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

[lewisnotmiller]

Once upon a time Mythology (and Religion) was the real science for humans - and it still can be as scientific as modern science. But OK, it demands a new interpretation of the symbolic/allegoric deity-terms as "non personal forces of creation" and it also demands an understanding of the numerous cultural Stories of Creation as a telling of the formation of our Milky Way galaxy and everything in it. including our Solar System.
IMO the mythical telling is more scientific and precise than much of the modern speculations which are contradicted time and time again because they are unnatural and illogical. "Dark this and that" have darkened the modern cosmological mind and we need a shift of paradigm into the ancient cyclical perception of everything.

I get what you mean, but myths cant be as 'scientific' as science. They could be as informative as it, depending on your viewpoint.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That seems to be the case. A religion that could produce repeatable and reliable results would quickly win huge populations over. And the problem with your example is that though it may work for some there are many that it does not work for. When one applies science the results are amazingly repeatable. And if someone messes up the error can very often be made evident to all. Religions just don't seem to be able to do that.

Can anything exist outside of science?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And that is because you cannot have intersubjective verification without first having subjective verification. Put differently, there are at least two ways of verifying something. Subjectively. And intersubjectively.

ROFLMFAO

 

[Polymath257]

Part of the concept of truth is that it doesn't depend on the individual: that is is 'public' in a sense. The 'internal truths' are better known as opinions, to my understanding.

Also, in any area of study, truth depends on a dispute resolution procedure. If two people disagree about a result, is there an established way to go about testing to see which is 'correct' and which is 'wrong'?

For example, mathematics does NOT follow the scientific method, at least in the traditional sense. Instead, it has agreed upon axioms and rules of deduction and all other results are *proved* from those. Any dispute about a proof can be resolved, at least in theory, and almost always in practice, by referring back to the axioms if necessary. The cycle of hypothesis, testing, reformulation, etc is NOT typical of math.

Now, as @Sunstone has noted, all observation is ultimately subjective observation. We have to look at the evidence and decide if it agreed with predictions or not. But, while the raw qualia are private, the *conclusions* from those qualia have to still need to have a way of resolving disputes when two people disagree. If person X says one thing, and person Y says another, how do we decide who is right and who is wrong? The scientific method provides such. I have yet to see another procedure (outside of math) that serves that purpose. But that is what is required for the difference between truth and opinion.

If you have such, please feel free to let us know!

 

[Polymath257]

As it happens, there are not in this case reasonable grounds to believe in the validity of the sciences alone for "verifying information". And that is because you cannot have intersubjective verification without first having subjective verification. Put differently, there are at least two ways of verifying something. Subjectively. And intersubjectively. Only one of those ways -- intersubjective verification -- is "scientific". Hence, there is at least one legitimate, non-scientific means of verifying something: Subjective verification.

An example of subjective verification would be pretty much any verification of a statement about qualia, such as "Loves makes me feel all fluttery inside", or "That shade of red makes me happy." Those statements cannot be scientifically verified (i.e. reliably intersubjectively verified), of course, but they can be verified (i.e. subjectively verified).

This is one reason I never question *whether* someone has had an experience. I may very well, however, question their *interpretation* of that experience. The qualia themselves do not authenticate the interpretation. It is possible, even likely in some cases, that the qualia do not support the conclusion.

So, someone 'sees God or 'experiences Enlightenment', or 'that share of red makes me happy'. In ALL these cases, there was an experience. Of that I have no doubt. But even in the last case, what is *experienced* is redness and happiness, not that 'red makes me happy'. The latter is a conclusion, perhaps based on testing (scientific method) to reach that conclusion. And, to some extent, that interpretation *can* be independently verified: people other than you can expose you to that shade of red and see if you show signs of happiness.

So, if I have an experience that I interpret as 'seeing God', to what extent should I trust my interpretation of that experience as 'seeing God'? I may see a bright light, hear a booming voice, experience pure joy, but does THAT mean my interpretation is correct? Without some sort of independent testing, I don't see how that follows.[/QUOTE]

 

[Looncall]

Nicely put. Please see my signature for another wording.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"Science" is only the term that imparts all the ideas we know come with it. Among them testability, repeatability, predictability against specifications. And those things constitute the vast majority of basis for mutually-acceptable forms of evidence - meaning evidence that can be accepted by all parties, regardless all other associations or allegiances those parties have.

