mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Collective opinion, yes.
Well, yes. The example is in part subjective, but it does include an element of objectivity. We can nitpick it, if you like.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?
- Thread starter Left Coast
- Start date
Well, yes. The example is in part subjective, but it does include an element of objectivity. We can nitpick it, if you like.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Now, give evidence.
Perfect. So now you understand what the term "accurate" means. When we talk about understanding the world accurately, we mean understanding it like understanding whether my pen is more than 3 inches long. Every single thing that exists may not be able to be analyzed that way, but the way for us to accurately (please don't question that word, because we just went over it) understand that which can be understood of the world, is via science. If you know of a method that produces more accurate results, I welcome you to produce it.
When you have to rely on such absurd extremes to make your point, you didn't make your point.
Donald Trump has spent his entire life concerned about no one's well-being but his own, and he's a multi-millionaire, and has been elected president of the wealthiest nation in Earth. And not only that, but half of the country was willing to re-elect him. Being selfish clearly works as well as not being selfish as a method of achieving and maintaining our own well-being. And it works better, the fewer other people who's well-being we choose to consider along side our own. Narcissistic sociopaths do very well in our culture, and especially when they gain positions of wealth and power. And the reason they are so effective is that they don't have to bother themselves with accommodating the needs or desires of others beyond using them to serve their own. That singleness of purpose makes them consistent and purposeful. And many in our culture applaud and respect that determined selfishness precisely because it 'works'.
Donald Trump got lucky because he was born the son of a millionaire. That gave him incredible unearned privilege in life before he ever opened his mouth or took a single step. And he is one of 7 billion+ people on the planet. In general, people who are narcissistic sociopaths don't do terribly well in life - they end up alone, with no friends, no allies, and committing criminal offenses that land them in prison. Not exactly winners. So citing an extreme anecdote like Trump does not really make your point.
In general, it is more beneficial for us to cooperate with others and do things that benefit others, because they mutually benefit us as well. Again, if you think you're correct, and the odds are in your favor to act like a narcissistic sociopath - try it. See what happens.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No! You can be accurate about subjectivity, if you have learned to do that.
To be accurate only requires that you describe what is going on in effect.
You are stealing the word and doing the following subjective trick. To do a process so it works, you have to be accurate. Only objective processes are arcuate, because they are objective.
You haven't shown that. You just take it for granted subjectively.
Collective opinion, yes.
It's up to collective opinion whether my pen is longer than 3 inches? Does my pen grow or shrink based on people's beliefs about it?
You're not making any sense. If accuracy is objective, then no, my question isn't subjective.
This is a rather silly merry-go-round we're on. We've been over this before, multiple times. And you end up conceding each time, after I walk you through it. So just stop. I'm just going to start referring you back to prior conversations to refresh your memory.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You haven't show that all of the world is objective. Your idea is that you can only be accurate if you apply science. That is not the case.
Here is a google definition: the quality or state of being correct or precise. I can be subjective, correct and precise.
You're still avoiding. I asked you for a method that enables us to more accurately understand the world than science. Don't tell me you can. Show me.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That's a given.
Pick any religion you want, it will have more fallacies than facts. Even more modern ones, like Wicca, have serious problems with those publishing their books not verifying the historic validity of their claims.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I've often gained knowledge about the physical world and what's going on in it just be asking a series of questions and refining questions to get more at what I'm trying to figure out.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, there is no us in all cases. So I will use psychology and show you how that works:
If you look at different therapies and methods in psychology overall and include the psychology of education, you will notice something.
How you approach what works depends on the individual in question. No human is exactly the same. So for what makes a good life for you is not exactly the same for me or what works for you if you have to learn something, might not work for me. There is too much variation with nature and nurture, that you can do like you would, if something is objective. If it is objective, it is the same for us all. Subjectivity is not the same for us all.
Being a human in totality is not the same for us all in all cases.
And here is the proof. There is no strong scientific theory for the good life like e.g. the theory of gravity.
Now because you can subjectively deny that and not notice that you are subjective, I am aware of that.
So here is an opening definition of knowledge:
-facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
So I have worked on how to be me as me and have checked with others and tested different psychological approaches and learned what works for me, an "us" is not relevant, yet what I have learned qualify as knowledge.
