"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[paarsurrey]

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

Even after experiments and observation, it is always the interpretation of those who perform them, science of itself reveals no reality, necessarily; does it, please, right??

Regards

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

Even after experiments and observation, it is always the interpretation of those who perform them, science of itself reveals no reality, necessarily; does it, please, right??

Regards

Well, no belief system does that for the objective reality in itself it would seem. So it is not limited to science, but also include religion and thus your understand of what you consider objective real, if you believe in that.

 

[shunyadragon]

I recall it. It was a debate about what science is. The article I link was written by a natural scientist in favor of cultural science as a form of science.
It was not actual science as science done, but what is science?
Try to observe using the objective methodology of science what science is and you will notice it is what humans say it is. I.e. what makes science science is a cultural norm.

Cultural Science is best described as Social Sciences. There is a distinction between Basic Sciences such as Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Geology, and applied science as Engineering and Social Sciences. Social Sciences are separate, because the do not strictly use Methodological Naturalism in the research of Social phenomena. There is a degree of subjective observations involved with Social Sciences, but over time in recent history they have relied more on Basic Sciences to confirm their work.

Which link are you referring to? You previously cited a Danish book, which was a widely accepted academic work dealing only with Social Sciences and how they are taught at the college level. It did not deal with the questions of objectivity of Basic Science. This reference did not remotely support your argument concerning the objectivity of Basic Sciences. That argument is a personal Ontological Idealist view of Nature and Science.

What other link are you referring to? If you referred to a link that a natural scientist referred to Social Sciences as Science this would be partially true but needs clarification and qualification as to what degree Social Sciences is consider Basic Science. As above Social Science use Basic Sciences, but also use subjective observations to reach their conclusions. I believe I previously gave detailed references that described this relationship.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Cultural Science is best described as Social Sciences. There is a distinction between Basic Sciences such as Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Geology, and applied science as Engineering and Social Sciences. Social Sciences are separate, because the do not strictly use Methodological Naturalism in the research of Social phenomena. There is a degree of subjective observations involved with Social Sciences, but over time in recent history they have relied more on Basic Sciences to confirm their work.

Which link are you referring to, You previously cited a Danish book, which was a widely accepted academic work dealing only with Social Sciences and how they are taught at the college level. It did not deal with the questions of objectivity of Basic Science. This reference did not remotely support your argument concerning the objectivity of Basic Sciences. That argument is a personal Ontological Idealist view of Nature and Science.

Well, I am done play that game with you.
Now here:

Hvad er videnskab?

Vi hører ordet ’videnskab’ alle vegne, men hvad betyder det egentlig, og hvornår kan man kalde sig videnskabsmand? Få svaret her.

videnskab.dk

First of it is not even a language that can be translated to English. Secondly is not written by a scientist, because it is not even real as it is a fake by me and I really don't care about this exchange anymore.
So on ignore for now you go.

 

[F1fan]

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

Even after experiments and observation, it is always the interpretation of those who perform them, science of itself reveals no reality, necessarily; does it, please, right??

Regards

Wrong. I take it you never did a science lab in school where you learned how science experiments works, and how you get results. Results can be interpreted in a discussion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wrong. I take it you never did a science lab in school where you learned how science experiments works, and how you get results. Results can be interpreted in a discussion.

Well, again in depends on how must you truth with non-religious faith that the universe is orderly, real and knowable.
But that is again the debate of how come we have methodlogical naturalism.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

Even after experiments and observation, it is always the interpretation of those who perform them, science of itself reveals no reality, necessarily; does it, please, right??

Regards

OK first statement bolded in and of itself, but the second statement creates a high fog index and needs clarification considering the prevalent Islamic view in opposition to the sciences of evolution. The second statement as written is not right.

Yes, our "physical reality: is best described by what the tools and methods of science reveal.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, that contradicts this version of science written in part by scientists:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

"...
Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality. ..."

As for true that is philosophy as you use it. But I won't go into that, because it appears that you don't understand that truth is not mind independent.
So you are just of one those, who can't understand when they do philosophy.

