Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

So the world is empirical things. Please explain that and watch out. There are 2 versions of empiricism. And both are philosophy within epistemology.
You really have to check up on how you understand observation versus reason, logic and all that jazz.

 

[Left Coast]

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 constantly be defending himself, why should he engage in such an immensely horrible stay? In case they would want to behave as last time?

How the stay would go would be entirely up to him. He's omnipotent. No one can kill him or harm him unless he let's them. He's not a powerless victim. He's 100% in control of the situation.

(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.
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?

Yes, I do. I don't know how many more times and ways to explain this. Science has no ability to investigate things that are non-empirical. As such, it has no ability to reach conclusions about things that are non-empirical. Does that much make sense to you?

If so, then it should be clear that even if a supernatural deity caused some empirically verifiable thing to happen in the universe, no one would be able, scientifically, to conclude it came from some non-empirical source or cause. Because that would be a purely speculative explanation that we have no ability to scientifically verify.

Do you see? If you don't, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. Supernatural explanations are beyond science's scope.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How the stay would go would be entirely up to him. He's omnipotent. No one can kill him or harm him unless he let's them. He's not a powerless victim. He's 100% in control of the situation.



Yes, I do. I don't know how many more times and ways to explain this. Science has no ability to investigate things that are non-empirical. As such, it has no ability to reach conclusions about things that are non-empirical. Does that much make sense to you?

If so, then it should be clear that even if a supernatural deity caused some empirically verifiable thing to happen in the universe, no one would be able, scientifically, to conclude it came from some non-empirical source or cause. Because that would be a purely speculative explanation that we have no ability to scientifically verify.

Do you see? If you don't, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. Supernatural explanations are beyond science's scope.

So all for this is supernatural:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So how do you do morality and useful?

 

[thomas t]

Yes, I do. I don't know how many more times and ways to explain this. Science has no ability to investigate things that are non-empirical. As such, it has no ability to reach conclusions about things that are non-empirical. Does that much make sense to you?

If so, then it should be clear that even if a supernatural deity caused some empirically verifiable thing to happen in the universe, no one would be able, scientifically, to conclude it came from some non-empirical source or cause. Because that would be a purely speculative explanation that we have no ability to scientifically verify.

Do you see? If you don't, I'm not sure hoe else to explain it to you. Supernatural explanations are beyond science's scope.

So I agree, the supernatural itself might not be detectable unless God enters the physical world again - in the shape of some earthly being. But even supernatural deities can use a pattern or a style for design (or creation), I think. And that style might be empirical then. And maybe that style is detectable for humans. So this is why I think your explanation - as clear and thoughtful as it really was this time - can't count as a substanciation for your claim that God cannot reveal himself to science and the scientific method.

How the stay would go would be entirely up to him. He's omnipotent. No one can kill him or harm him unless he let's them. He's not a powerless victim. He's 100% in control of the situation.

but there is free will, also. I see free will as a rule that God set up for this creation. Once it is there, man can choose to be wanting to kill their creator once he show up and this is where the problem is, if God wanted to show up again.
This post is written under the premise that the Bible is correct concerning His last stance on earth.

 

[Left Coast]

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.

Is it your view that anything I think is by definition an accurate understanding of the world? If I think my pen is longer than 3 inches, does that make it so? If your answer is no, then you also recognize the difference between opinion and reality. So if that makes us "dualists"...um, okay.

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.

I genuinely don't know what you're asking me. There may be a language barrier or typo here. Repeat the question?

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.

The best way for me to accurately perceive your opinions is via collection of empirical data, testing, and forming conclusions. Ie, science. Do you have a more accurate way for me to understand your opinions?

That you think that your nature and nurture is the end of what the world is to all humans, is your problem.

You're ascribing things to me that I didn't say. That is your problem.

How science is the best and useful to you, is subjective and not science.

Incorrect. We already went over this with the pen example. That's a question that science accurately gives us an answer to. Do you have a method to give us a more accurate understanding?