My point being that, as soon as you are calling on those items that have been tested, have been shown to repeat, and can be predicted with a high amount of certainty you are, in a way, invoking "science" - or at the very least, much of the core principles of scientific method are being (or have been already) utilized, even if you aren't strictly adhering to "the rules."

So, to a certain degree, "science" isn't the only way of verifying, however, when undertaking to verify something to a mutually accepted degree you are likely going to be utilizing or calling on many scientific ideals to do so.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps human psychology is one subject which goes beyond scientific verification, matter of life experience. For other things I will go with science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can anything exist outside of science?

Since science is a method I would say yes. You won't get nearly as reliable answers as one does using the scientific method, but one can still get answers. If someone asks "What is 2 + 2?" And someone answers "6" though obviously wrong it is still an answer.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Since science is a method I would say yes. You won't get nearly as reliable answers as one does using the scientific method, but one can still get answers. If someone asks "What is 2 + 2?" And someone answers "6" though obviously wrong it is still an answer.

Faith exists outside of science. Why do scientists keep wanting scientific proof?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Faith exists outside of science. Why do scientists keep wanting scientific proof?

They do not want necessarily "scientific proof", a concept that does not exists in reality. What they want is reliable evidence, and that does not need to even be scientific evidence. If a religion could be supported by reliable evidence it could very easily in a generation or two become THE religion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Based on another thread...

Follow along with me here, while I present the opening statements for this discussion.

First off the point of this thread for my part is not to call science and the empirical method into doubt, but to hopefully illustrate a point.

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.

My question is: isn't this a belief?

What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information? What argues for that?

On what authority should this be accepted?

Note: I am not trying to throw science out the window here. I am trying to determine why the premise of science alone as evidence should be accepted.

If this authority for science alone as evidence is science itself- isn't this coming near the kind of circular argumentation fundamentalists are often accused of with their scriptures?

Science is a sole authority because science establishes it and shows it?

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

Sure science carries evidence. That is not what I am debating, for my part. I am asking why we should accept that science exclusively verifies information? Science exclusively?

Here's the problem with skeptics and people who adhere to scientism, as you closely examine their point of view:

1. Theists and religionists are deceived, despite the scientific facts.

2. Therefore, most people are easily duped.

3. Therefore, scientists, being people, are usually easily duped.

 

[icehorse]

As a Buddhist, I've seen the results of practice first hand in my own life. The mental and emotional transformation the path brought about. This has been observed and verified for over 2000 years by masters and teachers.

I would start by asking whether you value predictability and reliability. It seems that you do based on this comment. For example, a scientist might test whether Buddhist practices (e.g. meditation), correlate with better mental health and / or better physical health. (I suspect they do.) In other words, you are making a statistical claim and guess what? That's science!

I think that there are many practices with positive benefits that science cannot yet explain. A good scientist won't dismiss such practices, a good scientist will simply say "we cannot yet explain why practice X appears to provide consistently good results".

So good practices should comfortably co-exist with science.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

My question is: isn't this a belief?

Of course it is. A philosophy, a pseudo-religion, take your pick. As mentioned elsewhere, some take to calling it scientism - the ideology that the sciences are some be-all and end-all of "The Truth."

What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information? What argues for that?

On what authority should this be accepted?

I think it might be useful to consider the different needs humans have when it comes to grounding ideologies and worldviews. We can loosely classify worldviews along a spectrum of dogmatic/rigid and flexible/permeable. A given person will tend to embrace worldviews more on one side of the spectrum than others, and each approach has its strengths and weaknesses.

Those who gravitate towards rigid worldviews feel a psychological need for The Answer or a certain, authoritative perspective that is unchanging or strongly resists change.
Which authority a person with a more dogmatic/rigid orientation will embrace is probably a result of upbringing more than anything else, I wager. In short, the answer to your question above is probably something along the lines of "their life experiences gave them that impression."