This is not completely true. It's true that people can create supernatural explanations for things, and technically those can't be proven true or false by science. But many times claims about God involve an effect on the real universe. Those you can test scientifically. For instance, the efficacy of prayer. Some people say God responds to prayers. This has been studied over and over, and the results are always that there is no difference between when people are prayed for and when they're not.

As NDT said, there have been a lot of "God of the gaps" arguments over the centuries, because people have always made claims about God's effects on the world. Those claims can be tested. As for testing the existence of God, sure, that's technically not possible precisely because people can make up whatever they want about the entity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is not completely true. It's true that people can create supernatural explanations for things, and technically those can't be proven true or false by science. But many times claims about God involve an effect on the real universe. Those you can test scientifically. For instance, the efficacy of prayer. Some people say God responds to prayers. This has been studied over and over, and the results are always that there is no difference between when people are prayed for and when they're not.

As NDT said, there have been a lot of "God of the gaps" arguments over the centuries, because people have always made claims about God's effects on the world. Those claims can be tested. As for testing the existence of God, sure, that's technically not possible precisely because people can make up whatever they want about the entity.

Yeah, that link was only about the supernatural.
BTW I am an atheist.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, that link was only about the supernatural.
BTW I am an atheist.

I was drawing the distinction between different claims about the supernatural. "God exists" can't technically be tested scientifically. "God answers prayers" can be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was drawing the distinction between different claims about the supernatural. "God exists" can't technically be tested scientifically. "God answers prayers" can be.

Yeah, but that is not all of the everyday world.
There is more to the limit of sceince than that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, I am done play that game with you.
Now here:

Hvad er videnskab?

Vi hører ordet ’videnskab’ alle vegne, men hvad betyder det egentlig, og hvornår kan man kalde sig videnskabsmand? Få svaret her.

videnskab.dk

First of it is not even a language that can be translated to English. Secondly is not written by a scientist, because it is not even real as it is a fake by me and I really don't care about this exchange anymore.
So on ignore for now you go.

OK stoic denial and failure to respond is your Modus Operandi. Your choice to ignore is not meaningful.

Danish sources not translated are a problem.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, but that is not all of the everyday world.
There is more to the limit of sceince than that.

What other limits do you think science has?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What other limits do you think science has?

Read the link

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[shunyadragon]

I was drawing the distinction between different claims about the supernatural. "God exists" can't technically be tested scientifically. "God answers prayers" can be.

I disagree, "God answers prayers." suffers the same problems of being objectively verified as the "belief "God exists." If you cannot objectively confirm the Source you cannot objectively confirm the result. The "answers to prayers" remains subjective and extremely variable in its claims, since one can only rely on the selective anecdotal claims of "God answers prayers," and not considering the overwhelming number not answered and the circumstance where the prayers were not answered.

 

[shunyadragon]

Read the link

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Repeating this reference over and over and over again does not justify your argument for Ontological Idealism, As a matter of fact this is an excellent reference that defines the limits of the basic sciences as dealing with the objective nature of our physical existence that may be falsified by Methodological Naturalism.

 

[Magic Man]

Read the link

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

I'd prefer you tell me what you think. You already said what the link thinks, and I addressed that.

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree, "God answers prayers." suffers the same problems of being objectively verified as the "belief "God exists." If you cannot objectively confirm the Source you cannot objectively confirm the result. The "answers to prayers" remains subjective and extremely variable in its claims, since one can only rely on the selective anecdotal claims of "God answers prayers," and not considering the overwhelming number not answered and the circumstance where the prayers were not answered.

This is the problem with supernatural claims. Those who believe them can always come up with some explanation to avoid these tests. However, you can still test their claims. In this case, you're testing the claim that God answers prayers, which means you see if an individual has better results in healing when prayed for (secretly) or not. Of course, believers will still dismiss the evidence against with some explanation, but that doesn't change that you tested the claim scientifically.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd prefer you tell me what you think. You already said what the link thinks, and I addressed that.

No, you didn't. You adressed a part of it.
Now explain how objective, observation and fact work beyound the words.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'd prefer you tell me what you think. You already said what the link thinks, and I addressed that.

The reference actually is an excellent reference defining the limits of Methodological Naturalism in Basic Sciences, and does not agree with @mikkel_the_dane's high fog index of Ontological Idealism.