Isn't the exclusivity of Scientific Verification accepted on faith?

[Buddha Dharma]

Beyond that it seems like a semantics issue. It's like saying "why should our best method for finding out knowledge about reality be trusted as our our best method for finding knowledge?"

Actually my contention is with those that enshrine science and reject other methods outright, without having given the matter any thought. There is no obvious reason to outright reject non-scientific methods of verification, or at least to insist we ought.

 

[cladking]

What simple predictions can't we make? Science predicts that machines will break, our most fundamental level of reality cannot be pinned down to 100% accuracy. Science taught us that - the Uncertainty Principle and the fact that we can only know probabilities means some things are eventually going to break or not go as predicted.

But no, we can predict long term, the sun will go nova in 5 billion years. As to small scale, our most accurate theory ever invented by humans - quantum electrodynamics can predict the magnetic moment of the electron to a decimal point far greater than any other theory. A very small scale.

Romulus is on of the pre-Christian dying and rising savior messianic demi-gods who died for the sins of his followers. Like Jesus he definitely was not a real person but a myth taken from Zorastriniasim.

We know machines will break. "Prediction" would require we know the cause and time. This is one of the things being engineered now days; making sure machines break as soon as the warranty runs out.

Our sun is of a type that will become a red dwarf in ~+5 billion years. But we can't be certain that it will occur on any specific day or that nothing will intervene. We can't even be certain that it doesn't belong to some sort of subtype that will behave differently.

I believe a great deal of ancient literature is in reality rewritten from more ancient language that couldn't be translated. Vocabulary was the same but the formatting that created meaning was lost (this formatting was ancient science). These re"translations" were confused renditions of things that had been real.

Most of our world is a product of various confusions.

Of course science itself isn't confused because reality affects experiment but our understanding of science is confused because the very words we use to discuss and understand it are.

 

[Polymath257]

You must have a better computer than I do; I'm fumbling more with each new one i buy and Bill Gates makes each new version more incomprehensible and more enigmatic than the last as we raise two generations of kids who won't even be able to think except linearly like a computer. We've already achieved "artificial intelligence" and soon it will affect every college graduate.

They've simply engineered the labor intensive bits out of the production line. This is hardly reflective of any increased understanding at all.

I suspect you would have far more difficulty using an Eniac to do similar activities.

Or, for that matter, an i386 from not all that long ago.

 

[Polymath257]

Bill Gates has long gone from computing I believe, but I will admit that we are often at the mercy of the techies - I stopped upgrading after Windows 7, simply because of the bullying approach to upgrade, and the fact that it was a perfectly decent OS. I perhaps have an advantage, being an engineer who has done some programming, and can usually take a PC apart and put it back together such that it still works.

I still hate the complexity though - mostly of the software aspects.

Might I suggest using Linux?

 

[Polymath257]

We don't really understand how transistors work. We know how to make them and are continually finding ways to make them smaller but why some materials conduct electricity better than others is one of those things we discover through trial and error rather than understanding.

In the old days when it was necessary to use matched transistors in stereo equipment. Even though you had an entire crate of transistors made "exactly" the same they'd each have a unique power output and it was necessary to select two similar ones to build equipment. Then there were variable pots to adjust the two transistors to the specific unit. Each piece of equipment that came off the assembly line was different. They're still different but getting the right sound is far less labor intensive.

So variance in an assembly line means we don't understand what makes transistors work?

Maybe a Solid State Physics class is in order here.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Might I suggest using Linux?

I might have to one day. I have looked, and the various types seem to cover most of my needs probably. I have W7 Professional, and I'm not really bothered as long as it keeps going. I can keep an up-to-date Firefox browser if the IE browser, which I prefer actually, eventually packs in - no updates. Most of my software is for Windows though. I have a couple of laptops so I could install Linux on one to play around with I suppose - perhaps Mint. I still use ACDSee 32 (95-98-2000-NT-XP) because I prefer the format.