Those who gravitate towards permeable worldviews don't have this need for certainty, and instead a need for flexibility or multiple, conditional answers that readily allow for change. While there's no authority that folks with this orientation buttress their worldview with, we could ask the same question - why are multiple answers accepted as valid? That too, boils down to something along the lines of "their life experiences gave them that impression."

Of course, all of this narrative is from the perspective of one of these two worldview orientations. It should be apparent which one by reading it, I wager.

 

[LuisDantas]

The word "exclusivity" does not fit well in this thread's title, IMO.

Not too many people hold such a weird belief in "exclusivity of science", nor should them.

However, scientific knowledge is indeed superior for many practical purposes, particularly when there is any intent at having knowledge that is valid for more than one person at a time.

As one would expect.

What are people doing practicing religion then? Spinning our wheels?

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.

I wonder how many do it in that way. A fair amount, probably. But not 100% or even 95%, I would bet.

In any case, that comparison can only go so far.

I see this as no different than what science does. What makes it different?

For two things thing, independent verification and a far lesser degree of subjectivity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the problem with skeptics and people who adhere to scientism, as you closely examine their point of view:

1. Theists and religionists are deceived, despite the scientific facts.

Many are deceived despite the scientific facts. Not all.

2. Therefore, most people are easily duped.

When it comes to superstitious beliefs cognitive dissonance tends to kick in. I would not necessarily call it being "duped". Look at how you balk at the simple fact that there never was a global flood, or your belief that you are not an ape, and yet you will admit to being a mammal.

3. Therefore, scientists, being people, are usually easily duped.

Scientists are not immune and they know it. The scientific method was designed to avoid self prejudice. They will usually correct themselves when shown to be wrong. That is totally different from the behavior of most theists.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Y'know, that's only true for the original experimenter, seems to me. Don't all the rest of us take his word on faith, the way they take the word of those they trust on other things?

I mean, who among us have gone out, OURSELVES, and replicated the observations from Hubble that showed us black holes and exo-planets? I haven't....and I know from personal experience that images as wonderful and extraordinary can be produced by paint and brush, or computers and Photoshop. This doesn't mean I don't trust the information I'm given by the people who DID do the work.

How many of us have replicated all the work and experiments that have produced all the marvelous things we use? Which of us, for instance, have gone out, OURSELVES, and sunk tectonic measuring devices along the San Andreas Fault to see if the information regarding earthquakes and plate tectonics is scientifically valid? I haven't.....and since I live on that fault and loved geology in college, one would think that I would have more reason to do so than most. But I trust the information others have gleaned because I trust the people who gleaned it.

That's called 'faith,' I believe.

True. I COULD, if I had the money and the influence, go repeat those experiments, but I wouldn't if I did...because I trust the work of those other people.

So it bemuses me that the scientists of the world claim that their work is valid and that science is the only trustworthy method of discovering fact, when they say in effect, precisely what the prophets of religions say.

One group says 'I"m right because God has spoken. TRUST ME" and the other says "I'm right because my teacher did this experiment. TRUST ME."

That's all a side issue, though. Personally, I think that science ...or the scientific method...is probably the best way to determine matters of fact. It's probably not the best method of determining matters of 'faith,' however one describes that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Y'know, that's only true for the original experimenter, seems to me. Don't all the rest of us take his word on faith, the way they take the word of those they trust on other things?

No, science is repeatable by its nature. That means that one does not need to take the word of scientists on faith. One can and needs to be able to repeat the experiments or observations for it to be called science.

I mean, who among us have gone out, OURSELVES, and replicated the observations from Hubble that showed us black holes and exo-planets? I haven't....and I know from personal experience that images as wonderful and extraordinary can be produced by paint and brush, or computers and Photoshop. This doesn't mean I don't trust the information I'm given by the people who DID do the work.

Now you are conflating a well earned respect with faith. There is a difference. Individual scientists have to earn the well earned trust that they have.