Through facts, information and skills acquired through experience and education I have both a theoretical and practical understanding of a subject, namely the subject of being me as me subjectively. I know how I work and what works for me.
Now that is informed by science, but it is not science, because the standard of test the result is subjective.
I can't see what works for me. I can only feel it and reflect on it and compare different approaches.
I have spent over 55 years on that now and yes, I have used science, philosophy and religion and wouldn't have the life I have if I hadn't used all 3.
Now how you do the best life for you can't be done with science alone. How, because you are not just objective and thus not accurate. You have to allow for the fact, that you are individual and take that into account.
Now if that means that you have to rely on a belief in a collective "we/us" then that is subjective to you.
I can stand alone in some case as me..
Here is a variation of how morality and best as a value play out in humans:
Stages of Moral Development - Lawrence Kohlberg - Educational Technology
Now please turn that into accurate and objective for the world as include humans.
Come on. What is good and right only objectively and only with observation!
You don't know that. You know what is good and right for you and you act accordingly.
You apparently think that "we/us" is an objective standard for good. It is not and the best method of morality is to use science.
That is called scientism and is not science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
I feel very much honoured by your questions... but I would need to be a natural scientist to be able to answer that.
That's for the question about the how.
The question about the if is really part of the Christian faith, there is even scripture about it as I see it (Romans 1:20).
I see your point, but I happen to not agree. If God - the spaceless and timeless creator - created the thing including the space and the time then he will potentially be able to create a hint in space and time that points to him, too. I mean evidence. Maybe there's evidence.
I wouldn't rule that out. Even if I can't answer the question regarding the how.
That's a very good point.
But then other problems arise, I'm afraid. For instance this one: last time he showed up according to the Bible, people wanted to kill him - and in fact killed him. So would you enjoy your stay in environment that potentially wants to kill you? Maybe not. God won't either, I suppose.
Last edited:
Oh good. I have a degree in psychology. It's a science. Go on.
You are confused. Objectivity or accuracy does not mean all humans are exact clones of each other. So the fact that different therapies work better for some people than others is irrelevant to the discussion. Accurately understanding different therapies means that I can study different therapeutic techniques to see how effective they are at achieving their goal, whatever that goal might be. If my goal is to reduce a person's depression, for example, we can assess that in a way that is more than just my personal, unverifiable opinion. There are objective measures of depression, including brain differences we can scan for. If a therapy reduces the symptoms of depression, we can accurately say its effective. That doesn't mean universally effective for every person always. See the difference?
That is irrelevant to the Humanist Manifesto's statement, though. Your personal, subjective opinion about what makes life good has nothing to do with accurately understanding what the world is like separate from your opinions. Do you see the difference?
I've explained this. Repeatedly. If we agree on a moral goal, we can assess things to say objectively whether they contribute or detract from that goal. Yes, the goal itself is subjective.
But again, that is irrelevant to the actual statement of the HM in question. If I want to understand the world, the most accurate way to do so is via science. Show me a better method, if you have one.
No, again, you wouldn't. Because it's not a scientific question.
Scripture is just a set of claims. I care about the evidence behind the claim. Is there any?
How would he do so? You keep claiming this is possible, but not showing your work. If it's possible, illustrate it.
That's a rather facile excuse, even from a Biblical standpoint. God is omnipotent. No one does anything to him against his will. Jesus himself said he laid down his own life, willingly:
"For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father." John 10:17-18
So that excuse is out the window.
Me?
LC, may I ask, who was the one who came up with the bold claim first? If I remember well our discussion up to this point, wasn't it you that made the claim that it is flat-out impossible to reach out to the Creator via science?
So when I say I doubt it, why do you think the burden of proof suddenly rests on my shoulders?
When you say it's impossible... show that a mighty Creator-God cannot possibly reveal His authorship inside His Creation.
If you can - this is like setting up a limit for God's power and I see no reason to do so.
It's like a line in the sand for the Creator that He can't cross.
Show me this line please.
I cited the verse to say that this is relevant for scripture interpretation. Just as an aside.
but it's a question about how scientists should proceed and it's their business, I think. Even if it's not a scientific question. I try to not stick my nose therein.
