How good is science as a religion?

[metis]

What is science if not a research method, and what other methodology has yielded such an explosion of knowledge and technological progress, in so short a time, as science?

People have had beliefs about physics, chemistry, biology, geology, &c. for millennia, usually based on tradition, religion or mythology, and for most of human history progress has proceeded at a snail's pace. It was only with the advent of the scientific method, of investigation and testing, that human knowledge really took off.

^^ this^^

 

[PureX]

Very good question. Which I’ll answer with a quote from someone far more knowledgeable than I, who has thought deeply about these things;

“Even if there is one possible unified theory , it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for a model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Even more then that, everything that exists, and how it exists, does so according to some as yet undiscovered "rules of order". Why? From what source and to what purpose?

Without those "rules of order" science would have no way or reason to investigate anything.

 

[Jose Fly]

I’d say there are a few advocates of that mindset on this forum. Can’t believe you haven’t come across them tbh.

Any in this thread?

 

[robocop (actually)]

If you have a little time, please give a synopsis on how capitalism is a moral system.

Thank you so much.

It's not a good moral system.

 

[cladking]

Science teaches intellectual honesty, which puts it heads and shoulders over the Abrahamics at least... but are those even religions proper?

This was more true 100 years ago or even 50. People used to be taught critical thinking and how/ why science works. Now students are just taught what's what and how to point and scream at heretics.

They are taught that Peers have all the answers and science is the way.

 

[firedragon]

It's not a good moral system.

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

 

[gnostic]

It's not a good moral system.

Capitalism isn’t a moral system at all. It teaches nothing about morals.

Capitalism is a system that allow for private ownership of business, and there are certain rules or regulations that the government implement that businesses or companies can legally do and cannot legally do.

So as long as no laws are broken and taxes are paid, the owners have some autonomy on how businesses or companies run.

It is more a economic practice of free enterprises than that about morals or ethics.

On the opposite side to capitalism, is where the state (government) owned the businesses and companies - communism.

In the ideal world, both capitalism and communism have positive attributes.

But in the real world and in practice, each have positive and negative aspects, and among the worse about either sides, is that the corruptions can occur either by the owners or the governments.

I don’t think communism is any better when craps happened.

 

[Valjean]

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

It's an economic system -- with some questionable moral consequences.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Without those "rules of order" science would have no way or reason to investigate anything.

We will get to them too in time.

They are taught that Peers have all the answers and science is the way.

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

 

[LuisDantas]

This was more true 100 years ago or even 50. People used to be taught critical thinking and how/ why science works. Now students are just taught what's what and how to point and scream at heretics.

They are taught that Peers have all the answers and science is the way.

What you say here contradicts itself. Particularly the last sentence.

I suppose it is fair to point out that we are terribly lacking in scientific education. That does not make science itself any less proper.

 

[MikeF]

I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you stand. Science is not required to know something, is it?

For example, I may have genuine knowledge that I am in love with a woman. Science could, in principle, confirm that knowledge (by measuring my heart rate or hormone production when I'm around her). But I don't NEED science in order to correctly arrive at the conclusion that I'm in love, do I?

If I don't need science to know certain things, then scientism must be false.

I think scientism is ten times better at interpreting reality than any other "ism" we got. But still, I wouldn't call it beyond reproach. Scientism can't really say ANYTHING about a number of matters that are very important to us.

You seem to be treating the words "scientism" and "science" as interchangeable synonyms. Is that your intent? Please explain.

 

[MikeF]

Very good question. Which I’ll answer with a quote from someone far more knowledgeable than I, who has thought deeply about these things;

“Even if there is one possible unified theory , it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for a model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

I'm not following as to how this quote supports the assertion that science needs spiritualism.

 

[MikeF]

But given that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle tells us we can never have all the information about a system, it seems a stretch to imagine that man will ever have all the answers to life, the universe and everything. This is hubris, and in Ancient Greece, the gods never failed to punish hubris.

I quite agree with this sentiment, although I don't rely on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to reach that conclusion. Nor do I expect any kind of punishment from ancient Greek gods for hubris, or anything else.

Better in my view to accept that not all questions have answers, but go on asking them anyway.

Here I would disagree. Certainly one could pose a nonsense or irrational question that would have no real answer, but I don't think you meant it in that way. There is a distinction between not having the means or capacity to answer a valid question and a valid question not having any answer.

If a question is valid, then it is my position that it would have an answer.

Sometimes my old dad’s answer is the only one that serves; only God knows, and God’s not telling.

I would see this as placing ones self in a box (reference your post #97).

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not following as to how this quote supports the assertion that science needs spiritualism.