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.

All I asked for was a method that gives us a more accurate understanding of the world than science. Do you have one? Yes or no?

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

Wow. I simply offered an example. You are getting upset at things I did not say. You brought up the efficacy of different types of therapy. I did not say everyone different from me has a clinical disorder. I simply offered an example of how therapies can be objectively assessed to determine how effective they are. Psychologists do this all the time. Psychology is a science.

I think we need to take a break from the conversation. You are taking offense where I didn't mean any. I'm going to stop replying to you today. Perhaps we can pick up the conversation a different day.

 

[Left Coast]

So I agree, the supernatural itself might not be detectable unless God enters the physical world again - in the shape of some earthly being. But even supernatural deities can use a pattern or a style for design (or creation), I think. And that style might be empirical then. And maybe that style is detectable for humans. So this is why I think your explanation - as clear and thoughtful as it really was this time - can't count as a substanciation for your claim that God cannot reveal himself to science and the scientific method.

The problem is that any pattern that appeared would be an empirical one. Which means scientists could only verify an empirical source for the empirical pattern observed. So again, it could never lead them back to some non-empirical cause or source. This is why God is beyond the scope of science.

but there is free will, also. I see free will as a rule that God set up for this creation. Once it is there, man can choose to be wanting to kill their creator once he show up and this is where the problem is, if God wanted to show up again.
This post is written under the premise that the Bible is correct concerning His last stance on earth.

Wanting to kill him does not give anyone the ability to kill him. If God doesn't want to be killed, he won't be. So again, this is all a completely irrelevant excuse.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The Humanist Manifesto says, in part:


Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, why? What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the world?

It all depends what you want to find out about the world?

Science is good to discover material realities, but no so good for the spiritual realities.

This passage says a lot;

"... The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, bearing the semblance of reality. Set not your affections upon it. Break not the bond that uniteth you with your Creator, and be not of those that have erred and strayed from His ways. Verily I say, the world is like the vapor in a desert, which the thirsty dreameth to be water and striveth after it with all his might, until when he cometh unto it, he findeth it to be mere illusion... "

Regards Tony

 

[paarsurrey]

Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

The Humanist Manifesto says, in part:

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.
____________

I understand, that the writer of the Humanist Manifesto was not proficient enough to make such a statement, please. Right, please?
How could the writer be a spokesperson of the world and had he all the knowledge of all the aspects of life and the creations of the world/Universe, please? Right, please?
What are his sources to claim "knowledge", please?

Regards
____________
[[2:256] اَللّٰہُ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَۚ اَلۡحَیُّ الۡقَیُّوۡمُ ۬ۚ لَا تَاۡخُذُہٗ سِنَۃٌ وَّ لَا نَوۡمٌ ؕ لَہٗ مَا فِی السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ مَا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ مَنۡ ذَا الَّذِیۡ یَشۡفَعُ عِنۡدَہٗۤ اِلَّا بِاِذۡنِہٖ ؕ یَعۡلَمُ مَا بَیۡنَ اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ وَ مَا خَلۡفَہُمۡ ۚ وَ لَا یُحِیۡطُوۡنَ بِشَیۡءٍ مِّنۡ عِلۡمِہٖۤ اِلَّا بِمَا شَآءَ ۚ وَسِعَ کُرۡسِیُّہُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ ۚ وَ لَا یَـُٔوۡدُہٗ حِفۡظُہُمَا ۚ وَ ہُوَ الۡعَلِیُّ الۡعَظِیۡمُ ﴿۲۵۶﴾
Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.

 

[thomas t]

Which means scientists could only verify an empirical source for the empirical pattern observed.

maybe, they couldn't verify. But finding evidence for such a pattern would be enough, I guess.
If I may compare it to gravitation: to the best of my knowledge they couldn't verify the source of that force either... They actually don't know if it's a force that pulls or one that pushes.
I hope that my knowledge isn't outdated today and they now something by now.

