient people" and "ancient science" in other threads. I would say that peoples of every era have those that were superstitious bumkins and some that were brilliant thinkers. Knowledge and understanding are a cumulative process. Our earliest ancestors were, understandably, profoundly ignorant of the world. Through observation and experience over millennia, and the ability to pass on accumulated knowledge, humanity has been able to build a growing understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

So, yes, I would unequivocally assert that humanity has a greater collective understanding of the world today than it has had at any point in the past.

I have grave doubt that science can ever answer important questions or make predictions about the future.

I with you on predicting the future, up to a point. I have often been impressed by the prescience of some science fiction writer.

I would be curious as to what you would consider an important question that humanity will be unlikely to answer. If we can never answer it, does that have bearing on how much importance we should assign such questions?

 

[robocop (actually)]

My question was how capitalism is a moral system, good or bad.

It makes it so even if people are completely selfish, they are supposed to help each other, at least enough.

 

[firedragon]

It makes it so even if people are completely selfish, they are supposed to help each other, at least enough.

What you are saying is that the outcome of capitalism is not moral, not that Capitalism is a moral system. Correct?

 

[LuisDantas]

You should read their posts!

I guess I should. Can you point me to a few examples?

 

[cladking]

It is my assertion that mitigating for human fallibility would exclude reading tea leaves as a valid investigative tool.

Tea leaf readers will disagree with you.

Everybody sees what he believes whether he believes in "science" or tea leaves.

No two people agree about anything at all and when they think they do it's a failure in communication.

I would say that peoples of every era have those that were superstitious bumkins and some that were brilliant thinkers.

I believe our species arose ~2000 BC and that we are all superstitious bumpkins because we model our beliefs and act on these models. Before this time homo sapiens roamed the earth and they had no beliefs and no superstitions. Like animals and other life forms they modelled reality itself and acted on this.

Through observation and experience over millennia, and the ability to pass on accumulated knowledge, humanity has been able to build a growing understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

I agree. This is exactly what our species (homo omnisciencis) has done.

So, yes, I would unequivocally assert that humanity has a greater collective understanding of the world today than it has had at any point in the past.

Sure. The difference is much of this "understanding" is false and the aggregate understanding that is true is a tiny part of everything that exists.

I have often been impressed by the prescience of some science fiction writer.

Indeed. Some of them have had (have) a remarkable insight into what is possible or probable. Even some who were wrong had this insight.

I would be curious as to what you would consider an important question that humanity will be unlikely to answer.

The important questions are all about the same; do I turn right or left? Do I marry Nicolette or Sharon? Do I move to Pittsburg or Charleston? The bigger questions are things like "Do we have a war with an adversary or try to find peace through diplomacy?" Do we bury our garbage in Utah or Timbuktu?

The here and now are what matter to individuals and the human species. The future will always be predicated on today's actions. We can spoil the future making poor decisions on dubious science or we can spoil it by not attending to science at all and even by making good decisions. Common sense is usually more important to having good outcomes than good science. It is this, common sense, that is so lacking in leadership. We warn about rising sea levels and then Congress forces tax payers to foot the bill for building infrastructure on the beach. When it is destroyed the taxpayer will be on the hook to rebuild it. Of course this assumes there really is a rising sea.

The belief in science is the greatest threat to the continued existence of the human species at this time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

While you're at it, how good is capitalism as a moral system?

Science is not a religion.
Capitalism is not a moral system.

So yeah....

Not really sure where you were thinking to go with this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most people will not believe it but since God invented science, everything in science points to God.

That makes no sense.

And science is factually, demonstrably a human developed method of inquiry.

 

[cladking]

I guess I should. Can you point me to a few examples?

You should be able to find many here;

Darwin's Illusion

 

[LuisDantas]

You should be able to find many here;

Darwin's Illusion

Sorry, that is not nearly good enough.

PM me if you want. But I will need some specifics.

Particularly in a thread about Darwin, who tends to attract a lot indeed more abuse from theists than from anyone else.

 

[cladking]

I said three out of four posters on this site who support science believe in science.

If you can't find it in the Darwin thread then you aren't going to ever recognize it.

We all act on our beliefs and there's nothing wrong in believing Darwin was right. There is a problem with believing in Darwin or believing in science.