How many of us have replicated all the work and experiments that have produced all the marvelous things we use? Which of us, for instance, have gone out, OURSELVES, and sunk tectonic measuring devices along the San Andreas Fault to see if the information regarding earthquakes and plate tectonics is scientifically valid? I haven't.....and since I live on that fault and loved geology in college, one would think that I would have more reason to do so than most. But I trust the information others have gleaned because I trust the people who gleaned it.

That's called 'faith,' I believe.

Nope, it is a well earned respect. Learn the difference.

True. I COULD, if I had the money and the influence, go repeat those experiments, but I wouldn't if I did...because I trust the work of those other people.

So you do understand the difference. Not faith.

So it bemuses me that the scientists of the world claim that their work is valid and that science is the only trustworthy method of discovering fact, when they say in effect, precisely what the prophets of religions say.

But they don't say that. Now you are simply not being honest or terribly ignorant. When they publish their work they expect others to try to refute them

One group says 'I"m right because God has spoken. TRUST ME" and the other says "I'm right because my teacher did this experiment. TRUST ME."

No, the second group says trust me, I can show you how I got to my conclusions and you can do the same.

That's all a side issue, though. Personally, I think that science ...or the scientific method...is probably the best way to determine matters of fact. It's probably not the best method of determining matters of 'faith,' however one describes that.

Well of course. Faith tends to be used for what to date have been superstitious beliefs. Faith is not as revered as science since when tested it fails far too often.

 

[Nakosis]

Based on another thread...

Follow along with me here, while I present the opening statements for this discussion.

First off the point of this thread for my part is not to call science and the empirical method into doubt, but to hopefully illustrate a point.

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.

My question is: isn't this a belief?

What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information? What argues for that?

On what authority should this be accepted?

Note: I am not trying to throw science out the window here. I am trying to determine why the premise of science alone as evidence should be accepted.

If this authority for science alone as evidence is science itself- isn't this coming near the kind of circular argumentation fundamentalists are often accused of with their scriptures?

Science is a sole authority because science establishes it and shows it?

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

Sure science carries evidence. That is not what I am debating, for my part. I am asking why we should accept that science exclusively verifies information? Science exclusively?

Science isn't an authority, it's a tool. It's a tool anyone can use to verify for themselves and others, though I have to admit, that last part is probably taken more on faith than it should be.

However in many cases, the end result, even if one doesn't understand the science, is something tangible anyone benefit from. In this sense, science doesn't require belief.

 

[Nakosis]

Y'know, that's only true for the original experimenter, seems to me. Don't all the rest of us take his word on faith, the way they take the word of those they trust on other things?

I mean, who among us have gone out, OURSELVES, and replicated the observations from Hubble that showed us black holes and exo-planets? I haven't....and I know from personal experience that images as wonderful and extraordinary can be produced by paint and brush, or computers and Photoshop. This doesn't mean I don't trust the information I'm given by the people who DID do the work.

How many of us have replicated all the work and experiments that have produced all the marvelous things we use? Which of us, for instance, have gone out, OURSELVES, and sunk tectonic measuring devices along the San Andreas Fault to see if the information regarding earthquakes and plate tectonics is scientifically valid? I haven't.....and since I live on that fault and loved geology in college, one would think that I would have more reason to do so than most. But I trust the information others have gleaned because I trust the people who gleaned it.

That's called 'faith,' I believe.

True. I COULD, if I had the money and the influence, go repeat those experiments, but I wouldn't if I did...because I trust the work of those other people.

So it bemuses me that the scientists of the world claim that their work is valid and that science is the only trustworthy method of discovering fact, when they say in effect, precisely what the prophets of religions say.

One group says 'I"m right because God has spoken. TRUST ME" and the other says "I'm right because my teacher did this experiment. TRUST ME."

That's all a side issue, though. Personally, I think that science ...or the scientific method...is probably the best way to determine matters of fact. It's probably not the best method of determining matters of 'faith,' however one describes that.

You benefit from science everyday. More efficient cars. Better quality electronics like cameras. The computer you use for making your posts.

Sure there is some theoretical scientific theories that some folks take on faith but there's nothing requiring you to do so. You can still enjoy the benefits science brings to you every day whether you have faith in it or not.