Wanting to kill him does not give anyone the ability to kill him. If God doesn't want to be killed, he won't be. So again, this is all a completely irrelevant excuse.

but being in an environment where everyone wants to kill you is a bad experience in itself. Even if they can't.
Maybe not everyone wants to do so, but most if people would behave like last time.
This reminds me of a close contact of mine who travelled into another country for holidays. Every male stared at her breasts because the women of the country were dressed completely differently. The men couldn't rape her because her boyfriend was with her... but after the third day the glances really got on her nerves.
God might feel the same way.

 

[paarsurrey]

I agree that science is pretty much the only method available that can solve problems and develop new technologies. I also agree that experimentation, observation and rationnal analysis is the most efficient method to understand the world and acquire knowledge.

epronovost wrote," I agree that science".
Does Science claim it and gives reason, please?
Why crush science with such a tall claim it cannot bear, please? Right, please?
If yes, please quote from Science in this connection, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it your view that anything I think is by definition an accurate understanding of the world? If I think my pen is longer than 3 inches, does that make it so? If your answer is no, then you also recognize the difference between opinion and reality. So if that makes us "dualists"...um, okay.
...

Incorrect. We already went over this with the pen example. That's a question that science accurately gives us an answer to. Do you have a method to give us a more accurate understanding?


All I asked for was a method that gives us a more accurate understanding of the world than science. Do you have one? Yes or no?

And now your are doing culture: Reality as a word is a cultural construct:
-the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

That is philosophy and requires 3 unprovable axiomatic assumptions as for your world view:
-that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
-that this objective reality is governed by natural laws.
-that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.

I reject the last 2 one.
Here is some science for you:
"The Thomas theorem is a theory of sociology which was formulated in 1928 by William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas (1899–1977) : If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. In other words, the interpretation of a situation causes the action."
You consider your version of knowledge real and thus act as you do. I do it differently as per real and thus act differently.
Is one of these cases not a part of the world?
You are trying your best to declare cognitive diversity as false. But you can't. Because it is a fact that we use our brains differently and you try to make it about that your subjectivity is in the end the correct one with science.

Wow. I simply offered an example. You are getting upset at things I did not say. You brought up the efficacy of different types of therapy. I did not say everyone different from me has a clinical disorder. I simply offered an example of how therapies can be objectively assessed to determine how effective they are. Psychologists do this all the time. Psychology is a science.

I think we need to take a break from the conversation. You are taking offense where I didn't mean any. I'm going to stop replying to you today. Perhaps we can pick up the conversation a different day.

Sorry, then find an example of coping that works the same for all humans for the everyday world. Don't use disorders or conditions.
I have 4 in some sense or variation. At least that is what the psychologists and psychiatrists have told me and they are on to something. But how to live with it, is not to live as a standard average human.

So answer another day or just leave it. I do get that, because I am combative when it comes to being "not normal" and I don't have the best track record with your part of the world. Some of them were good and knew what they were doing. Some of them couldn't handle that even as "not normal" I know that I am that and I can understand it. So here is what they told me: I couldn't receive help, because I could see through their methods and cheat, because I could figure out how to please them and give them the answer they wanted.
It took years before I found one that could handle that and still help me. So I know first hand the limits of your science and that it also works, if you are lucky.

That is my bias against your kind and your "us/we".
I live in a secular country and I have never had a problem with religion. It has mostly been with the normal people and some of the experts, which knows better.

Now if I am to guess, you fit in when it comes to best and science as a variation of stage 4 on Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development.
Now I don't doubt that you understand stage 5 and might use it, but when it comes to law and order, you view best and science as form of law and order. Best is the law as that is good and science give order to how the world works.
Yes, I know. I don't know if it fits with you, but you seem to derive authority from science as the best way for us to understand the world.
I use science, philosophy and religion, because none of them can do it alone. It works better for me to combine them. Now that has of course nothing to do with reality and the world, right? The world belongs to you and your "we/us", because you hold authority over best.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[epronovost]

epronovost wrote," I agree that science".