Science needs philosophy, I would say, if it is to offer a complete description of the world, and the laws which appear to govern it. And philosophers would be failing in their duty, if they did not at least consider the spiritual as well as the mental and physical dimensions of our existence

 

[RestlessSoul]

I quite agree with this sentiment, although I don't rely on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to reach that conclusion. Nor do I expect any kind of punishment from ancient Greek gods for hubris, or anything else.



Here I would disagree. Certainly one could pose a nonsense or irrational question that would have no real answer, but I don't think you meant it in that way. There is a distinction between not having the means or capacity to answer a valid question and a valid question not having any answer.

If a question is valid, then it is my position that it would have an answer.



I would see this as placing ones self in a box (reference your post #97).

Zeus isn't going to lob a thunderbolt at you, mythology was never meant to be taken at face value. The real cost of hubris is confusion as, blinded by pride and led astray by the ego, man falls from glory into disaster, undone by the power of his own will. That's what generally happened to the heros in classical (and Shakesperean) tragedies, anyway.

 

[Valjean]

Science needs philosophy, I would say, if it is to offer a complete description of the world, and the laws which appear to govern it. And philosophers would be failing in their duty, if they did not at least consider the spiritual as well as the mental and physical dimensions of our existence

But science doesn't offer such a 'complete description of the world'. The spiritual, values, meaning, morality, purpose -- these are not within its domain; they're not science.

I see a lot of criticism of science because it doesn't deal with abstracts and intangibles like these. It's not designed to, it's not supposed to and it doesn't claim to. You wouldn't criticize landscape design because it doesn't tell you how to bake a cake.
Science can only work with observable, measurable, reproducible, testable, falsifiable phenomena. It works with empirical facts.

What could science do with the spiritual or supernatural?
What could metallurgy do with a cucumber?

 

[MikeF]

Science needs philosophy, I would say, if it is to offer a complete description of the world, and the laws which appear to govern it. And philosophers would be failing in their duty, if they did not at least consider the spiritual as well as the mental and physical dimensions of our existence

I would argue that philosophy needs science. Well, really, science is improved philosophy.

We human beings are flawed and fallible creatures in wide and varied ways; universally so, none of us are wholly immune. That means that our efforts at knowledge acquisition, at understanding ourselves and the world around us are unavoidably impacted by our inherent flaws and fallibilities.

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.

I suggest that a scientist/philosopher who does not understand and account for human flaws and fallibilities would be failing in their duties. Contrasting examples of mitigating human fallibilities to not mitigating human fallibilities in knowledge acquisition throughout the historical record, I find the evidence compelling in favor of mitigating human fallibilities.

Spirituality, whatever that means to you, would be an example of something that would require a scientific approach to evaluate. It would not be a component of scientific inquiry.

 

[MikeF]

Zeus isn't going to lob a thunderbolt at you, mythology was never meant to be taken at face value. The real cost of hubris is confusion as, blinded by pride and led astray by the ego, man falls from glory into disaster, undone by the power of his own will. That's what generally happened to the heros in classical (and Shakesperean) tragedies, anyway.

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.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But science doesn't offer such a 'complete description of the world'. The spiritual, values, meaning, morality, purpose -- these are not within its domain; they're not science.

I see a lot of criticism of science because it doesn't deal with abstracts and intangibles like these. It's not designed to, it's not supposed to and it doesn't claim to. You wouldn't criticize landscape design because it doesn't tell you how to bake a cake.
Science can only work with observable, measurable, reproducible, testable, falsifiable phenomena. It works with empirical facts.

What could science do with the spiritual or supernatural?
What could metallurgy do with a cucumber?

Okay, so what happens if we amend 'complete description of the world' to 'complete description of the natural world'? Science is still referred to as natural philosophy, is it not? If all we ask of scientific theory is that it makes predictions which can be confirmed or falsified by observation, then there is no real need to dig any deeper than what can be supported empirically; which basically amounts to observed regularities (David Hume). But if we want to understand the laws governing the interactions of observed phenomena, if we want to identify that 'Something deeply hidden' (Einstein's words) which moves the material world and renders all things restless, science requires an ontology. Put another way, in order to answer Hawking's question 'What puts fire in the equations?', physics requires a metaphysics.

And while I recognise the principle of non overlapping magisteria, and acknowledge it's efficacy in certain circumstances, nevertheless when humans start pushing at the frontiers of understanding in any discipline, a degree of overlap is inevitable. In fact the likes of Aristotle and Pythagoras would not have recognised the compartmentalism of the search for knowledge and understanding; no more so, Kepler or Copernicus.

 

[cladking]

That does not make science itself any less proper.

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.

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.