Now I will start with a simple model of science.
It is based on this site written by scientist:
Understanding Science: An overview
If you read it, you will notice some key words: See, test, evidence, natural. Now I will look closer:
"In science, an observation or experiment that could provide evidence regarding the accuracy of a scientific idea. Testing involves figuring out what one would expect to observe if an idea were correct and comparing that expectation to what one actually observes."
"Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea."
"In everyday language, the word natural is often used to describe goods that are wholesome or not made by humans, but in the language of science, natural has a much broader meaning. Within science, the term natural refers to any element of the physical universe — whether made by humans or not. This includes matter, the forces that act on matter, energy, the constituents of the biological world, humans, human society, and the products of that society. So even though we might not think of them as "natural" (in the everyday sense of the word), science can study things like the human smile, human decision-making, artificial sweetener, and learning algorithms for robots because they are part of the physical universe around us."
So that tells us, what science is: You have to be able use observation as for whether you get one result or another, when you test. There is more, but that is a necessary part of science. For something to be science, you need to be able to observe it, whatever it is.
Now I am not nice, because I can do something. I can test using philosophy if there is a limit to science. How?
Well, science in one version assumes as back to the natural world that the physical universe is all as the natural world and you can test everything in the world.
What does that mean in practice? If you ask a question, you can get the answer by turning the question into a test, that
relies on observation. That is it. You have in effect done so with your use of "real".
Everything as all parts of the world can be made subject to observation, where you observe that X is Y OR X is not Y, X is Z.
So I am testing the limit of science, because I am asking something, which is testable, but not science. Can you do something, where you can't use observation to decide, whether X is Y OR X is Z?
That is it! If everything can be tested using science, then it can be tested if science can be used on all parts of the world. How? Because science itself is a part of the world. Science is a human behavior, the words "see", "test" and "experiment" are done by humans.
So if science is doing something, the test is if you can do everything humans can do, only by doing science as something specific that you do and not something else that you do otherwise.
So where is it, that you in effect cheat, as for the world, real and better? It is here:
"Models that make testable predictions are better then models that don't."
So to pinpoint it. As X is Y, "testable predictions are better" is a variation of X is Y and "models that don't" are X is Z.
How in precise words is that so, that you are doing something that is not science. Because you can't see "better" or "not better as worse".
In effect you are doing something, which is not around us and not in us as all humans. It is in you as something subjective in you and other people who believe like you. Now I know that because I don't believe this: "Models that make testable predictions are better then models that don't."
Here is what I believe about better. What is better, depends on the single individual or a limit group of humans, who believe in the same better. Not there is no scientifically better, because you can't use science on better, because it is not observable as neither "better" or "bad/worse/not good".
So as for better, I have it better as me, because I have learned that science, religion and philosophy are all limited human behavior and you can't do everything as a human only using one of them.
You use science as some people use religion or philosophy or other systems of claims about what the world really is. In effect you are not that special, because you are a member of limited group of humans - those, who believe, they have a universal method for better, which is in effect not subjective.
That is it. As for "real" better is not real, because you can't observe or test what is better using science for 2 different outcomes, where both are possible, but not at the same time and in the same sense.
Let me give you an example. Building a bridge. If you want to build a bridge, that works, you need to use in effect science as applied through engineering. But whether you should build the bridge or not, can't be answer with science as such.
So back to the OP and the video. God is subjective and it is delusional to claim that God is objective. As per the video, you can't see, hear, touch, smell or touch God. You can't use science to give evidence for God. It is the same for better. To claim that you can make better objective by using science, is delusional. In effect you either believe in one version of better or another.
So here is your belief:
"Models that make testable predictions are better then models that don't."
That is not science, because you can't use science on better. All the examples, you gave, are limited. So let me give you an example from the real world as I have learned it. You are now a solider and your NCO commands you to do a war crime. It is not a war crime according to science. It is an ethical, social construct and you can't obverse what makes a war crime a war crime. Further you can't use science to test the outcomes, because whether you do it or not, is not science. Both outcomes are possible. You can do as your NCO tells you or you can refuse. As for what is better, can't be answered using science, because what is better depends on what you believe.
So back to "real". Image you and I are looking at a stone. You know, a part of a rock. We can see it, we could throw it against a wall and observe what happens. There is a lot of things we could do with that rock in general that involves science.
So let us do the same with:
"Reality is real." What does that look like, can you throw that against a wall and so on? It is not a material claim like those involving e.g. a rock Let us look closer in combination with this: "...indistinguishable from entities produced by sheer imagination, with no bearing on reality".
As an entity "reality is real" is an form of imagination. It is only real, if you believe in it. But it has a bearing on reality just like God. Just like God, God and reality is real is only real if you believe in it. If you do, that can inform your further behavior and give rise to how you treat other humans.
What you believe in, is in part subjective as what you believe reality is and how you ought to behave and what you can do. That is not different that other humans. Where you fail, is where everybody else fails. In effect, you have tried to do all of reality objective. You can't, I can't, nobody can.
That is testable, because you can simply obverse that you believe that "reality is real" and I don't. You can observe that we both do reality differently in some cases, not all, and you can't use science to show that I can't do it differently, where it can be done differently.
That is the limit of science. It only work for outcomes where it is for all humans in principle EITHER X is Y OR X is not Y, but Z.
But that doesn't apply for all version of better or real. How? Because it is subjective , that it is better and real for me to believe in God. I don't claim that it has to be so for you. But I do claim that you can't use science on that for better. How? Because you can observe that I can do it differently, no matter how much you claim "reality", "real", "better" and what not.
See, I tested it. Because I tested if there are parts of reality, which are subjective and can't be turned in to science. There are.
Just as religion is limited and subjective, science is in effect subjective and limited in the following sense. Science is a human limited subjective behavior - see, test, experiment, better - and you can't do all human life only doing science. Just as you can't do all human life doing religion or philosophy or what not.
Hi TagliatelliMonster.
Don't play with a skeptic. I have learned to test the limits of all of these different claims of what reality really is. And that includes science. Religion and philosophy doesn't work on all of reality. But nor does science.
If you want to test something, you should be prepared for the fact, that you don't get the result you want. So if you test if science has a limit, then you should accept the result, if science has a limit. And it has. As limited as human subjective beliefs are, you can't do without them. And that includes you. You are not that special and nor am I.
So you can believe all you like that "reality is real". I don't believe in that.