I would refer to you to my full quote since you seem to be quote mining me a bit here.

I said that science if pretty much the only method available to solve problems and develop new technologies. Pretty much all technologies were discovered using a scientific method or by pure random luck and chance (and chance isn't a method). Scientific inquiries is also the method that has proven the most useful to solve the majority of problems that we faced.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would refer to you to my full quote since you seem to be quote mining me a bit here.

I said that science if pretty much the only method available to solve problems and develop new technologies. Pretty much all technologies were discovered using a scientific method or by pure random luck and chance (and chance isn't a method). Scientific inquiries is also the method that has proven the most useful to solve the majority of problems that we faced.

Who is that "we"?

 

[epronovost]

Who is that "we"?

Humanity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Humanity.

So science is only used for good for all humans? Where is the evidence for that? And what are the problems?

 

[epronovost]

So science is only used for good for all humans? Where is the evidence for that? And what are the problems?

What's your standard of evidence to answer your first question?

As for problems, well they are like dying young of disease, not being able to provide food to feed us, not moving fast enough, how do you convert coal into electricity, what's the differenc between a possum and a racoon, who is the tallest man on Earth, how do you cross rivers without getting wet, how do you shoot a missile loaded with powerful explosive precisely where you want it, how do you blow stuff up, what's a lightning bolt, where does the rain come from or any other question or issue that we came accross. You know a problem.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What's your standard of evidence for such claim?

Evidence that the human species is one as a humanity in an actual collective sense for what you claim.
I don't mean that we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens but evidence that we are in fact human beings collectively and not just the nominal or idealistic idea of that.

Further as a by the side you could consider this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

"...
Science doesn't make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.
...
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used, science itself doesn't indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, for example, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn't specify whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Again, science helps us describe how the world is, and then we have to decide how to use that knowledge.
..."

 

[epronovost]

Evidence that the human species is one as a humanity in an actual collective sense for what you claim.
I don't mean that we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens but evidence that we are in fact human beings collectively and not just the nominal or idealistic idea of that.
..."

Well I meant humanity as in Homo Sapiens Sapiens which all share commonalities in their life experiences and thus problems (ex: we all **** so we all have to deal with problems linked to ****ting).

PS: I never mentionned anything about morality btw, only about the fact that science was the best "tool" to solve problems and develop new technologies. How or why those technologies were developped isn't the question of this thread.

 

[paarsurrey]

epronovost said: ↑
I agree that science is pretty much the only method available that can solve problems and develop new technologies. I also agree that experimentation, observation and rationnal analysis is the most efficient method to understand the world and acquire knowledge.

I would refer to you to my full quote since you seem to be quote mining me a bit here.

I said that science if pretty much the only method available to solve problems and develop new technologies. Pretty much all technologies were discovered using a scientific method or by pure random luck and chance (and chance isn't a method). Scientific inquiries is also the method that has proven the most useful to solve the majority of problems that we faced.

Friend, I gave one's full post first, please.
OK, I give one's full post again here.
The issue is " to understand the world" or all aspects of life. And scientific problems and technologies is one aspect of life, it doesn't encompass the whole life. In its limited domain, it could be best but totally deaf, dumb and blind in others or outside of its limited domain, please. Why overburden it with that it cannot lift, please? Right, please?
Science and technology is a human tool for limited use. Right, please?
Maybe a hammer is the best tool to drive a nail in a wall, but not to pull it out from the wall. Right, please?

Regards

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I meant humanity as in Homo Sapiens Sapiens which all share commonalities in their life experiences and thus problems (ex: we all **** so we all have to deal with problems linked to ****ting).

PS: I never mentionned anything about morality btw, only about the fact that science was the best "tool" to solve problems and develop new technologies. How or why those technologies were developped isn't the question of this thread.

So what about behavior between humans? E.g. how to kill other humans effectively. Science is good at that,