However, the moment you say it's impossible, it becomes a statement of faith, as I see it. And this is against what Bible says ... so this is my point of contention.
as facile as it is, it is true, I think.
Jesus himself laid his life down willingly but this does not mean he feels inclined to do so again.
Me?
LC, may I ask, who was the one who came up with the bold claim first? If I remember well our discussion up to this point, wasn't it you that made the claim that it is flat-out impossible to reach out to the Creator via science?
So when I say I doubt it, why do you think the burden of proof suddenly rests on my shoulders?
When you say it's impossible... show that a mighty Creator-God cannot possibly reveal His authorship inside His Creation.
I've already done so. It's not about what a Creator can do. It's about what scientists can do. Science is incapable, by definition, of investigating non-empirical things. If God wanted to show himself to scientists, he'd have to do so empirically. And there would never be a reason, or a method, for concluding that some empirical data was caused by something non-empirical. Again, science literally can't go there, other than as pure speculation.
It's scientists' business, even if it isn't a scientific question? Think through what you're saying, Thomas. That doesn't make any sense.
Nor would he need to kill himself again, to demonstrate he exists. So again, the whole excuse is irrelevant.
It's not my business to tell scientists how they should proceed, let's put it that way. It's not my business and I'm trying to to be focussed on mine - faith.
irrelevant? Why should God show up again in a hostile environment? It's not nice to go into a community that potentially wants to kill him again.
He would potentially have to be constantly defending himself, why should he engage in such an immensely horrible stay? In case they would want to behave as last time?
(Well I didn't get you at that point.) but they can investigate the empirical things.
So why assume that God is unable to create empirical things that point to him? I see no reason whatsoever to believe he is unable to do so. If he created a universe - very empirical - why assume he is unable to create a signature pointing to him that's also empirical?
So in my opinion, this can't count as a substanciation for your claim. This is at least my stance. Do you think I'm wrong here?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So now the world is not the world. What the world is like separate from my opinions means that there are in effect 2 worlds. The world where my opinions are not a part and the world where my opinions are a part.
So you are in effect a dualist. You operate with 2 worlds. Your subjective world of "we/us" and then those who have a different understanding of what the world is.
You are in the world, you are a part of the world, the world is in you as the atoms/molecules from all the way back to the Big Bang and old stars. There is no world for the present without you and how you think/feel is a part of the world.
So please give evidence for the fact the your "like" is objective and not a subjective distinction in you. Who make the world objectively separate? I would like evidence for that. It is in effect your cognition tricking you.
It is your opinion that my opinions doesn't count. Now give evidence only based on observation that my opinions don't count as a part of the world! You can't because how you make sense of the world including you and other humans is in part a psychological/social/cultural construct.
Here is where it ends:
"...
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:
- “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
- “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
- “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
- “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
- “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
That you think that your nature and nurture is the end of what the world is to all humans, is your problem. And that you can't catch, hold and examine your own nature and nurture as subjective and understand how it colors you and your claim to a "we/us", is your problem.
Your opinion about what science can do, is not what science can do:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
How science is the best and useful to you, is subjective and not science.
BTW I can't see the difference as here: "Do you see the difference?" If you really think that you understand as a form of external sensory experience, I honestly think you should seek help. That is not how understanding work!
You are in effect tribal. You rely on the tribe of believers in science. I am not a member of that kind of science.
Glossary Definition: Scientism
Don't play truth, because that is what you are doing with a skeptic. There is no overall one truth or in your parlance methodology for all of the world.
One truth is at a minimum what works for all humans in the strong objective sense.
Another is what works within a given culture.
And the third what works for a given human as an individual.
So back to the beginning:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.
Now that is scientism as noted above and not what science is.
In my culture your science is not science. It is natural science and there are other kinds of science. Keep your local culture in check. You are not humanity for a global "we/us".
Learn to leave your local culture out of it if you want to claim the world. Cultural imperialism is so old school.
As for your example with depression, that is only relevant if all challenges to being a human is a clinical disorder of the brain. So are you saying that all humans, who are different than you, have clinical disorders of the brain. Really?!! You couldn't find an example of how in general to cope with being a human. You had to turn it into a clinical disorder. Shame on you.
Not with regards.
Mikkel