 

[cladking]

So variance in an assembly line means we don't understand what makes transistors work?

Maybe a Solid State Physics class is in order here.

Everyone knows what semiconduction is but that doesn't mean we understand why it occurs nor that we can predict the degree of it. "Trial and error" is not indicative of understanding just as building a counterweight doesn't prove we understand the nature of gravity.

 

[Sapiens]

Everyone knows what semiconduction is but that doesn't mean we understand why it occurs nor that we can predict the degree of it. "Trial and error" is not indicative of understanding just as building a counterweight doesn't prove we understand the nature of gravity.

Semiconductors do what they do because they are SEMIconductors with a conductivity that falls between a conductor and an insulator. Duh. We know how they work, here's a pretty good explanation: https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/how-does-a-semiconductor-work.html

 

[Polymath257]

Much more of an issue is how high temperature superconductors work. We understand how low temperature superconductors work, but the high temperature ones are much harder to model.

 

[tayla]

A good number of materialists and skeptics often point to science as a verification method for information in an exclusive way. Claiming that science alone constitutes valid evidence or proofs to establish a premise.

Yes, science depends on four planks of philosophy: (1) argument, (2) knowledge and belief, (3) the scientific method which is guaranteed to generate trustworthy knowledge, and (4) conscious and intelligent (hopefully) scientists. Therefore, science depends on things outside of the material physical universe.

 

[tayla]

It has often struck me as odd that this isn't called into question more. This premise of science alone as valid for evidence.

The assumption of materialism is to blame.

 

[tayla]

No. Science is accepted because it is independently testable. Something that cannot be done with religious claims to an profit.

Yes, only knowledge about the material physical universe can be proven via the scientific method. Anything outside this (I call this the "spiritual realm") cannot be proven.

That said, I think it can be adequately supported that there do indeed exist things which are outside of the material physical universe.

 

[tayla]

People practice religion as something like a science experiment from what I see. They are asked to observe the results it produces in their lives and decide on the religion's merits for themselves.

Just because people see benefits from something doesn't mean it was caused by that thing. People are easy to fool, especially when in a crowd.

 

[tayla]

And the problem with your example is that though it may work for some there are many that it does not work for.

Good point.

 

[tayla]

Religion is about internal change which might or might not be observable.

Religion is about many different things for many different people. I agree they all involve the part of the human (the soul) which lives within the spiritual realm and which is not observable by science.

 

[tayla]

I think religions have won large populations over. There are other dimensions to this subject, but religions do produce repeatable results. Ask any Christian for example, if they think their life was transformed by practicing their religion.

The problem is that religions are mutually contradictory. Their claims collide and contradict. Think of the times in history when those of one religion performed genocide on those of another. Or even of the disagreements within the Christian community about almost anything, each claiming to be teaching the truth.

 

[tayla]

One might argue that if they fail at it, it's because they didn't put the effort in or trust what the masters said.

If you include all religious masters, it would be impossible to do what they taught, as they taught contradictory messages, each based on radically different world views. The only thing they have in common is that they are all religions.

 

[tayla]

People don't generally stay religious because of an honestly-come-to conviction that it's true as much as they enjoy the feelings it gives them.

Fundamentalist evangelical Christians emphasize their doctrines are absolutely true.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, only knowledge about the material physical universe can be proven via the scientific method. Anything outside this (I call this the "spiritual realm") cannot be proven.

That said, I think it can be adequately supported that there do indeed exist things which are outside of the material physical universe.

So things like aesthetics, morality, opinions, etc are the 'spiritual realm'?

Or are you claiming something other than those things?

 

[Polymath257]

Religion is about many different things for many different people. I agree they all involve the part of the human (the soul) which lives within the spiritual realm and which is not observable by science.

So, you mean 'not observable at all', right? If something is observable at all, it is observable by science. That's sort of definitional.